Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
People seem to be acting like she's not going to get them replaced with implants.
Is this the case...?
Is this the case...?
That seems really...very far from the point. But to answer you question, it is my understanding that she has already had the reconstruction surgery.
The media is now talking about her possibly having an oophorectomy soon. As it has been stated above, many women manage to fight the breast cancer but they lose their lives when the cancer spreads and ovarian cancer takes hold.
I wish her and her family the very best. I am grateful for her bravery and her move to educate the public.
The media is now talking about her possibly having an oophorectomy soon. As it has been stated above, many women manage to fight the breast cancer but they lose their lives when the cancer spreads and ovarian cancer takes hold.
I wish her and her family the very best. I am grateful for her bravery and her move to educate the public.
It's the Kobayashi Maru of cancer prevention.
Good on her. May she have a long, healthy life and career.
Good on her. May she have a long, healthy life and career.
I would think the news that she plans to have her ovaries removed is bigger than her breasts when it comes to a woman who is still in child-bearing years. Although I will assume she may save some eggs which could then be fertilized and then used to get pregnant.
The notion that she cut her breasts off and she's now breastless is odd considering most stories I've read say that she had a double mastectomy and then IMMEDIATE breast reconstruction. I believe due to issues with healing/swelling she only has temporary implants, but then in half a year she will have another surgery.
With the level of health care in our country a lot of women can't afford the options that Angelina Jolie took. I believe if I read it right the reconstruction surgery can range from a low-end of $20,000 to over $100,000 with insurance usually only covering the very low-end.
Add in that some insurance companies have restrictions on the level and frequency of pre-testing and you have a lot of women facing financial difficulties limiting them in diagnosing and the pre-treatment/avoidance of breast cancer. All of which someone with the financial resources of Angelina Jolie doesn't.
I would hope that going forward she is a spokesperson for this cause and tries to get more awareness of the need for insurance companies to better treat the average American woman.
The notion that she cut her breasts off and she's now breastless is odd considering most stories I've read say that she had a double mastectomy and then IMMEDIATE breast reconstruction. I believe due to issues with healing/swelling she only has temporary implants, but then in half a year she will have another surgery.
With the level of health care in our country a lot of women can't afford the options that Angelina Jolie took. I believe if I read it right the reconstruction surgery can range from a low-end of $20,000 to over $100,000 with insurance usually only covering the very low-end.
Add in that some insurance companies have restrictions on the level and frequency of pre-testing and you have a lot of women facing financial difficulties limiting them in diagnosing and the pre-treatment/avoidance of breast cancer. All of which someone with the financial resources of Angelina Jolie doesn't.
I would hope that going forward she is a spokesperson for this cause and tries to get more awareness of the need for insurance companies to better treat the average American woman.
Really famous person gets more press coverage than not really famous person. More at 10.
I seriously doubt either of them give a shit how much press coverage they get over their personal health issues.
So everyone thinks it's a good idea to remove parts of one's body just because there's the potential you could develop cancer - even though you haven't actually developed it yet, and may never? Rather than taking measures to detect it if it starts developing and remove it then?
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
It's not like this is the only way to stop cancer. You aren't immediately mortally ill as soon as it starts developing, when it's in the earliest stages. Why not just check regularly first? This seems really excessive.
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
It's not like this is the only way to stop cancer. You aren't immediately mortally ill as soon as it starts developing, when it's in the earliest stages. Why not just check regularly first? This seems really excessive.
Thank you! My bad. I was so focused on the importance of her message and the awareness that I hope will result that my phrasing was poor.
Thanks again!
That is a really, really stupid question.
I'm sorry, but when your chances are 87%, that's a near-certainty of getting cancer. And when it's the same disease that killed your mother? Damn straight it's a sensible idea.
Others have already posted in this thread about why it is extremely difficult to detect this particular cancer at early, treatable stages, and about why waiting instead is therefore incredibly risky. Do read those posts.
I bet if it wasn't so inconvenient to live without them, and you had an 85% chance of contracting it, and you knew that because of genetic testing, you would consider it.So everyone thinks it's a good idea to remove parts of one's body just because there's the potential you could develop cancer - even though you haven't actually developed it yet, and may never? Rather than taking measures to detect it if it starts developing and remove it then?
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
It's not like this is the only way to stop cancer. You aren't immediately mortally ill as soon as it starts developing, when it's in the earliest stages. Why not just check regularly first? This seems really excessive.
So everyone thinks it's a good idea to remove parts of one's body just because there's the potential you could develop cancer - even though you haven't actually developed it yet, and may never? Rather than taking measures to detect it if it starts developing and remove it then?
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
It's not like this is the only way to stop cancer. You aren't immediately mortally ill as soon as it starts developing, when it's in the earliest stages. Why not just check regularly first? This seems really excessive.
