Remaking the Human Body

The IVF Experience event

On 19th February 2020

Update (31 March 2020): We have decided to also postpone our three May workshops. We plan to re-schedule all of our events for the autumn.

Update (14 March 2020): Following careful consideration of the current COVID-19 pandemic, we have decided to postpone our March workshops. We will evaluate whether our May events can go ahead in due course. Please check back for updates and we hope to see you on a future date!

We invite you to a workshop where all will have a chance to participate in a conversation about infertility, fertility treatment, scientific knowledge, embryo/medical imaging and patient decision-making. You will have the opportunity to hear more about our ongoing research in the area.

There will be snacks and drinks and lots of space for sharing ideas, opinions and experiences.

The workshop will take place in London on five dates across March and May 2020. For more information and to book your place, follow the links to our eventbrite pages:

CANCELLED 14 March 2020. Timber Lodge café, 1A, Timber Lodge Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, Honour Lea Ave, London E20 1DY. Starts at 2.30pm. SIGN UP HERE.

CANCELLED 17 March 2020. The Vagina Museum, Unit 7&18 Stables Market, Chalk Farm Road, London, NW1 8AH. Starts at 6.30pm. SIGN UP HERE.

CANCELLED 13 May 2020. Yurt café, St. Katharine’s Precinct, 2 Butcher Row, London E14 8DS. Starts at 6.30pm. SIGN UP HERE.

CANCELLED 16 May 2020. Poplar Union, E5 Roasthouse, 2 Cotall St, Poplar, London E14 6TL. Starts at 2.30pm. SIGN UP HERE.

CANCELLED 28 May 2020. The Canvas: Café & Creative Venue, 42 Hanbury St, Spitalfields, London E1 5JL. Starts at 6.30pm. SIGN UP HERE.

These events are funded by the Wellcome Trust and supported by Fertility Network UK.

PET’s annual conference: Reality check! Questions of evidence

By Josie Hamper

On 17th December 2019

In Conferences, Events

The Progress Educational Trust’s (PET) annual conference has become an established event in our December calendar and this year we continued the tradition. This year’s conference was entitled ‘Reality check: A realistic look at assisted reproduction’ and dealt with a range of topics including evidence, regulation, informed choice for patients and the ongoing ‘add-on debate’ (which I wrote about in a previous post). In total, there were 14 talks across the day, with each session followed by an opportunity for the audience to ask questions or offer comments to the speakers. In this post, I am going to reflect on some issues around evidence that emerged throughout the day.

We have entered ‘an era of profound unreliability’ said James Duffy in his talk about the production of evidence in which he detailed how research being done in the field of assisted reproduction often falls short of accepted standards of scientific rigour. For instance, findings from trials that are run entirely in one clinic cannot be translated to other clinics or patient populations, and he contended that research is often driven by commercial interests rather than an interest in the production of ‘gold standard’ evidence. Yet Nick Macklon explained how the reliance on randomised control trials (RCTs) in assisted reproduction research sets a very high bar for what counts as acceptable evidence, at the risk of ignoring other valuable data that are produced outside of the RCT framework. While RCTs are, with good reason, considered to offer the highest level of evidence in medicine, there are significant barriers to conducting RCTs in infertility research; challenges include the large required sample size, the long timeline from research design to implementation and results, and the issue of the trial sample not reflecting the patient group due to strict participant selection criteria. We were reminded that IVF was highly controversial and not supported by an RCT when developed in the 1970s (as I learnt from my visit to the Science Museum), which could serve as an argument both for tighter regulation and monitoring, as well as the benefit of allowing space for technological and scientific innovation. Sally Cheshire, chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), brought the attention back to the patient in her speech (available in full here), emphasising that while it is crucial to continuously develop and improve IVF procedures we need to critically question whether it is fair for patients to pay for this knowledge production, especially if it could potentially cause physical, psychological or financial harm.

Another point that complicates the issue of evidence in contemporary fertility treatment is the discrepancy between what is offered in IVF clinics and the recommendations provided by the HFEA. Søren Ziebe opened the first session with a provocation whereby he questioned why over half of IVF cycles use pre-implantation genetic screening (PGS) when the HFEA determines this procedure to be without reliable evidence that it improves chances of pregnancy. Later in the day, Chris Barratt also argued that intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI, where the sperm is injected directly into the egg) is vastly overused in fertility clinics. ICSI is used in over half of IVF cycles despite the HFEA and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines stating that this procedure should only be used for male-factor infertility, which accounts for only about a third of infertility cases.

