In just under 50 years, the in vitro fertilization (IVF) industry has grown into a global enterprise, now valued at over $20 billion annually. Over 12 million children have been born worldwide through IVF, and an estimated one million embryos are currently frozen in storage in IVF facilities. As demand rises, especially in countries facing declining birth rates, IVF has come under increasing moral scrutiny. 

Enter Joy.

The movie follows the scientific team that invented in vitro fertilization (IVF) in the 1960s and 70s. The team led by Robert Edwards (James Norton), surgeon Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy) and scientist Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), work together throughout the movie against opposition and low funding to find a solution to infertility. The film ends with the birth of Louise Joy Brown, the first baby born of IVF. 

Directed by Ben Taylor, Joy features the character of Jean Purdy, played by Thomasin McKenzie, who has been relatively unmentioned over the years, but who, according to real Edwards, was a critical member of the team: “I feel strongly about the inclusion of the names of the people who helped with the conception of Louise Brown,” Edwards wrote. “I feel this especially about Jean Purdy.” The movie portrays her adding a humanizing element to the experiments. Unlike her male co-workers, Purdy uses the names of the would-be mothers instead of numbers and struggles with infertility herself. 

With bright period costumes and a fun 60s soundtrack, the movie has all the makings of a popular film – a team of underdogs, based on a true story, an underappreciated character, the birth of a baby.

Joy, however, begins from a faulty premise: everyone has the right to children. 

Faulty Premises

The idea that everyone has a right to children, whether intentional or not, risks treating children as objects, not subjects. We have the right to bear arms, the right to own property, the right to freedom of speech. We don’t have a “right” to other persons.

But children are persons, Children are not a method of self-defense in a failing marriage, and they are not property. Children are a gift, not a guarantee. 

Joy’s directors and writers fall into the Machiavellian error that the ends justify the means. For example, in the film people were less concerned about the process of IVF than the possibility that the children produced would be malformed. Whatever good can be done absolves the means used for achieving that end. Helping people, however, does not make the action right. 

The creators of Joy seem to subscribe to consequentialism, which posits that actions are not good or bad on their own. In consequentialism, if the result of an action turns out good for most people, then the action is considered okay, even if it might seem wrong at first. The movie ends with the birth of Louisa Joy, but no one discusses the fact that several embryos – babies – died during the process. One healthy baby and the happiness of her family justifies the death of several smaller babies. 

Consequentialism is popular amongst pro-abortionists, who had a slight cameo in the film. In Joy, the character of Purdy is disquieted to learn that the facility in which the team conducts their research, and Dr. Steptoe himself, also performs abortions. When she questions the matron about it, she responds: “We are here to give women a choice… that’s all that matters to me and all that should matter to you.”

According to consequentialists, the death of a child and the creation of a child are not immoral or moral acts unless the story ends how they would like. If abortion helps the parents avoid responsibility, then the murder of a child is justified. If IVF gives the parents something they want then thousands of frozen embryos is justified. Consequentialism does not look to the act itself, but at the end. 

Dr. Brian Scarnecchia, a law professor and expert in IVF litigation, had this to say:

The Sorrow of Infertility

It is important to mention from the first that infertility is an incredible burden for couples, a cross Joy communicates well. In a 2024 study by the National Health Statistics Report, around 13% of women in America alone indicated they suffer from impaired fertility. 

Many of the women portrayed in the film express the feeling that they are failures because they can’t conceive. Others clearly want the joy that children bring and are willing to go great lengths to bear a child. The main character herself, Purdy, refuses to marry because of her endometriosis. Another character reveals that she is unhappy in her marriage and wants the baby as company for herself. 

The movie’s message is clear: infertility ruined women’s lives. It also emphasizes that the work of Edwards and his team was intended to help these women. 

The identity of the women in the Joy cosmos becomes reduced to their fertility, a shocking proposition considering the feminist sentiment on the subject. The film fails to wrestle with the darker side of this narrative: societal stigma that assumes while the sorrow of infertility is real, that does not mean that a woman who cannot conceive has less value. It fails to contemplate, too, whether physical , nor that fertility is the only thing that can give meaning to the life of a woman. 

The movie again and again emphasizes that the researchers’ goal is to “cure infertility.” In reality, however, they are not looking to heal any part of the woman’s body. Instead, they just use a work-around to produce the desired results. 

They are not truly caring for the women enough to tell them that being a woman is more than her fertility, instead reducing a woman to her womb and making that womb function through any means necessary. 

The Purpose of Technology 

The film makes sure to place religion and science at odds with one another. Purdy’s mother, a faithful Christian, opposes Purdy’s involvement in the IVF project. Mrs. Purdy refuses to speak to her daughter again unless she abandons the project. In fact, Purdy does give up the project for a time when her mother gets sick, returning to it only after her mother’s death. The Anglican Church too refuses to allow Purdy to attend services because of her compliance.

On the other hand, Dr. Edwards argues that IVF is similar to dentures or glasses: it is merely another example of scientific progress for the advancement of humanity.

Religion and science, however, are at their best when used together. Religion is not against progress, but rather religion can inform the person on whether or not something ought to be done. The critique of a specific scientific endeavor is not a condemnation of the entire field of science. 

The producers of Joy, following the philosophy of David Hume, seem to scoff at this point, arguing that there is no difference between “ought” and “is.” In other words, if something can be done there is no reason not to do it. 

This devolves into a morality based only on emotions, fully on display in this film. The character of Purdy stops working on the project for emotional reasons not moral ones, and thus has no qualms about returning to the project later on – the emotions no longer an issue. But if there is objective right and wrong, this philosophy falls apart and so does the morality of IVF. 

Moral rules exist to ensure that the dignity of the human person is respected over and above all else, even progress and especially over other person’s emotional needs.

Conclusions

While the film Joy may feature upbeat Beatles tunes and bright pinks and greens, its bright facade masks a deeply complicated philosophical and social darkness.

The movie ignores the deeper moral questions and the consequences of Edwards research. There are over 1.5 million frozen embryos in the United States alone – the consequences of treating children like products that people have a right to, instead of as autonomous persons.

This is not a condemnation of the children born from IVF. They had no more a choice in the matter than anyone else. 

It is, however, a critique of the creators of Joy, who are celebrating technological freedom while side-stepping the moral responsibility of society to care for the most vulnerable. While it is a feel-good movie, it is missing a heart, it is missing love and the responsibility we have towards every human being to live our life according to truth not emotion. We are not simply reactive in this life – fixing supposed problems and responding to conditions. Instead, we make decisions which define us and others around us. As Viktor Frankl once wrote: