Angelina Jolie has double mastectomy to lower cancer risk
My mother fought cancer for almost a decade and died at 56. She held out long enough to meet the first of her grandchildren and to hold them in her arms. But my other children will never have the chance to know her and experience how loving and gracious she was.
We often speak of “Mommy’s mommy,” and I find myself trying to explain the illness that took her away from us. They have asked if the same could happen to me. I have always told them not to worry, but the truth is I carry a “faulty” gene, BRCA1, which sharply increases my risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.
My doctors estimated that I had an 87% risk of breast cancer and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer….
Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy….
My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87% to under 5%. I can tell my children that they don’t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer….
And they know that I love them and will do anything to be with them as long as I can.
~ Actress Angelina Jolie, op-ed in The New York Times, May 14
[Photo of Angelina Jolie with mother Marcheline Bertrand in 2001. Bertrand died of ovarian cancer in 2007]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Angelina made the right decision, very brave and other-centered.
After losing my own mother to cancer at age 25, I can certain attest to the fact that children need their moms for as long as possible.
LL
There are no guarantees. Here is my attempt to prevent breast cancer, after seeing Dr. Peter Rosi, a breast cancer specialist in Chicago who became a family practice physician to educate young families and to prevent cancer in women. His advice: Extended breastfeeding to three years per child, not taking the Pill, eating hormone-free foods, not having abortions, reducing sugar consumption, and avoiding the use of plastic in the kitchen by using glass storage containers—these are some ways I am trying to prevent breast cancer in my body and in my children. There are no guarantees and this is scary stuff, having had a number of friends recently diagnosed and having lost two dear friends who had done everything right. I think of Dr. Rosi whenever I eat junk sugar, and avoid exercise, knowing I ought to do better.
But this seems really extreme: Angelina Jolie had a preventative double mastectomy–she describes the science fiction aspect of her experience in the NY Times. Cancer is scary and cruel. If easy steps for prevention are available, we are wise to take advantage of the knowledge we have.
Risks of hormonal contraception explained by a breast cancer specialist physician http://youtu.be/n1f3qTt1YDk
Breast cancer and induced abortion are linked: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm
Breastfeeding children into toddlerhood and having multiple children reduces risk: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/12133652/
Cancer is linked to plastics / BPA in food and drink containers: http://m.breastcancer.org/risk/factors/plastic
These women are so dumb, following this genetic BS. Cancer is caused by your DIET, not your genes!
See Dr. John McDougall, Ruth Heidrich (survived breast cancer in her 40s, now a triathlete at 78) and Jessica Morris Bowen. She has a LOT to say, from her own experience, about doctors, tests, recommendations and winning against breast cancer!
Family medical history has alot to do with what you may have in the future.
Because I had endometriosis I had a complete hysterectomy 10 years ago and will never have Ovarian Cancer, Uterine Cancer or Cervical Cancer. I could still be diagnosed with Breast Cancer some day, but since it doesn’t run in my family the chance of getting it are greatly reduced.
She is very brave – that is a terribly difficult decision, but wow, to think it out logically and make the sacrifice for her children is beautiful.
I think Christina Applegate did the same thing.
Removal of breasts is neither preventative nor a cure for breast cancer.
Women deserve better than this.
Dia Kristy,
Thank you for the names. I shall look them up.
Dia Kristy says:
May 14, 2013 at 8:08 am
These women are so dumb, following this genetic BS. Cancer is caused by your DIET, not your genes!
Particularly if one indulged in a diet of birth-control hormones.
And if she skinned herself she wouldn’t get skin cancer either! Remove your brain, no brain cancer…. I mean seriously. Scared much? My great grandmother, and grand-aunt, and grandmother all died with Alzheimers….. guess that’s putting my “risk” up there in the 80% range too…. but I’m not about to get my brain removed to avoid it! That’s like burning the house down so it won’t get robbed. How about lifestyle changes and avoiding activities/foods/products that raise the probability of cancer in EVERYONE? She’s a huge activist, why not speak out against birth control and abortion that sharply raise breast cancer rates? How about speaking out against fake estrogens and parabens in our hygiene products that do the same? How about speaking out against Monsanto and their cancer causing GMO’s and pesticides?? But no….. to hard. Double mastectomy? That’s brave and loving…… sheesh.
I support Ms. Jolie in her decision.
She watched her mother die from breast cancer. Family history and genetics are real factors in cancer development.
If this sacrifice gives her peace of mind, freedom from fear, and the hope of being there for her children for many years to come — then she made a selfless decision for her family.
Now…. let us hope that she will speak out against contraceptive hormones, abortion, and other lifestyle choices that cause unnecessary and premature death.
Women deserve better. I can’t believe it’s 2013 and we’re still treating breast cancer with stone knives and wooden clubs. Where has all the money gone, the billions, that have been raised by all the feel-good pink ribbon clubs? Since 1940, women have been raising money to fight cancer. Detection is the only area in which technological advances have really been made. Prevention? Zip. Cure? Nada. We’ve not come a long way, baby.
I must admit that I do not know the science and therefore will not comment whether it was a wise decision or not. What I will say is that I have come to admire AJ over the last several years. And whether right or wrong, I appreciate her desire to do whatever it takes to be a mother to her children for as long as possible, even if it means a great personal sacrifice.
Ninek – I know of at least one “feel-good pink ribbon club” that spent (and continues to spend) millions to support the largest abortion provider and, I would guess, the largest hormonal contraceptive provider in the US. Seems ironic, doesn’t it?
I can’t wrap my head around it…
First, if you’re at such a high risk – get frequent and regular check-ups to catch it early IF it happens and THEN cut off the breasts. Not other way round.
Secondly, she’s still quite at risk of ovarian cancer – is she getting a hysterectomy too?
And third – why not do research and live in a way that minimizes the risk of cancer to the lowest possible level. Even with a “cancer gene” there has to be a trigger for cancer to start growing – maybe some chemicals in the food, maybe some bad habits or radiation from frequent flying, or maybe stress.
It’s her choice of course, but I think she made that decision based on emotions and fear, instead of looking into ways of preventing it natural way. It is like someone said a difficult task to be able to avoid all cancer-causing agents in life.
Heard this on the news I like Angelina but she’s a liberal and I wonder if she’s taken birth control . She and BB Thorton never had kids. Hope she educates herself in that area.
Poor woman. That had to be hard. I hope she beats it and never gets cancer. Very hard to read.
I am having a pretty hard time believing the comments on this thread. The causes of most cancers are varied, and while there are environmental or behavioral causes, there are also some that are less controllable. It seems that breast cancer, while not usually caused by genetics, absolutely can be. As Jollie states in her own article:
“Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65% risk of getting it, on average.”
So she tested positive for this gene, which while it does not cause most cancers has a high chance of causing cancer when it is present, and behaved in the manner she thought best. Yes, by the way, she seems to leave open the possibility of acting in a similarly aggressive manner to prevent ovarian cancer. She says herself that she had a mastectomy first because it is a more complicated procedure and because the risk of breast cancer was higher.
My mother had liver cancer and I cannot ever articulate how many people to this DAY assume that she was an alcoholic, so I have approximately zero tolerance for speculation about what someone’s diet or contraceptive or whatever other histories are. I literally never in my life saw my mother finish more than 3/4 of a beer, and that was only about four times a month, if that. She ate healthily and did not engage in basically any risky behavior, ever. But she got liver cancer anyway. And you know what? They cut out the vast majority of her liver. To save her life. Now, because livers are not breasts, they regenerate, but still – the treatment that saved her life was CUTTING OUT her liver. She is still alive, still healthy, still happy. Still around to be my mom. It isn’t like the medical establishment failed her by only being able to save her life by cutting out her liver – they SAVED HER by cutting out her liver, and in doing that they gave our entire family an enormous gift.
I am not someone who thinks that going around pre-emptively waging wars is a good idea. But personally, if there were a >60% chance that my breasts would up and kill me one day, and if I had personal experience with losing my own mother in a similar manner, I would probably have them removed. Would it be hard? Absolutely. Traumatic? Yes. But the reasons to keep them – maternal and feminine – would not be worth risking my life over, with certain odds. They would pale in comparison to the thought of my children growing up without me. It is absolutely not the same as “removing your brain” to avoid Alzheimers or skinning yourself to avoid skin cancer, and I’m honestly surprised to see such hyperbolic comparisons being made here.
Hi Alexandrea did you know that many people die from lung cancer and never smoked a cigarette in their life? Just hiking onto your post about liver CA and drinking.
“It is absolutely not the same as “removing your brain” to avoid Alzheimers or skinning yourself to avoid skin cancer, and I’m honestly surprised to see such hyperbolic comparisons being made here”
Surprised? Stuff like this and speculations on people’s personal lives is said pretty much every post about breast cancer. Great post btw.
Fine words Alexandra.
Yeah, women do deserve better. Like what?
A cure? That would be nice, definitely. Let me know when we can expect that as well as fool-proof detection methods. This is what we have.
Sorry, folks, the genetic link may not be completely deterministic, and indeed mitigated by environmental/behavioral factors, but you can’t deny it.
You can spin the concept of a fearful decision: Do we wear seatbelts out of fear? Get manmograms? I see love. Love for her children, not her breasts.
That said, is it the right decision? I don’t know, but I know I can’t say for certain it’s a wrong one.
I would respectfully like to ask how come someone asks on this site the question of why women (would ever!?) seek late term abortions and they get stifled and made to feel bad, but someone who calls women dumb for taking drastic measures against cancer gets thanked. Suddenly it seems some are more offended by women aborting their breasts than aborting humans.
Even I was somewhat surprised by the lack of reaction to comments which disclaimed the science and statistical analyses of cancer LifeJoy.
It was either hold my tongue or get banned.
Nah, not you xalisae. You’re too valuable, one of the heavy-hitters.
They’d delete your comment and admonish you at the most, in my estimation.
You make it sound like a war, Reality. Who’s the disposable infantry and the valuable fighter pilots?
What, no naval representation Jack? Why the discrimination?
really gotta head off now, cheers dears!
LifeJoy, I love your 12:37am post. Yes – everyone who is at high risk for cancer, or has cancer, deserves better than the options currently available. What do we do until those options EXIST? This isn’t abortion, where women deserve better than being coerced into killing their own children for social approval or economic gain; where better options certainly exist and just need to be presented and supported. When it comes to breast cancer, sometimes there are no better options than a mastectomy. A woman opting in for a pre-emptive mastectomy hurts no one except potentially herself, and can very well save her life, and I’m pretty comfortable leaving that decision up to her and trusting that she weighed the options and the consequences and chose what is best for her.
Breasts are not skin, or a brain, or a baby. Nobody dies if you lose them. Cutting off your own skin, removing your own brain, these are synonymous with death. Having an abortion is, too. Cutting off your breasts is emotionally difficult and can alter your life in practical ways that are real and very important to acknowledge – breastfeeding, for example – but it is not in any way comparable to death. A woman having a mastectomy is a woman choosing her own life over the emotional and practical benefits of keeping her breasts. Quite frankly I am stunned to see people here equate a loss of breasts with “death” a la brain or skin; that seems like a very sexualizing, or at least objectifying, thing to say about women. Let me tell you, I would be really sad and possibly traumatized to lose my breasts, but I would not be dead; I would still be me, and I would still be alive, and if either of those two things were reasonably at risk, I would be grateful for even the options currently available, which let me save my own life by losing part of my body.
I know that everybody will groan at this next part, but I find it very interesting that people often point to studies showing slightly lower rates of HIV among circumcised men, or even just claims that circ’d penises are easier to clean, and use that to justify circumcision, when there are far more practical, healthy, and effective ways to avoid contracting HIV, or to be reasonably hygienic; but a woman with a drastically higher risk of breast cancer, one that is out of her control as far as behavioral or environmental changes, making the same decision – to cut off a part of her body – FOR HERSELF, on her own behalf, is so controversial. I am not saying anything about circumcision itself, because I’m not interested in a discussion on whether it’s right or wrong and I think most people do right by their kids as best they can in their individual situations; but that is a huge, huge discrepancy that I think indicates a massive bias and lack of critical thinking.
There are other therapies.
All natural, holistic. Not chemo, not radiation, not mastectomies.
There are ways of healthy living that will help prevent breast cancer today.
Angelina did what she thought was best. IMHO it is not best.
And each of us is entitled to their own opinion. :)
Pretty much how this site works.
I didn’t say that anyone isn’t entitled to their opinion. I said that I find it stunning how uninformed and poorly thought-out some opinions are.
People have opinions about my mom’s surgery, too. Uninformed and poorly thought-out ones. “She could have done this” or “I wish she had known to try that” when they have no idea what she did and did not do. The reality is, there are situations where all the healthy living in the world may not prevent cancer. Jolie said in her article that she is aware of and respects holistic or alternative remedies, and that she will be sharing her regimen “in due course.” So nobody even knows what she did or did not do, consider, look into, attempt, etc prior to deciding to include a mastectomy as part of her preventive treatment plan.
I wasn’t speaking directly to you Alexandra.
And it is in indeed another opinion that other’s opinions are poorly thought out and uninformed.
That was for you Alexandra.
I personally have had my fill of traditional medicine. After much thought and information I have chosen a different route to go. That’s just me.
Right Carla, I know that it is my opinion. I shared it the same as everyone else. That’s what people do. They share opinions. Some people think women who react aggressively and surgically in the face of an 87% cancer risk are “dumb.” Some people think cancer “has to” have a trigger that can reasonably be avoided by behavior changes. You think that removing breasts does not prevent or cure breast cancer. I think those are pretty poorly thought-out opinions.
I think that there are probably situations where you would opt for “traditional” medicine for yourself or your kids. Didn’t one of your sons recently have minor surgery? I only know one woman who legitimately “opts out” of “traditional” medicine to the point where she refused to take potassium pills that her doctor gave her as a result of a swelling problem she had in her legs (the pills were a short-term cure, not a long-term regimen) and she couldn’t walk up the stairs to her apartment for four months. She moved into a motel with an elevator for that time period. She chose that because it was what she felt was best. I think most people in that situation would start with the methods they’re comfortable with, however “natural,” and move on to others as the situation failed to be cured. If the risk were a high risk of cancer, most people would probably behave more aggressively.
Me, personally, I spent two years on natural and alternative solutions before opting for surgery on my sinus cavity. That surgery changed my life. I couldn’t do my JOB anymore, before I had it. I still get people asking me if I tried a neti pot. Of freaking course I did! I tried EVERYTHING! I got pneumonia – twice! I didn’t opt for surgery immediately; I looked at my options, started with what made me most comfortable, and re-evaluated as necessary. I think that’s what most people do. I assume that’s what you do and I assume that’s what Angelina Jolie did.
I won’t be discussing my son.
Thanks, Alexandra. You said it so well. I’m betting that opinions on this matter have a link to people’s experience with cancer in their family. People truly want to believe in a just world and in their own personal control where you can do something guaranteed to prevent cancer, disease, accidents. Or that if diagnosed, they would beat it because they’re smart and positive. Implicit is the idea that people with cancer did something wrong or that they didn’t try hard enough. Watching someone you love fight cancer or losing someone to cancer pretty much shatters the not-to-me notion. Of course you can do things to reduce the risks, but we do not have all the power we would like to have. I do my best and leave it to God.
Carla, I’m no fan of traditional medicine either, but that doesn’t change the fact that she will not be able to get breast cancer without breasts.
“This isn’t abortion, where women deserve better than being coerced into killing their own children for social approval or economic gain; where better options certainly exist and just need to be presented and supported.”
Exactly. And I’m absolutely sure that although she may wonder if it were necessary or not, she will not regret her decision.