The fact that practices of fertility clinics go against national recommendations on such a large scale sends contradictory messages to patients, which can cause feelings of confusion and suspicion of professional judgement. These feelings are further amplified by the issue of significant gaps in current knowledge about reproductive biology and assisted reproduction; unexplained infertility and failed implantation emerged several times across the day as significant grey areas with an urgent need for better understanding. In the discussion sessions there was some conversation about the complexities of doctor-patient consultations as sites where the practice of evidence-based medicine intersects with individual clinical practice and patients’ needs, wants and choices. While debates about add-ons have been ongoing for years, it is on the ground, in the fertility clinic consultation room, that the actual discussions with patients about add-ons takes place. One practicing fertility specialist noted how, rather than simply running a search for evidence in a medical database and recommending fertility treatment based on this, consultations are more akin to a conversation and negotiation between the doctor and patient. Others noted how it can be extremely difficult to say ‘no’ to a patient who has a strong belief in or desire for a particular treatment or test regardless of its evidence-base, especially when the patient will potentially go elsewhere and pay for it. Explaining the mixed evidence for certain procedures is challenging in a situation where patients are often willing to take great chances in the hope that a treatment might work.

Fertility Show 2019: ‘Holding it together’

By Josie Hamper

On 12th November 2019

In Events

The vast exhibition hall of the London Fertility Show felt strangely familiar this year as I have come to recognise company stands, logos and people from previous years. A slight difference this year was the presence of a branch-out Fertility Fest, which is always of particular interest to me given the focus of my work on the patient experience of IVF.

My first session of the day was called ‘When Plan B was Meant to Be’ and opened with a reading by Lisa Faulkner from her recently published book ‘Meant to Be: My Journey to Motherhood’. The reading set the scene for an open discussion about the emotional toll that fertility treatment takes on people, the difficult decision of when and how to stop trying, and what happens after IVF that did not result in a baby. Faulkner honestly articulated the enduring grief that follows ‘failed’ IVF while also conveying how a life without adoption, which was originally her Plan B for motherhood, is now unimaginable. Faulkner was joined on stage by fertility specialist Mohamed Taranissi, who offered his perspective on the importance of a personalised treatment procedure that attends to emotional wellbeing. Together they made a case for the importance of close communication between patient and doctor.

From there I attended ‘The Invisible Man’, which dealt with the male experience of infertility. Rod Silvers took to the stage with a personal provocation to the audience that set out a series of traditional male values that impact on men’s experiences of infertility. Silvers emphasised the intimately felt desire and expectation to ‘be the strong one’ in his relationship. Joined by Russell Davies, a fertility coach, and Sheryl Homa, a clinical scientist with a particular interest in male fertility, they challenged the widely accepted fact that women’s bodies are the prime focus of fertility tests and treatments, emphasising that there needs to be a more proactive testing of male fertility as routine in general practice healthcare. They also reflected on the absence of men’s voices in conversations about the emotional impacts of fertility treatment: they emphasised the importance of men talking to other men and lamented the decline of what Davies called ‘men talking around the campfire’ as a form of male peer support.

Entangled throughout discussions of the emotional aspects of infertility, control repeatedly emerged as an important theme: being in control and letting go. Faulkner described the huge relief of handing over control to her fertility specialist and how this gave her the feeling of ‘being carried’ through IVF. Silvers and Davies also spoke about the expectation that men should be the ones to ‘hold it together’ and guard their emotions. There are no established cultural tropes for men’s struggle with the emotional strain of IVF, which plays a part in the absence of men’s voices in discourses of infertility. I wondered about the phrase ‘holding it together’ and thought that the image of holding something – like loss and grief – together seemed pertinent to these discussions about the importance of talking to, caring for and supporting each other.

The designated Fertility Fest room seemed to offer an important space for attendees at this year’s show to hear real voices, conversations and personal experiences. This was a space where people could express their sadness – the sessions both opened with a Fertility Fest trailer where co-founder Jessica Hepburn states that ‘crying is good, isn’t it’. But it was also a space for joking and laughter. This acknowledgement of conflicting emotions reminds us, I think, of what the creative arts are particularly excellent at doing, which is bringing together tragedy and comedy in a way that is sensitive and honest to the complexities of personal experiences of coping, getting by and moving on.

