IVF & Me: I Am Basically a Louis Vuitton Handbag

It is true; I am basically a Louis Vuitton handbag, or Cartier panther ring, or a pair of Jimmy Choo stilettos. Although I am certainly not a Dolce & Gabanna dress, I am just too synthetic for them. I’m not vain enough to say that I’m widely desired and people can’t afford me, yet it is true. However, this isn’t a post to brag about myself, this article is about IVF (in-vitro-fertilization), and the price people will pay for the ‘luxury product’, like myself, that is a child. I relate IVF or ‘test-tube’ babies to luxury products for the following reasons; the cost of IVF; its marketability and depiction as a commodity; people’s access to it; and the IVF child’s identity. My research originally formed a medical anthropology essay but coincided with Dolce and Gabanna’s 2015 comments on IVF.

More recently I have attended talks concerning fertility technologies in which IVF inevitably is brought up. Though I welcome a healthy discussion, I have been shocked at the statements and questions audience members have asked experts and panelists. Louise Brown is the first baby born as a result of IVF, and in 2018 celebrated her 40th birthday. A question asked by an audience member was, ‘what is the life expectancy of IVF children?’, another was, ‘do IVF children have problems with their own fertility?’.These questions were met with answers along the lines of Louise Brown being the pioneer, paving the way for scientists to discover more about the lives of people born as a result of the fertility treatment. Another question was, ‘what is the implication to IVF children’s mental and emotional health?’ and another audience member asked where she could find ‘case studies’ of us. I wish I had raised my hand and given a personal perspective but honestly I was too shocked. Too taken aback at the brazenness of the questions and the answers and the fact questions like these had never crossed my mind. I in no way pretend to understand the science and medicine behind it, but it felt very uncomfortable to be sat in public having my identity and health discussed, especially as there was no prior acknowledgement by panelists that IVF children or parents who have used IVF could be in the room. This was the first time I have ever felt like ‘a science experiment’ and ‘different’, perhaps even alien and not quite human. Or as D&G put it, a “chemical offspring”.

Though I abhor D&G’s ridiculous and offensive remarks that IVF children are ‘synthetic’ and ‘chemistry children’, I do think the price of IVF is unfairly high and akin to designer products, rendering many people unable to have children through IVF, just as my student bank account renders me unable to buy high fashion goods…(excluding D&G – #boycott).

My research found that many people, including some feminists, view the practice and procedure of IVF as an action that turns women’s bodies into vessels, reducing them to reproductive parts, available to be used and worked on for reproductive ends. In a sense, as having ‘wombs for rent’, – something which Dolce claimed, along with ‘sperm selected from a catalog’. This marketability of women’s (and men’s) reproductive parts dehumanizes them, as their body is fragmented into sections that can be medically manipulated and economically marketable, for example, participating in the ‘fertility trade’ with a high ‘product’ demand.

As the cost of IVF is considerable, its advertising plays on women’s desire for children, making them marketable commodities and promoting the idea that parents can buy into something – a baby. Having price-tags on reproductive technologies is tantamount to putting a price on life and poses the question, at what point does money become more important than a new person, for example, if people cannot afford numerous IVF cycles? At what point would my parents’ financial circumstances have dictated for them when to give up relentless cycles of IVF? As the high demand for IVF has shifted it from an experimental treatment to a well-practiced medical procedure, one would imagine the cost of a cycle of IVF would reduce – as in consumer markets. However, the prices are inflating, correlating IVF to luxury goods manufactured by luxury designers, with the notion that, ‘people will pay for it because they want it’. It is estimated that today there are 8 million people born as a result of IVF. I am literally one in a (8) million.

On the topic of ‘experiments’, Dolce’s offensive natter included the statement that ‘not even psychiatrists are prepared to deal with the effects of these experiments’ – (honestly makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time). Firstly, the tone is demeaning, casting all of us IVF babies as experiments as if we’re part of some big sci-fi situation, and secondly, as said above, IVF is no longer an experimental procedure. The other ridiculous element of that thirteen-word phrase is the heavy insinuation that IVF babies need psychiatric help. The topic of personhood and identity is covered in the next few paragraphs but regardless, I’m sure a couple of hours with a psychiatrist discussing being ‘synthetic’ is a lot cheaper than purchasing a D&G garment and then needing psychiatric help to deal with sexual harassment as according to Gabanna, ‘when we design a dress, we try to imagine whether a man will whistle at the women who buys it, when she wears it’.