People are entitled to their opinions, but I see a distinct double standard in the rhetoric about all those women who are coerced and/or ignorant and choose abortion, and women (even IF coerced or ignorant about treatment options) and choose preventive mastectomies. I know what would be said if we called post-abortive women by one of those terms used above.
I will pray that Angelina does not get any cancer and although I would personally never go that route. She did. It is what it is.
And of course I speak from personal experience watching friends fight their way through breast cancer using alternative, holistic approaches and traditional medicine.
Lifejoy,
You are comparing post abortive women to women who have mastectomies?
You are free to say what you wish. I’m game.
Carla, I’m sorry if I made you uncomfortable; I thought I had seen you mention your son here before. I apologize.
Regardless, I think that most people opt for the least invasive option that also provides maximum protection from risk, within reason, for both themselves and their loved ones. I think people do this when push comes to shove, and I think it is nothing to be ashamed of. You know from several previous discussions that I am absolutely pro-natural remedies, don’t use even OTC medications except in dire circumstances, etc, but at the end of the day, I opted for surgery, and it may not have saved my life, but it drastically improved it and I would do it again in a heartbeat. That does not mean that I rush to surgery as a first option and I don’t think that very many other people who have surgery do that either. I think about what it would take to get me to surgically remove my breasts – what kind of evidence, expectancies, experiences – and I cannot imagine making that choice lightly. I strongly doubt that is what happened here.
“Quite frankly I am stunned to see people here equate a loss of breasts with “death” a la brain or skin; that seems like a very sexualizing, or at least objectifying, thing to say about women.”
This.
No worries Alexandra.
I get what you are saying.
I do hope she had informed consent on it all and obviously went with whatever she felt was best for her and her family.
At the end of the day I still wish her well. She is a beautiful mom with an amazing brood to love!!
“Quite frankly I am stunned to see people here equate a loss of breasts with “death” a la brain or skin; that seems like a very sexualizing, or at least objectifying, thing to say about women.”
Yes. I wonder what people think of men who get testicular cancer and have to have those removed. Not men anymore? I kinda doubt it.
Honestly, people aren’t their body parts.
This is an honest question.
Do men have their testicles removed if they have a history of testicular cancer in their family?
And Jack?
VEGGIETALES IS AWESOME!!!!! :)
“Do men have their testicles removed if they have a history of testicular cancer in their family?”
Doubt it. If there was a genetic test for the propensity for testicular cancer, though, and guys could find out that they have an upwards of 60, 80, 90 percent chance of developing it and chose to chop them off, I wouldn’t have a moral issue with it. I think some guys would rather insure they see their kids grow up than keep their testicles.
I do think breast vs testicles is a difficult analogy, because losing both your testicles can destroy your hormonal balance and sexual abilities, where losing your breasts doesn’t. Maybe having your ovaries removed is a slightly better analogy. Still, it’s not my body, if someone chooses to remove a body part to greatly reduce their risk of cancer that’s honestly between them and their doctor.
VeggieTales may indeed be awesome, but if I hear that baby asparagus’s voice one more time I’m gonna scream lol.
No one suggested she was “dead” now because she no longer has boobies. I am beginning to understand Reality and his ilk with their accusations of illogical leaps in logic. My aunt died a “survivor” of breast cancer from BREAST CANCER and it’s “treatment”. Flood the poor woman with poison and hope the cancer dies first, then try and salvage what you can of the patient. Yeah, we’ve come a long way baby. Mastectomies used to be a last ditch “treatment” like amputations Until then you do EVERYTHING you can to save the limb/body part. AJ’s decision makes as much sense as me going out to get my hands amputated cause I might have a high risk of getting drug into some deadly machinery I work with. How about THAT analogy? Pre-emptive amputations while there is absolutely NO PATHOLOGY whatsoever is illogically fear driven and USED TO BE malpractice. Duh she’s still a woman and still has inherent value without boobs. Ya’ll are the ones making the suggestion she wouldn’t be. Paranoid sexists. If she had cut off her legs for some stupid 80% chance of leg cancer I would have said the same thing. Might as well get ALL body parts removed too. Eye cancer, tongue cancer, throat cancer, ovarian cancer, uteran cancer…… can live without all those too, cut ’em out! Brad Pitt will still be a man without testicles and prostate… cut ’em out! Breast cancer often begins in the lymph under the arms… cut those out too! In fact cut them all out and avoid lymphoma! There’s the cure for cancer! Cut it off before it gets it! No cancer! And scrap the car to avoid a car accident!
I’m personally shocked that this is actually being lauded without question. How often are genetic tests wrong? How many people have died on death row or still await their death who were wrongfully prosecuted based on faulty genetic evidence? No one sees a dangerous slippery slope here? Like the faulty genetic tests that report an unborn baby has downs, or trisomy 13,18 or whatever and mom is talked into having an abortion and then pathology comes back, oops! No pathology! Ultrasounds show no brain, abortion, oops there it was the whole time! How many times do abortionists do abortions on EMPTY UTERUSES or report “the baby may be born with downs or handicapped it’s better to abort” and they abort a perfectly healthy baby. They make ALOT of money doing this, and a surgeon willing to amputate perfectly healthy tissue for “prevention”….. is no different than an abortionist as far as I’m concerned and FEAR is a great selling point for that type. A permanent irreversible choice out of “love” and FEAR and all because of a fallible easily falsified “test”. But let’s laud her as a hero and make this whole thing seem brave and self-sacrificing and “you don’t know her situation, this was a hard choice…” blah blah blah…. might as well copy paste Reality. Watch and see how many more women fall for this fear mongering. I don’t care if it’s her boobs, eyes, hands, or just her POCKETBOOK…. this is WRONG. This is malpractice and AJ is a victim. And because she’s famous and many idolize her watch the healthy boobs start dropping like flies…. and the headlines praise it and open the floodgates for quackery to come back full force amputating and doing surgery on perfectly healthy tissue “just in case”….. this should be seen with skepticism, distrust, and caution. Not lauded.