Researching reproductive technologies: Notes on our summer and progress so far

By Alina Geampana

On 27th September 2019

In Conferences, Events, News

The RHB team had a productive summer with amazing conferences and manuscript writing. Having received so much useful feedback as of late, we are ready to publish some of the first project findings. The conferences we attended in the past months have really helped us contextualize our research and hone our arguments.

In August, RHB was at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, where we were part of one of the five (!) Sociology of Reproduction panels. Given that RHB is UK-based, we were able to assess how the issues raised in our research relate to wider concerns regarding technology, medicine, and reproduction. Although the UK IVF conversation has lately involved a sustained critique of commercialisation, audiences have remarked that the industry here is quite tightly regulated when compared to other countries (the U.S. especially), where healthcare is largely driven by a strong consumer logic. This is particularly true of fertility treatment, where multiple IVF cycles can cost tens of thousands of US dollars. As reproduction researchers, however, we strongly feel that fertility care should be an integral part of public healthcare services for all.

The ethics of new biomedical technologies was the focus of the first of our two panels at the 4S (Society for Social Studies of Science) meeting in late summer. Here, scholars raised excellent questions about the introduction of new medical technologies and the value they add to practice. As we have grappled with the role of time-lapse in IVF, we have found that the meanings of this technology can be different depending on one’s position and perspective. For example, time-lapse can be a great lab tool for embryologists, while also a reassuring technology for patients who want to know that their embryos are kept in a stable environment 24/7. This is an aspect of time-lapse that our audience has found incredibly interesting.

We have also recognized in our presentations that efficiency evidence is currently an important criteria for assessing new IVF technologies, especially in the UK add-on conversation. Based on our findings so far, this is one of the most salient themes that arises when talking to professionals about the value of new treatments. In the near future, we aim to publish our data on how fertility professionals in the NHS conceptualise evidence and its relation to time-lapse tools. In the meantime, we are also working on finishing up data collection, so that we can share findings on patient perspectives as well in the coming year. Last but not least, planning for public engagement activities in underway, with several events that will take place in 2020. Stay tuned!

British Sociological Association Human Reproduction Study Group Annual Conference 2019

By Alina Geampana

On 20th June 2019

In Conferences

Last week we were delighted to attend the BSA Human Reproduction Study Group Annual Conference, held on June 12 at De Montfort University (DMU) in Leicester. During one of the late afternoon sessions, Manuela Perrotta (pictured below) presented our paper-in-progress on professional attitudes towards the role of evidence-based-medicine (EBM) in IVF. The presentation emphasized the case of time-lapse and the role EBM has played in its uptake. The conference included a thought-provoking plenary from Prof. Marcia Inhorn as well as excellent panels on gamete donation, reproductive genetics, donor conception, reproductive timing, and abortion. Many thanks to the Centre for Reproduction Research at DMU and convenors Dr Kylie Baldwin and Dr Cathy Herbrand for the warm welcome.

Thinking about the difficult questions: Fertility Fest 2019

By Alina Geampana

On 31st May 2019

In Events, Topical

We go to many exciting conferences and events throughout the year. Fertility Fest, however, is very special in that it bridges the gap between art and science, lay and professional. Infertility as a topic of discussion stirs intense emotions and Fertility Fest provides a very much needed outlet to express such feelings and have conversations about them. Eager to immerse myself in this year’s festival, I attended the Big Fat Festival Day this May. I must also mention here that the 2019 venue, The Barbican Centre, was a fabulous fit and contributed to the convivial atmosphere of the festival.

When it comes to infertility and IVF treatment, some topics come up more often than others. As such, I would like to focus on the conversations that stood out for me this year – the conversations that, I thought, were novel and really made me think about some of the more painful and uncomfortable questions. For example, what happens when IVF treatment doesn’t work? When our hopes and dreams disintegrate? How does one re-evaluate their life and choices? How does one grieve? And is there meaning to life beyond having children?

During the opening session, Lisa Faulkner talked about her personal journey and the decision to adopt. Her experience really conveyed the difficult choices one has to make after several failed rounds of IVF. This issue seems poignant to me, yet seldom discussed. How does one know when to say no when we put so much emphasis on hope and being positive? Lisa talked about her initial reluctance towards adoption – something that I found refreshing. There are too many people who assume that adopting should be an easy decision for infertile couples, when, in fact, it is not. It was apparent to me that we need to have more conversations about adoption, who it’s for and who it isn’t for.

The Invisible Man was the morning panel that piqued my interest (but, trust me, it was very hard to choose). The focus on men made me reflect on the tough situations that are particular to the male experience of infertility. Elis Matthews talked about being diagnosed with azoospermia and struggling with identity, faith and the meaning of life. The devastation of hearing the word ‘zero’ (sperm) from a doctor really drove home how insensitive some medical encounters can be. Elis, however, admiringly managed to find humour in the situation. Men talked more generally about having to deal with tough questions about meaning and fulfilment – questions that they had to confront because of their experience with infertility. As a woman, I was moved to hear actor and writer Rod Silvers talk about feeling that he had failed his partner when he found out he might not be able to ‘provide’ her with biological children. I wondered if we really understand what infertility means for a couple as a unit, not just individually.

The highlight of the day, for me, however, was the premiere of Irina Vodar’s documentary Anything You Lose: a movie that intimately captures her infertility journey over 7 years. The camera follows Irina and her husband to multiple clinics, documenting their pursuit of parenthood. Heartbreaking moments of disappointment invite the viewer to reflect on the emotional toll that infertility takes on couples. Echoing the questions I outlined above, Irina’s story forces her and the audience to ponder the meaning of life without children and what we do when things don’t go the way we planned. What I appreciated most about Anything You Lose it that it doesn’t fall into Hollywood clichés about infertility. It doesn’t gloss over the complex medical procedures and decisions that patients have to make. It also shows the toll that infertility can take on relationships and the raw emotions it brings out of people. I came out of the Barbican Centre with many things to think about. In fact, I am still pondering questions as I’m writing this post.

Thank you Fertility Fest for another great year!

Remaking the Human Body at the BSA meeting

By Alina Geampana

On 30th April 2019

In Conferences

One of our most anticipated events this year was the British Sociological Association (BSA) meeting, held between April 23 and 26 at Glasgow Caledonian University. Manuela Perrotta presented new findings from our project, focusing on the role of evidence-based medicine (EBM) in IVF. Our paper analysed professional attitudes towards time-lapse imaging technologies and how they illustrate a very ambiguous and complex relationship between reproductive medicine and EBM. We did not miss our chance to catch up with current research in our field and attended several medical sociology and STS (Science and Technology Studies) streams. Moreover, the team enjoyed excellent plenaries, including Nonna Mayer on voting and social precariousness and Satnam Virdee on race, otherness, and modernity. BSA 2019 provided excellent content and food for thought. We are excited to see what the next year brings.

QHRN 2019

By Alina Geampana

On 26th March 2019

In Conferences, Events

Qualitative health researchers are well aware that we work in a world dominated by big data, quantitative research, and the gold standard of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Upon hearing about a conference focused not only on contemporary health issues, but also on qualitative methods, the RHB team jumped at the chance to participate. Not unexpectedly, we are very glad we did.

The QHRN 2019 conference held last week on March 21-22 in London highlighted the diversity and richness of qualitative methods used by attendees. Our panel, entitled “Critical perspectives and social theory” allowed us to present our work alongside other critical health scholars. The topics discussed included maternal care (Lianne Holten), dieting (Hilla Nehushtan), community health work (Ryan Logan), and LGBTQ+ mental health (Rachael Eastham).

The use of innovative methods was a recurrent theme throughout the meeting. Presenters made me reflect on all the different ways we can use the internet, for example. Stephanie Lanthier’s (University of Toronto) presentation opened up discussions about using online forums for collecting data, while Carmel Capewell (Oxford Brookes University) talked about some of the limitations of online resources for patients with rare illnesses. I especially appreciated Jenevieve Mannell’s (UCL) presentation and thoughts on qualitative data collection in trial protocols. This discussion highlighted how much we still need to push for the integration of diverse methods into mainstream research. The lack of interest in qualitative methods in the RCT world comes as a result of problematic hierarchical approaches to data. Although qualitative researchers do not dispute the need for RCTs, we also believe there is much more we need to know about health outcomes and the patient experience in order to make informed policy decisions.

Last but not least, the conference symposium introduced us to the use of Story Completion in research – a novel topic for many attendees, including me. Naomi Moller from The Open University walked the audience through the exciting possibilities that such a method offers qualitative researchers. What is Story Completion? you might ask. It is a qualitative research method where participants express their views on topics by finishing a story that was started by the researcher. More specifically, symposium presenters talked about projects where they used Story Completion to collect data. Virginia Braun (The University of Auckland), for example, spoke about using the method in research on healthy eating views, while Toni Williams (Leeds Beckett University) used it to explore narratives of disability and physical activity. Although the method might sound straightforward, presenters made it clear that one must pay careful attention to context, characters, and making sure that the story elicits interest and richness in the participant responses. Story Completion is an exciting method that I will surely consider using in the future.

