The power of potential: Assisted reproduction and the counterstories of women who discontinue fertility treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite their low and inconsistent rates of success, assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are presented by fertility clinics and constructed in media and popular culture as an effective treatment for infertility. The ways in which such technologies medicalize women's health and bodies have been well documented by social scientists and feminist health researchers. However, little is known about the struggles women face in cases of "failure"; that is, when ART does not achieve its purported potential to assist women in their attempts to conceive and have the desired outcomes of conception and birth. Using a post-structural feminist interpretive framework combined with a narrative methodology, this paper critically examines the ways in which social and cultural narratives about gender and biotechnology shape women's accounts of discontinuing ART. Thirty-six interviews were conducted with twenty-two women across Canada who were at various stages of discontinuation and who utilized a variety of treatment types. Three inter-related narrative themes were developed to categorize the stories of struggle: (i) a growing desperation to be pregnant; (ii) confronting paternalistic medical expectations; and (iii) internalizing and resisting blame for treatment failures. These themes highlight both the explicit and subtle ways in which restrictive social and cultural narratives about womanhood and motherhood were perpetuated in clinical interactions, which ultimately made ending treatment more difficult. Our analysis illustrates how women navigated and resisted such narratives, through pausing or ending treatment despite provider recommendations and clinical messages. We suggest that fertility providers critically reflect on the potentially harmful language used during interactions with patients and recommend that discontinuation discussions become a recurring, normalized component of treatment protocols and patient-provider conversations so that women feel better supported to end treatment when they believe it is financially, emotionally, and physically beneficial for them to do so.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".