I love how science means something to some people when it’s to talk about the health risks of birth control/promiscuous sex/whatever you have a moral problem with it, but if someone makes a choice that you don’t like then science should be treated with skepticism (or with one of the comments on this thread, outright denial).
Look, ChristianHippie, you don’t have to agree. But the fact is that the genetic link to some types of breast cancer is very, very well supported and genetic tests can find out with pretty good accuracy what that risk is. If people want to choose to do a prophylactic mastectomy or oophorectomy, that really is their choice. It’s not analogous to abortion, which kills another human, it’s analogous to any other health choice that people make about their bodies. And honestly it’s pretty sad that you would compare killing babies to someone choosing to take care of their health in a way you don’t like. I obviously don’t have breasts, but if I had a nonessential body part that had high chance of killing me, I might consider having it removed. My choice, my health. Angelina’s choice, her health.
JUNIORRRRRRRRRRR!!
lol. Cutting off my boobs is like cutting off my hands because they’re soooo useful, just like hands! XD
If I had to choose between cutting off my boobs or undergoing breast cancer treatment (that you yourself said was TERRIBLE!), at this point in my life, I’d go with losing the boobs, thankyouverymuch. I’m not even using them for anything, for crying out loud! I just…don’t…understand…
What is this? I don’t even…
If she wants to get her boobs cut off, whatever. If someone wants to tattoo themselves over, implant surgical steal balls in thier skin, punch large holes in thier ears or noses or any other kind of personal body modification WHATEVER. It IS their own body… The problem I have with this is the QUACKERY and VICTIMIZATION involved in this. She didn’t do it because she wanted to or for aesthetic reasons, or even to make a point or shock or personal reasons or WHATEVER…. she did it OUT OF FEAR because of a genetic test. Someone put a figurative gun to her head 80% loaded and said amputate or die. THAT’S what I have a problem with. And no, these genetic tests and the “genetic predisposition” argument/theory hasn’t yet been PROVEN. The suggestion may, MAY, be there, but a suggestion is not grounds for amputation of healthy tissue. She is no more a hero than a guy that sawed his own leg off to escape a trap. This is no great leap forward. This is civil war amputation tents. At best she is a victim of shoddy “medicine” and yeah…. I have no trust in this type of “treatment”. Amputation USED to be the last resort of treatment, now it’s the first line of defense?!?!? And this is ok? And I didn’t compare breast amputation to abortion, I said it takes the same kind of doctor to amputate HEALTHY tissue as it does to kill a HEALTHY human being. It was the “surgeons” I was comparing, and the logic behind these “surgeries” not the surgery itself.
I wouldn’t get my hands cut off to avoid injuring myself at work because then I … couldn’t work. I work with table saws and automated scenery etc, high-tension aircraft cable and powerful winches, so injury is a very real possibility. Cutting my hands off would make no sense because it would just hasten the concern I am harboring, and because so long as I am properly trained and always exercise basic safety, the risk of injury is low. It would be like killing a baby because it will be born with a fatal disease. “Let’s kill it so it doesn’t have to die.” “Let’s cut my hand off so I don’t lose my hand.” ????
However, if my hand got, like, possessed or something, and it kept grabbing a knife and trying to kill me, I might cut it off to save my own life. I would, of course, film it and make a movie first.
Amputation is not the first line of defense against breast cancer. This is a very specific, and somewhat uncommon, genetic mutation that is not responsible for the majority of breast cancer cases but that DOES have a high chance of causing breast cancer in the people who have it. It is rare for a pre-emptive mastectomy to be on the table as a suggestion, really. It’s not like everybody is going out and chopping their breasts off because FEAR AND PARANOIA. Nobody wants to do it and nobody generally suggests that women do it, except in these few cases.
Civil War amputations were brutal and horrific, but they were actually in many ways the best response that the medical industry was capable of at the time, given the evolution of medical knowledge. Because of the new artillery of the war, soldiers frequently ended up with shattered limbs rather than things like gunshot wounds. The choices then were amputation, or infection/death. It’s not like they had the ability to reconstruct pulverized bone. You can’t really blame a past society for not having advanced to the state we have today, just like you can’t blame our medical professionals for not knowing things they will undoubtedly learn in the future. They did what they could to save lives, just like we do today.
For what it’s worth, I have read of people who have cut off limbs when they are trapped in a dire situation, ie pinned by a tree in the middle of the woods alone and losing blood, or by a rock up on a mountain and freezing, etc. I wouldn’t call them “heroes” but I would definitely say that what they did takes courage and a fierce dedication to survival even in the face of pain and trauma.