Needless to say, with such a wealth of information and topics discussed, QHRN 2019 was definitely a great start to our conference season!

Our Year in Review

By Alina Geampana

On 1st March 2019

In Conferences, Events

2018 has been a busy year for the Remaking the Human Body team. We are happy to share that we have, so far, conducted observations at 5 sites and have interviewed more than 50 professionals and patients about their views on time-lapse, IVF technology, and add-ons in the UK. This year we are looking to finish data collection and are eagerly anticipating the start of our public engagement activities, generously funded by the Wellcome Trust through an additional grant.

By presenting preliminary findings at several conferences, we have incorporated useful feedback from scholars from various academic backgrounds. This, in turn, has helped us hone our questions and methods. We have greatly enjoyed presenting at conferences ranging from science communication meetings to medically-oriented meetings, such as ESHRE. Below is a short list of some of the events we have had the pleasure to attend in 2018, with presentation title in parentheses:

Science in Public 2018 Conference, Cardiff, December 17-19. (Perrotta, M., Geampana, A., Hamper, J.A. “Predicting success: visual practices and predictive algorithms in IVF.”)

European Society for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) Annual Meeting, Lancaster, July 24-28. (Perrotta, M. & Geampana, A. “Non-invasive predictions: visual predictive tools in IVF.”)

European Society for the Study of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) Annual Meeting, Barcelona, July 1-4. (Perrotta, M., Geampana, A., Hamper, J.A., Giraud, AS. “The ethics of commercialization: a temporal analysis of newspaper coverage of IVF add-ons in the UK.”)

Science and Technology Studies Italia Meeting, Padova, June 14-16. (Perrotta, M. & Geampana, A. “Standardising professional vision in embryo imaging.”)

Visualising Reproduction – An Interdisciplinary Inquiry, De Montfort University, Leicester, June 6. (Perrotta, M. “Remaking Embryos. Time-lapse Microscopy and the Future of Embryology.”)

British Sociological Association Human Reproduction Conference, De Montfort University, Leicester, May 24. (Perrotta, M., Geampana, A., Hamper, J.A. “The IVF add-on debate: from techno-scientific breakthroughs to unproven treatments.”)

The previous year has also been a great one to immerse ourselves in the wider world of fertility treatment and education, through attending various public events:

Progress Educational Trust conference ‘Make Do or Amend: Should We Update UK Fertility and Embryo Law? – London, December 5

Fertility Show – London, November 3-4

40 Years of IVF at the Science Museum – London, July 25

Fertility Fest – London, May 8-13

Progress Educational Trust/ British Fertility Society event ‘The Real Cost of IVF’ – London, April 11

Fertility Show – Manchester, March 24-25

In particular, the Fertility Show and Fertility Fest have provided opportunities for us to learn and reflect on how we might proceed with public engagement activities in the near future. You can read some of our previous blogs for impressions from our work and how it fits into wider conversations on fertility and IVF treatment.

We anticipate a productive rest of 2019 and look forward to keeping you posted about our activities!

Patients and IVF add on treatments

By Josie Hamper

On 15th January 2019

In Topical

Since the start of the ‘Remaking the Human Body’ project there have been some significant developments in debates around the state of fertility treatment in the UK. Just over two years ago, BBC Panorama presented a documentary entitled Inside Britain’s Fertility Business (28 November 2016) that questioned the quality of scientific evidence to support ‘add on’ treatments in IVF. In this context, add ons refer to treatments, procedures or tests that are offered in addition to ‘standard’ IVF. These are often available to patients at additional monetary cost.

The Panorama documentary emphasised that some treatments are offered to fertility patients without being supported by rigorous evidence that they work, and it set out concerns about patients not being fully informed about the limitations of these treatment options. Designed to provoke, the documentary opened with three questions that revolve around trust, effectiveness and patient protection (reproduced in direct quotation here): can we trust everything Britain’s multimillion pound fertility industry tells us; how effective are the treatments offered to thousands of couples by fertility doctors; and should Britain’s fertility patients be better protected?