Back to the topic of IVF – one can argue that where surrogacy or donors are used and paid, IVF is relatable to the notion of gift exchange, and thus, one could view a child as a luxury product with IVF pertaining to the market theory of value and desirability of the object; a child, and consequently exploiting women who want children through fertility treatments. Therefore, IVF is not really a ‘free-choice’ or ‘pro-choice’ option for women, it is only a choice for women who can afford it, relating IVF to biosociality as well as exposing women unable to afford IVF to structural violence. Currently, the average cost of a cycle of IVF in the UK is £5,000 and $12,400 in the United States. Statistics also show that in America, non-Hispanic white women are twice as likely as Hispanic women, and four times as likely as black women to use IVF. I might see a designer luxury product and think to myself, I wish I had that, but I simply cannot afford it. I think it is disgraceful that families who want a child go through the same setback because of the extreme cost of the procedure and the risk of it not even working, despite being so much more meaningful and significant than an on-the-whim purchase of a Prada clutch which would more than likely end up stuffed in a wardrobe, on the dirty floor of a train, or on a sticky alcohol spot on a bar table.

With regard to access in a broader political sense, many countries place restrictions on same-sex, older couples, and single women from undergoing IVF. In France, surrogacy of any kind, including the involvement of IVF is illegal, the Islamic Doctrine forbids IVF, and in Israel, a parliamentary law prohibits the donation of ova between people of different religious faiths. Today there is actually a rise in big corporates and companies paying for IVF treatments as part of their employee packages which could be a huge help to parents also allowing women to work for longer, yet this job perk obviously comes with caveats and cons as well.

Dolce and Gabanna contend they are a family business, and have grown up influenced by the strong family culture of Sicily and ‘the tradition of family’, they then shot themselves in the foot by adding, ‘the family is not a fad’. In just a few seconds D&G labeled IVF babies as ‘untraditional’, (if only I was an edgy hipster seeking to be ‘alternative’ it would have made my day), and ‘a fad’ like a passing fashion, music, or food trend. Although after a bit of googling, I can’t say that families made it into the ranks amongst fads such as flared jeans, tamagotchis and ‘the Rachel’ hair cut. A child, whether IVF or not, is for life, not just for Christmas. Like any product, manufacturers strive to enhance and improve the object and the same can be said for IVF procedures. For example, IVF babies, who could be seen as ‘man-made’ like a product, are less likely to have birth defects than those conceived through intercourse. Yet one can question how far this ‘quality controlling’ of children will go and how ethical the procedures of ‘designer babies’, desired multiple births, and eradicating birth defects are.

I have also heard the shocking statement which left me with my jaw hanging open and blood boiling, ‘in-vitro-fertilisation is immoral because it takes away a child’s dignity’…unless I am missing something, I have absolutely no idea what part of my dignity is missing as a result of being IVF. There have been plenty of times in my late teens/early twenties where I’ve thought, ‘oops there goes my dignity’ but I can’t say I ever felt that nine months prior to my birth. I think it is really important for the discourse surrounding IVF people to change. Currently it feels as though it is being dictated by ‘outsiders’ with varying perspectives, knowledge, cultures, and religious beliefs, rather than from the perspective of someone born due to IVF. I feel it also takes away our agency and continually spoken of/in the context as though IVF people are perpetually children or babies, rather than being fully fledged functioning adults. Being an IVF child has not changed my identity, personhood or how I view myself. I’m certainly not part of a ‘synthetic chemistry child’ army, so I’m afraid D&G that’s something more suited to a Doctor Who episode. I certainly do not deem myself as someone deeply embedded in the practices of scientific technologies or the product of a few thousand dollars, (although I guess it means my parents really wanted my twin and I), and that we were far from an unexpected pregnancy.

People on the street cannot tell that those born via IVF were not conceived ‘naturally’; we outwardly don’t look any different. The only way it affects my identity is perhaps bringing it up in a get-know session, or sharing ‘a fun fact about yourself’, although I’ve even had the classic, ‘ohh that’s why you’re so small, because you grew in a test-tube’ multiple times and, no that is not the reason. In my opinion I view myself and all other IVF people as normal and natural but I guess despite costing as much as a designer product, I am not akin to the DNA of the Sicilian glamour of the Dolce & Gabanna family. Though I agree with freedom of speech and expression, I think their remarks are insensitive, offensive and just idiotic. Whilst I’ve dealt with their remarks by laughing them off and writing about it, I feel that people who can reach so many should think more carefully about what they are saying, as some IVF people and families who have undergone IVF may have taken their comments a lot worse than I have. Stating that they personally would not partake in IVF is a lot better than calling IVF babies ‘synthetic’.

Dolce & Gabanna – offending IVF children, and the families who have undergone the procedure is not ‘fashionable’, baby.

#dolceandgabbana #fertility #birth #featured #ivf #reproduction #science #medicine #medical #commodity