Media and Celebrity in the Fertility World

The past few months have brought us a slew of top-of-the-news-feed articles relating to the world of infertility, Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and pregnancy loss. 

The ones that showed up most in our inboxes (“wanted to make sure you saw this!”) are Lena Dunham’s “False Labor” in Harper's Magazine, Meghan Markle’s “The Losses We Share” in the New York Times opinion section and the one that ultimately prompted this blog piece, “Meet Molly, the baby who came from an embryo frozen when her mom was a year old” or 100’s of similar headlines about this same story.

This piece is not intended to demonize the media; far from it. In 2020, we are acutely aware that honest, unbiased reporting is fundamental to our democracy. But we also know that the media has incredible power to shape public opinion, as do the celebrities who use these outlets to reach millions.

Lena Dunham’s piece took the infertility community by storm and we sure had a lot to say about it. Given the multitude of reactions and response pieces after this article, it has never been clearer that when someone with such a high profile shares their infertility story, it has the potential to impact countless people.

The same goes for Chrissy Tiegen so publicly sharing her profound pregnancy loss, and Meghan Markle sharing hers. These personal stories reach the furthest corners of social media and give voice to experiences that so many others are suffering in silence.

In addition to shedding light and giving voice, these high profile pieces also do something else. They give permission to readers to feel and think certain things about these experiences. This includes those who are enduring something similar, as well as those who have not yet, or possibly will never, go through anything like it. And therein lies the immense power wielded by media platforms when these articles are published.

The stories that garner the most headlines create an illusion of being THE story. Dunham’s piece cast her(self) as an expert on all things infertility, suggesting that her personal experience was the only reality. Markle’s was directed less at others and more at her own pain, which made it far less controversial, yet equally validating for some.

The widely circulated and repeated story of the 27 year old frozen embryo, carried and delivered by a 28 year old Mom, brings up a host of issues and feelings as well. The age of the frozen embryo (and subsequent live birth) was record-setting, so it makes sense that a scientific advancement of this kind would grab headlines. But equally true is the fact that it was clearly attention grabbing for its shock value, particularly for those completely unfamiliar with ART and all that ART encompasses. 

The story of the “27 year old infant” gets 100’s of hits on google and I saw it posted on social media by those I know are not personally connected to the infertility world. Comments like “wait, what?!” made it immediately obvious that this type of story is many people’s introduction to, and only context for, IVF and ART more generally. It is reminiscent of Octo-Mom, not for it being ethically questionable as that story certainly was, but for the power to take an incomplete story and define public perception of an entire industry.

All of this, the good the bad and the ugly, has us thinking about how the media, and celebrity, can so significantly help and hurt our cause. As fertility coaches, we are dedicated to helping women and couples navigate infertility. This means that depictions about the infertility world, and especially that of the ART industry, greatly influences our clients. It influences their willingness to solicit help and support, it influences their feelings of isolation versus community, and it influences their level of confusion and often misguided understanding of what it means to seek medical intervention to conceive.

Those of us doing everything we can to demystify and destigmatize infertility are often left feeling like some of these stories give us a bad name, and that they ultimately do a disservice to those desperately in need of support.

Everyday, we hear the fear in the voices of those who believe ART is not for them, regardless of how long they have been trying to conceive. This fear comes from the same place all fear comes from; the unknown and the misunderstood.

All of this is a call to action for those of us with a platform, no matter how big or small, to use it to tell stories that normalize and personalize infertility, pregnancy loss and realistic IVF/ART experiences. Stories that do not attempt to define an entire community and industry, as Dunham’s did, but stories that bring our own pain out of the shadows so that others may find solace and resonance in them, as Markle’s did. And stories that are truly representative, and more often include the LGBTQ+, BIPOC and childless-not-by-choice communities.

These stories must also serve to balance those whose primary purpose is sensationalism. This is not to undermine the incredible scientific advances represented by a 27 year old embryo turning into a live birth. It is only to say, this event is an outlier and should be characterized as such. 

For better and worse, the perceptions about IVF and ART held by so many come directly from these headlines. This includes those who will go on to have to take advantage of these technologies and support systems, one way or another.

Let’s do everything we can to ensure that the headlines to come offer representation, honesty and realism. Women and couples suffering through infertility deserve to know that they are not alone. And they deserve to start the rocky road of ART with clear expectations, a little pragmatism and a whole lot of nurturing from the community at large.