Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy

[Sci]

We're talking self-mutilation here, and serious one (removing one's ovaries) and now suddenly it seems it's not a big deal.

Nobody has said or implied that it's not a big deal. Medical decisions like this are a huge deal.

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.

No one has said it's something "everyone should do." What people have said is that it's an option everyone should have, and that it's a decision people ought to be able to make one way or the other without someone else disrespecting their choice.

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?

If I had an 87% of developing a cancer that is extremely difficult to detect before it reaches an advanced stage, and that cancer had killed both my father and my grandfather at a young age? Yes, I would have my testicles removed.

And no, being able to decide what to do in relatively little time does not make it an "easy" decision. The necessity of a decision can be clear and reached in a short period of time, yet still be very emotionally loaded and difficult. "Hard choice" does not always equal taking a long time to make a decision or being unable to reach a decision by weighing the costs and benefits; even when the benefits outweigh the costs, the costs can be dear.

 

[wissaboo]

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.

I would too. Ovarian cancer is often missed till it's too late to do anything.

 

[Random_Spock]

^Christina Applegate actually had breast cancer. What Angelina Jolie did was preventative, and it was a big surprise.

87% chance of getting a likely incurable cancer- Angelina did the right thing. Ditto with the plan to remove her ovaries.

Definitely. It's better to try and prevent something from happening then to have it happen at all.

 

[mimic]

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.

Ditto. My coworker was diagnosed with stage 4 ovarian cancer last year. Treatment's been hell - chemo that gets put in your abdomen and sloshed around the insides, organs scraped, a drug that raises blood cell count that makes your bones feel like glass, etc. She lost a solid 50 lbs, if not more from being unable to eat solid food. She's lucky to be alive. My aunt wasn't so lucky; she died 3 months after diagnosis.

 

[Lt. Uhura-Brown]

87% chance and I could get them replaced well enough to not really notice the difference unless I looked closely?

Sure.

 

[RJDiogenes]

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?

You better believe I would. Are you serious?

 

[Locutus of Bored]

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.

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.

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?

Congratulations on your graduation from medical school and for immediately getting a job as Angelina Jolie's physician who knows what's best for her healthwise. Also, your insights into her mindset as she underwent this "no big deal" procedure make it clear that you also served as her psychologist, so mazel tov on that score as well.

By the way, just in case you were wondering, the person who wouldn't remove a body part whose function is not necessary to survive and can be physically reconstructed when they have a deadly family history and an 87% chance of developing a life threatening cancer is the one with the extreme position, not the other way around. But by all means, enjoy the hypothetical land mine of your almost certain to be cancerous toe of death.

She's already had biological children of her own, none of whom are breast feeding age any more (and even if they were, it's not like they can't be bottle fed with formula), and she has been perfectly willing to adopt other children, so when that's no longer a priority and your breasts and ovaries are ticking time bombs, I can see why she made her decision (and the decision on the future removal of her ovaries) with confidence. That doesn't mean it was easy or "no big deal," by any means.

It sure as hell is not "self-mutilation," and the arrogance and ignorance of calling a likely life saving medical procedure that is astonishing. Nor is anyone saying that this is a procedure that's right for everyone. But it was right for her.

And to answer your last question about having my testicles removed if they had an 87% chance of becoming cancerous, the answer is not only yes, but HELL YES. Especially if they could be physically reconstructed and I was done having biological children.

 

[Kestra]

Yeah, I'd hesitate on the ovaries because I'd still like to have children someday, but I would still seriously consider it. Having breasts removed would be really difficult psychologically, but I'd still ultimately do it.

 

[1001001]

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?

You better believe I would. Are you serious?

Really...

 

[Keith1701]

So, she didn't actually have cancer, just that she had the potential to develop cancer. Why get the double mastectomy now rather than if the cancer developed? Why not monitor her health more closely rather than commit to a drastic procedure just to eliminate a potential threat?

I am glad she is looking out for herself. If she waited to see if cancer would develope she might not have a good chance of survival. Good luck on your recovery.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

Interesting timing, because this week I got the results of genetic testing I had done as part of research into chordoma, the kind of bone cancer I had surgery for two years ago. One of my main interests was BRCA1 and BRCA2 because my mother died of breast cancer. Turns out I don't have any of the three most common mutations, thank God. (Those are the only ones they tested for.)

If it had turned out that I had a very high risk like Jolie, I'd consider having a prophylactic mastectomy. I honestly don't know what decision I'd make. I'm a lot older than Jolie, don't have children to raise, and do already have the risk of the chordoma recurring, although that risk is surprisingly low. I know one thing for sure: I would not go for breast reconstruction. I've already had reconstructive surgery on another part of my body. It's not an experience I want to repeat unless I have to. And having breasts is not a "have to" IMO.

 

[Starkers]

And now Jolie's aunt has died of breast cancer kinda reinforces her decision even more doesn't it.

 

[Takeru]

To answer the question if I would have my testicles removed if I had an 87% of cancer there, no I wouldn't, but only because it is very easy to check your testicles regularly and even if you develop cancer it's easily treatable and has a very low chance of actually killing you, usually you lose a nut and that's it. It's not comparable to breast or ovary cancer at all.

 

[Caretaker]

My mother had a double mastectomy years ago after she developed breast cancer, but the reconstructive surgeons were excellent and she is now 10+ years cancer-free. It wasn't an easy choice, physically or psychologically. As far as I know, she doesn't regret the decision at all.

As for the people who judge: don't. You can't understand until you are in that situation.

 

[Deckerd]

To answer the question if I would have my testicles removed if I had an 87% of cancer there, no I wouldn't, but only because it is very easy to check your testicles regularly and even if you develop cancer it's easily treatable and has a very low chance of actually killing you, usually you lose a nut and that's it. It's not comparable to breast or ovary cancer at all.

Every situation is different. You don't know what you would do except that anyone who has the choice of dying or losing their testicles, nobody chooses to die.

 

[Tora Ziyal]

^ Just because it doesn't make sense to you (or me), that doesn't mean that nobody makes that choice. Some people do choose to die rather than go through treatment that they consider unacceptable. Probably there are, amongst them, a few men who refused to give up their testicles.