No, what people are saying is that in this instance, she made a difficult and radical choice based on the medical information she has.
The average American woman has about a 12 percent chance of developing breast cancer during her lifetime. With a history in one first-degree relative, that risk rises 1 percentage point--in the average woman. So, because my mother had breast ca, my risk is 13 percent.
In a subset of women, there are genetic mutations that have conclusively been proven to raise their risk significantly. Whether or not a woman should be tested for the mutations is dependent on her family history. My mother was the only one on either side of my family to have breast cancer (she's still with us, no recurrences, 32 years later) and there is no history of ovarian or prostate cancers in my family: I don't need to be tested. In Jolie's case, both her mother and grandmother died young from cancer (her mother was 56, her grandmother 46), so a strong family history of ovarian cancer meant she was a good candidate for the testing.
And the test was positive. Her personal risk factor was 87 percent for breast cancer.
In other words, she had the same risk of not developing breast cancer as I have of developing breast cancer.
She has 6 kids, the 2 youngest not yet 5. She wants to be around for them. With a 13 percent chance of getting lucky and not getting sick, she made the choice she felt was best for her and her family.
Last edited:
Intestines are mostly necessary (but you can live without a few feet of them). Breasts, aside from their ornamental and recreational purposes are completely disposable in this day and age. Having them removed causes no adverse effect on one's life, and in this case, removes a Sword of Damocles-level health concern.
Nope, I wouldn't. Personally, I'm not sure I would even cut off my toe, which I don't particularly need, just because there's a chance I might get cancer, let alone remove my breasts - and I certainly wouldn't a consider also castrating myself to remove a possibility. Ovaries aren't a replaceable body part you could just get rid off and get a pair of new ones through cosmetic surgery. We're talking self-mutilation here, and serious one (removing one's ovaries) and now suddenly it seems it's not a big deal.I bet if it wasn't so inconvenient to live without them, and you had an 85% chance of contracting it, and you knew that because of genetic testing, you would consider it.So everyone thinks it's a good idea to remove parts of one's body just because there's the potential you could develop cancer - even though you haven't actually developed it yet, and may never? Rather than taking measures to detect it if it starts developing and remove it then?
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
It's not like this is the only way to stop cancer. You aren't immediately mortally ill as soon as it starts developing, when it's in the earliest stages. Why not just check regularly first? This seems really excessive.
If she wants to do it to remove the risk, that's her choice. But hailing it as something that everyone should do is another thing.
Just out of curiosity, how many of you would remove your ovaries or testicles if you were told there's a 87% chance of developing cancer?
I have a very high chance of developing colorectal cancer since it runs in the family on my mother's side and she died of it.... I'll be off to surgically remove my intestines immediately!
Oh, wait...
Ah, you jest.
So just how high is your risk?
There is a genetic condition--familial adenomatous polyposis--in which the patient has large numbers of polyps that turn malignant. For people with hundred or thousands of polyps, yes, a prophylactic colectomy is recommended.
Basic info from the NIH: http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/familial-adenomatous-polyposis
If you don't have this condition, then you're like me with breast cancer: you have a family history and might likely have to be screened more closely.
If you do have this condition, then you're in the same position as Angelina Jolie, and more drastic preventive measures would be recommended.
No one is hailing it as "something that everyone should do." It is an option for a small subset of women.
If I had an 87 percent chance of developing ovarian cancer, you bet I'd have 'em removed: and that would have been true even before I went through menopause. Ovarian cancer is a hideous disease: the chemo is debilitating, it involves multiple surgeries (primary treatment plus "second looks"), and it recurs. Plus, it's likely to be diagnosed at an advanced stage as it's largely nonsymptomatic until it spreads within the abdominal cavity. My friend's mom's disease is stable (she had peritoneal mets on diagnosis) but she is still not cancer-free and continues chemo 3 years after diagnosis. She will likely be maintained on chemo for the rest of her life. She lives with the constant threat that at the next followup, it will have spread to her liver, bones or brain.
Damn straight I would have had 'em removed.
I'm sure I read that she was taking steps to keep her nipples intact.
If I had an 87% chance of getting ovarian cancer I would remove my ovaries in a heart beat. I have seen people fight cancer (some successfully) and I have done a little bit of study about Ms. Jolie's genetic mutation in a medical anthropology class. Surgery would be my first choice.
But as teya has ponted out...this particular scenario applies to a small subset of women. It is important that they have access to all the facts, and a high profile celebrity sharing her experience and getting people talking is a good step in the right direction.
But as teya has ponted out...this particular scenario applies to a small subset of women. It is important that they have access to all the facts, and a high profile celebrity sharing her experience and getting people talking is a good step in the right direction.