Haha! I think someone did that! ;p
But seriously, I stand by my point. I still call this a slippery slope and it should not be lauded as a “best choice considering” kind of scenario. This action should be seen as the same desperation it takes a man to cut his own leg off to survive, and that’s assuming there really was any REAL danger. A tragedy. Not something to be repeated if at all possible and not to be seen as heroic or ”a strong option”.
“The cost of testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, at more than $3,000 in the United States, remains an obstacle for many women.
I choose not to keep my story private because there are many women who do not know that they might be living under the shadow of cancer. It is my hope that they, too, will be able to get gene tested, and that if they have a high risk they, too, will know that they have strong options.”
She is encouraging this same chop shop surgery on other healthy women with healthy breasts. This is not shattered bone likely to develop infection, but it’s being treated with the same sawtooth strategy. In this “modern” era. It’s not even diseased flesh threatening a life…. it’s PERFECTLY HEALTHY! This is WRONG. The logic behind it is as faulty as the logic behind aborting “just in case” baby “might have developed” a handicap….. no, boobs are not babies, but this logic is the same. And the cry to financially support this for low-income women will soon echo alongside the cry for tax-supported abortion for low-income women. We are all targets of exploitation now, if we weren’t already.
Here’s another analogy, I cut my leg in a swamp. There is no sign nor symptom of infection, but should I amputate the leg just to prevent gangrene because there is a “high risk”??? No legitimate surgeon would agree to that! They would “wait and see” because amputation is a last ditch and dangerous surgery that carries serious risks of it’s own and should not be undertaken with out SERIOUS CAUSE, not theoretical predisposition or even “high risk”….. it takes proof of pathology to justify the risks of that surgery! IS THIS COMING THROUGH YET??
I have a friend who contracted malaria, apparently it sticks around forever and makes getting even a simple cut, life threatening. Should she amputate her foot the next time she steps on a piece of glass because she has a “high risk” of developing a life threatening condition? Has no one looked at the rates of breast cancer being triggered by surgery on/near the breasts??? Breast cancer is FREQUENTLY triggered by biopsies for…. wait for it…. BREAST CANCER! If she is in fact at a high risk of spontaneously developing cancer, how did this MAJOR surgery ON the breasts actually help? I guess we’ll just wait and see, and if/when she does develop breast cancer we won’t blame this surgery oh no, we’ll just wring our hands at how nefarious cancer is and we just don’t understand it still…. this is wrong.
The entire cancer system is wrong. This is not, can not, and must not be the direction we take in this fight! Amputation must remain THE LAST line of defense, not “preventative care”. For obvious reasons. Period.
I know most of you don’t understand, and really I hope you never do. I’m out ya’ll. God Bless! Peace! <3
It’s funny how some here who cling valiantly to the finest details of modern science and medicine to support the anti-choice position will then dispute or disregard it when it comes to something like cancer.
Q. What do we call alternative medicine which has been proven to work? A. Medicine.
Given the weight of scientific evidence and analysis providing clear evidence that some forms of cancer can be hereditary to at least some extent and that there is genetic testing which can predict increased risk, I’d take the scientific route rather than sit in a stone circle in the garden burning gnomes socks.
If there was a family history of testicular cancer in my family and there was a test which was as successfully indicative of risk as there is for breast cancer, I would have my testicles removed if it indicated I was at high risk.
Risk levels for bowel cancer have also been shown to be influenced by family history.
Christian Hippie, you do realize that cancer spreads? That the “last line” of defense being amputation is useless, because when you get that far into it, it has possibly spread to other parts of the body? When they removed most of my mom’s liver, they actually biopsied all her other major internal organs as well, because they assumed it had spread to them. Indeed, two other women in that hospital had undergone the same surgery she had, and were recovering at the same time she was; both of them learned that the cancer had spread to their other internal organs. Both of them died. That was nearly ten years ago and my mother has been cancer-free this entire time.
I think, for me personally, I would want chemotherapy to be the “last line.” I would rather lose my breasts than spend a significant portion of my remaining life sick and weak from “medicine.” Chemo is completely miserable and in my opinion that would be the last line I’d cross for myself; I would surgically remove the cancer-stricken part of my body, if possible, before that. That is not always possible, but if given the chance, I would gladly opt for that first, assuming it did not interfere with my basic functioning but was mostly just ‘there,’ like my breasts.
When I was about 13, my sister and I went on a skiing trip with my father. My sister, a few years younger than I, pouted up a storm on a particularly difficult trail, and refused to put her skis back on after she fell down. My dad, emotionally exhausted from dealing with two teen/tween daughters on his own for a week, and physically exhausted from a full day on the slopes, was basically done. He skied over, grabbed her under the armpits, hoisted her up onto his own skis, and forcibly skied her down the mountain, holding her up as she pouted and raged. In doing that, he tore a muscle in his leg. Horribly.
He went to a doctor expecting to hear about getting it repaired. Instead, the doctor said, “You know, this is a muscle that increasingly causes problems as people age, and is notoriously difficult to repair. It also is somewhat redundant – it’s not vital to the function of your leg. Usually with an injury like this, we just remove it, because that has very little noticeable effect for the patient and is a significantly less traumatic process.” And that’s what they did. That muscle was problematic and it was not necessary, life-saving, or life-improving to repair it; it was merely invasive and difficult to attempt to repair it. So they didn’t repair it. He has been fine. He still skis. He still works a very physical job. He still bikes for transportation.
please read ‘Lights out’ by TS Wiley … great science & just about opposite Reality’s science
its a CURE for cancer. BTW the breasts are one part of the lympth system, so breast cancers are always open for spreading especially to other lympth system sites, especially those that are immobilized.