The discussion around add ons was once again reinvigorated following the publication of findings from a randomised control trial undertaken in Australia that presented no clear evidence that one particular add on, the endometrial scratch (where the lining of the womb is ‘scratched’ to help the embryo implant), improves live birth rates. This research was presented at a European embryology conference (see Alina Geampana’s post on her visit to this conference here) and prompted media attention to the moral quandaries of patients undergoing, and often paying for, treatments that are still-to-be proven (see for instance this article by the Guardian).

The position of time-lapse embryo imaging

It has been important for the research project to follow discussions about add ons, given that time-lapse embryo imaging technologies are included in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority’s (HFEA) list of add on treatments, and I am particularly interested in how these debates might relate to patient experiences of IVF. At the time of writing, the HFEA categorises time-lapse as ‘amber’ in their traffic light rating system, which means that early studies on the effectiveness and safety of time-lapse have produced promising results but more evidence is needed to support its use.

Improving patient information

Since the Panorama documentary, questions about add on treatments continue to shape the UK media landscape around reproductive technologies and have periodically re-emerged in public debates. These debates often revolve around the need to improve the information that is provided to patients about their treatment options. For instance, the HFEA’s 2017-2020 strategy includes the aim to ‘increase patients’ understanding of the science and evidence base behind treatments and added extras known as add ons, and of their safety and effectiveness.’ Following this, in the summer of 2017 the HFEA launched a fertility patient survey that investigated patient experiences of add on treatments. While the majority of respondents (at 66%) felt satisfied with the information they received about add ons and their evidence base, a large proportion (at 34%) also felt that they had not received enough information and 44% rated their overall experience of being offered add on treatments as negative. Concerns that patients had about add ons were often related to the price of treatment combined with complex emotional pressures to try ‘anything’ in the hope that it might work. A summary of the 2017 survey results can be found here.

A more extensive follow up survey was commissioned by the HFEA during 2018. The results of this survey showed that 77% of fertility clinic users who had used an add on were satisfied with how open and transparent the costs of these were. And 69% felt that they understood the scientific evidence around the effectiveness of add on treatments. Interestingly, this survey included a much broader categorisation of add on treatments than the official definition that appears on the HFEA’s website; for instance, it included massage, meditation and ‘other complimentary treatments’ within the response options for add on treatments. Importantly, the survey also found that patients’ experiences of add ons was shaped by whether they were undertaking fertility treatment on the NHS or privately, as well as how many cycles they had been through so far, where people in later rounds of IVF were more likely to consider additional treatment options. The full 2018 survey report can be found here.

In the summer of 2018, the HFEA published the 9^th edition of their code of practice, which includes new and more explicit text that requires fertility clinics to inform prospective fertility patients about the add ons that they may be offered, as well as any evidence of their effectiveness or potential risks. This is significant in that it places the responsibility to provide appropriate information on clinics rather than relying on individual patients to make informed choices. Later on in the autumn, the HFEA also published a short statement about add on treatments, which once again emphasised that fertility patients ‘deserve consistent, evidence based treatment’ and reiterated their concern ‘that too many patients are being offered unproven treatment add-ons.’

Patient information, evidence and hope

The HFEA plays a central role in shaping the regulatory framework around fertility treatment by emphasising the importance of unbiased, clear information; however the Panorama documentary touched on an important difficulty in the debate around add ons, which is the disconnect between a commitment to evidence in a fast-moving medical field and the fact that patients are drawn to the promise of hope in navigating their treatment options. While Panorama highlighted that hope is not a good enough justification for using treatments that are unproven, from a patients’ perspective the offering of hope may have extremely powerful appeal. As one IVF patient explains at the end of the documentary: ‘with all these add on treatments, it kept us going that there is still hope.’ Fertility author Jessica Hepburn has also written very poignantly about her desire to ‘try anything’ – regardless of whether it is evidence based – during her eleven attempted IVF cycles.

The conventional notions of patient information and ‘informed choice’ are important but do not fully recognise all the other factors that impact on how people feel about their treatment options and how they weigh up the perceived harms versus potential benefits. Hope, for instance, is a very central emotion and strategy that plays into patient experiences of IVF as well as their treatment decision-making. The importance of having hope makes a lot of sense given that patients are undertaking a procedure that has, according to the HFEA, a less than 30% success rate. Our interviews with IVF patients in this project are still ongoing, yet there are already narratives emerging from the interview material that offer some initial insight into the complex nature of making decisions in a context where consequences and outcomes are, at least partially, unknown.