Thanks John. I have had a quick look at what the interwebs threw up about TS Wiley and her ideas, especially her ‘Protocol’.
I support your suggestion that people may want to read the book you’ve suggested.
Then they can decide on the range and extent of risks they wish to take on.
Also, from what I gleaned it would appear that the mainstream, established medical and scientific community don’t consider her ‘Protocol’ to be ‘great science’.
“Lifejoy,
You are comparing post abortive women to women who have mastectomies?”
There may be various parallels, but I had one main point, Carla:
Dia Kristy, you, and others seem to believe AJ and others who choose preventive mastectomies are foolish – fooled by doctors, research, fear, whatever. One person thus did in fact call these women “dumb.” Women who abort are fooled by so-called doctors, friends, fears, etc. Most of us have graciously decided not to call them by unflattering qualities.
Sorry if I was unclear or sounded combative towards you or anyone, but, again, we shouldn’t be so picky about who we treat compassionately.
Reality … I NEED HELP … in the patience dept! I swear this %567788800 computer crashes after hours of writing and am just about finished, except ‘saving’ … and poof, all gone!
ROUND II: (That’s 2 in Latin)
the book is not liked very much, but this does not make it wrong … just very problematic
for researchers: because there is a solution … their quests are over … compensation and just-ignoring-the-obvious.
the solution is SO SIMPLE, MAYBE TOO SIMPLE!
There are three concerns: 1) the veracity (truthfulness) of these ideas. She did not theorize nor do these experiments. All she does (along with her co-author) is report on a series of experiments that had been done years before. [ The ideas of risk fade as you read that mice specifically bred to get cancer … this MEANS THEY HAD EVERY RISK POSSIBLE … yet still couldn’t be given cancer.]
2) appropriateness of these ideas: I now think of it this way – MOM DID XXXX—XXX DURING HER LIFE AND THEY SET HER-UP FOR GETTING CANCER, because cancer follows precise chemical patterns (like ALL DISEASE), SO I’LL BE DAMNED (to getting cancer) IF I FOLLOW THAT PATTERN. These ideas are about what must be the ultimate in stress-reduction. If we have a DNA that was formed over millions of years, the more we live in conformity-of-function with those dictates, the less stress-disease will occur because there is no clash between DNA and lifestyle. According to Wiley the discrepancy in our chosen/modern is HUGE …. so we get many chronic illnesses. If you happened to be religiously inclined: think of it is so simple to be well , to be happy because that is the way we were created.
these ideas are just a whole new way to embrace life … all human life is magnifacent … AN EXPERIENCE vs a theory.
the 3) is understanding the scope of these ideas. Wiley herself (in the book) has only started. For instance, we might conclude that this is omly about sleep and a call for more sleep seven months each year. But if we look at the Eskimo(Inuit) they rarely live beyond 55 years. Their winters are without light (sun) even though they consume high levels of vitamin D3, they still die far too young.
THEN THERE IS THE PROBLEM OF LIQUIDITY OF THE LYMPTH. Sometimes it is so thick, it is chrystalin. In such a scenario, the hormones the lympth normally carries remains in its gland-of-origin and is unable to do its functions throughout the body … likely one of the major reasons older folks develop cancers. This is a special problem with quadrapelegics. Lympth flow is based on muscle contraction and since their muscles are dormant so is their lympth + all the hormones reliant on adequate lympth flow …. flu often kills ’em.
and there is more …
“Reality … I NEED HELP … in the patience dept! I swear this %567788800 computer crashes after hours of writing and am just about finished, except ‘saving’ … and poof, all gone!”
John, type into Microsoft Word or another program, save while you’re typing. Then when you’re done copy and paste into the comment space. Might save some headache, I hate it when I have a long comment and it gets eaten.
Sorry John, my computer skills are maxxed out when I manage to print out the bill the techie emails me after a visit :-)
Ah, patience. If I find myself feeeling impatient I ask myself “just how negative an impact is this moment really going to have in the grand scheme of things”. Then I feel calmer.
I simply don’t have a response to the rest of your comments at this stage. And that’s not because I feel overwhelmed by their strength or weight of evidence.
“This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it’s all being hidden by playing the “women’s power” card and using “choice” language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn’t engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women’s bodies into profits…….”
“…..A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie’s P.R. campaign because although she’s running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.”
Besides that:
“A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what’s being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.
In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.So what we’re really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!” At a LARGE profit to the testing company and surgeons everywhere.
Learn more: (I hope links are allowed) http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_decision.html#ixzz2TVoc3W6Y
Angelina literally says, in that very article you’re so angry with her about, that very few cases of breast cancer are caused by that genetic defect. It’s right there. Also, Jolie was talking about HER risk of cancer, which is over eighty percent. It says the average risk is around 60% for those with the gene, but it varies from person to person. You’re literally saying nothing that she didn’t.
And Natural News also thinks homeopathy is real and that vaccines cause autism, sooo…
Learn2science.
Some hereditary breast cancer (which isn’t all breast cancers) is strongly associated with the BRCA gene mutations. The average susceptibility for women who carry the mutation is about 60% (individual women will vary). Men carrying the harmful mutations in those genes also have an increased risk for breast cancer, just obviously a lower one because of the difference in amount of breast tissue, hormonal balance and other things. It really is quite well supported and I have no idea what the benefit is to denying it is, even if you disagree with prophylactic breast, ovary, or other organ removal. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
Seriously, conspiracy theories are all fun and stuff, but come on now.
But Jack, homeopathy works!
I fell out of a tree and broke my arm. So I sat next to a blade of grass for a while and it healed! At least I think it was broken. It really hurt! Well a little bit anyway, for a few minutes at least. But anyway, I sat next to a blade of grass. Well, I was sitting on a whole lawn actually, so I’m not sure which blade was the cure. Where was I? Oh yeah, after I sat there for a while I did not have a broken arm!
See!
Lol, yeah. I regrew my spleen by drinking diluted arsenic, did you know?
No! You hadn’t told me that part of your recovery. So now you can partake of arsenic with total impunity right?
Then there was the time I cut myself shaving. It was healed by me managing to make the most tiniest, most minutest knick in my face. It was difficult but it only took me five days to achieve one the right size and voila!, the original cut was completely healed!
And the cure was sooo effective that it also healed all the cuts I’d made while trying to make one the necessary size. Well, most of them anyway. Some took a couple more days for some reason.
Of course, I drink arsenic daily. It’s part of my daily regimen to prevent male pattern baldness.
I don’t believe you about your shaving cut remedy, though. Can you please cite some studies from the 1800s that proved that homeopathy was better than leeching? Kthnkbai.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) ROFLMBO
i wonder if there’s a homeopathic cure for homosexuality ;-)
I know what it would be, but explaining would be too crude for this blog. Let’s just say “like cures like”. :D
Oh and before anyone gets mad, we’re making fun of the ridiculous homeopathic “medicine”, which is literally just water and no active ingredient basically. Other “alternate” meds like herbal remedies have varying degrees of effectiveness, I wouldn’t knock something that hadn’t been studied and shown to be bunk… for decades.
XD
One of the ‘principles of homeopathy; that is ridiculed by orthodox scientists is the incredibly small amount of material involved, ‘How could such a small amount have any effect at all? IT MUST BE BOGUS!’
THEN HOW COME A VACUUM GETS MORE POWERFUL, THE LESS THAT IS IN IT? And all modern electronics has what are empty ‘holes’ ie nothing. So homeopathy doesn’t sound quite so silly, eh?
… We understand how vacuums work, John. That’s not a mystery. It’s also easily testable, if for some reason we didn’t understand.
Homeopathy doesn’t have a “tiny” amount of ingredient, if you do the math you realize that the dilutions leave NO ingredient. You’re drinking water. And don’t give me that about “water memory”, if water had memory we’d all be in trouble considering all our drinking water has come into contact with disgusting stuff here and there.
Homeopathy is mocked because actual studies have shown that it doesn’t work more than a placebo (which is at least something, but it’s not like actual medicine).
Hey Jack – a vacuum may be the ultimate mystery. Because we can reproduce one at will, does NOT explain it. I have never heard a single scientific explanation about what a vacuum is and that is the + side of nothing. However, this does not account for the effect of the holes’ on every circuit board in existence.
As far as I know the placebo effect works about 19% of the time. But I’d never heard of comparisons to homeopathy’s effectiveness probably because this is a quest for a practitioner’s skill. [a measure of skill is NOT what any practitioner wishes. I doubt whether an unskilled lay person would be any better using orthodox medicines.]
There are ‘alternate’ medical approaches thhat would drive most orthodox doctors and their patients, crazy. But I also know one PROOF that shows the vast majority of orthodox-biomedical science is faulty.
I’m sorry John. I actually really like you so I don’t want to argue about this. But “orthodox-biomedical” science saved my life when my spleen ruptured, helped me overcome a heroin addiction, saved my life again when I tried to commit suicide, gave me back my ability to walk properly when I broke my ankle, saved my life AGAIN when I had pneumonia, and currently makes my life livable by keeping my depression and PTSD at bay. I really don’t have the patience for pseudoscience, for people using anecdotal evidence to tell me that something works when they have no real proof. I’ll go with the scientific method every time. You can do as you please, and I hope that you have a great quality of life by doing so.
Hey Jack,
Sorry to hear that because of your personal experiences, you feel obligated to defend what is prevalant, which to-me is poor medical practice. I suppose in the centuries before Mme Curry-Florence Nightengale when blood-letting was in vogue, (if you lived then) you would be praising that practice too IF YOU THOUGHT IT SAVED YOUR LIFE. I used to play an imagined violin when folks would spew their litany of travails. Did it ever occur to you that you MAY have gotten your pneumonia while recovering in your spleen operation hospital?
No, I feel obligated to defend things that work by evidence, such as double blind trials and in vitro studies.
I didn’t get my pneumonia when I was recovering from my spleen operation hospital, I got it fourteen years after I got my spleen out. I probably got pneumonia because my immune system is weakened from not having a spleen, that’s backed up by evidence.
But don’t worry, next time I have an organ rupture I’ll call up my neighborhood herbalist. :) Maybe a chiropractor. Much better than surgery.
Well, I am glad that you’ve learned that prevention is better than surgery. BTW organs ,except via accident do not just rupture. If your thinking the heart or liver, much more helpful is an ND vs an MD.