3539 and counting.
Slightly Wounding Banana list cont: MacMadame.
Your 'logic' seems to be saying that since this surgery, which dramatically reduced her risk of two specific and deadly types of cancer from over 80% and over 50% to less than 5%, won't also magically reduce her risk of getting every single other cancer on the planet, which she is not specifically at risk for, she therefore should not have gotten the surgery.
That makes no sense at all.
On the other hand, her Goodwill Ambassador role, Brad, and their organizations are a different story.
And she and Brad have mentioned possibly adopting another/more children.
Good for Jolie. Her choice and her body.
EDIT: via Twitter...
Last edited by dardar1126; 05-14-2013 at 07:35 PM.
Cancer is such an emotional, scary, unsettling thing. Since my own brush with it, I have met so many other people who have experienced terrible trials and tribulations with it...and they're still alive! It is wonderful what can be done these days.
However, I did want to throw my opinion in the ring based on just what happened to me. I had a DCIS and had a lumpectomy for it. Prior to this lumpectomy, I had had an MRI and ultrasound as well as further diagnostic mammograms so the surgeon could get a good look at what was going on. However, the first lumpectomy found not only the DCIS but a stage 1, 1cm invasive tumor "hiding" behind the DCIS. My point is that all those tests and being vigilant and careful did not show the invasive tumor. It was a surprise to everyone, especially me! I feel very lucky, blessed, etc etc of course, but all the vigilance in the world wouldn't have saved me if that had not been found in a timely manner-by accident.
Also, radiation and chemo can be more dangerous than surgery. Both are actually capable of CAUSING secondary tumors. I work in a lab that studies DNA repair, and we use both ionizing radiation and chemo drugs to f*ck up our cells.
Is surgery the only way to prevent a disease? I would look into non-surgical preventative measures first. To me, surgery has always been the last resort. Removing a healthy part of a body does not make a lot of sense to me. If it's a diseased part, certainly I would seriously consider surgery, depending on the advice from medical professionals.
When the risk is as high as Jolie was told, sometimes you have to consider preventive measures of this sort; it's the same recommendation many women with the BRCA gene are given. Jolie is not considered high risk for other forms of cancer (except ovarian, and she's likely be taking steps to deal with that as well), so her concern is rightly with doing what she can to reduce the extremely high risk of breast cancer that this genetic mutation put her at. I am sure she will be screened for other forms of cancer as per her physicians' recommendation in the future. But her risk of breast cancer was high enough to warrant the consideration of more drastic measures, and AFAIK there is no fully reliable method for early detection of ovarian cancer. She made the choice she felt was best for herself and her family.
I applaud her decision to do this and to share it, and her experience, with other people. This is an important message.
Obligatory message: while awareness regarding breast cancer is relatively high and Jolie's essay will undoubtedly help as well, there is often less awareness regarding other types of cancer. Ask your doctor if there are any screenings and tests you should do, and if you're at risk for colorectal cancer or are over the age of 50 and have not yet been tested, get it done.
Last edited by Zemgirl; 05-14-2013 at 08:22 PM. Reason: Rephrased the first part.
That's the thing, Vash. It was a part of her body that had an almost 90% chance of being diseased in the future.
Here is a balanced article that discusses pros and cons.
I agree with the writer- here in the USA we want zero risk (or as close to 0 as possible). We have physical bodies. They are going to deteriorate in different ways. Disease, old age, death are realities of life. At some point we have to accept that.
I am sure this is not what you mean, but if we're all just meant to accept that the sort of health issues you write about are inevitable, why have preventive screenings at all? Why do genetic testing? Why treat certain conditions and certain people aggressively? I don't understand what you're advocating here. Sometimes the best course of action is conservative, but in some cases it's not. Jolie has done nothing groundbreaking, medically speaking; what's unique is that she's using her fame to draw attention to the matter, knowing that people will judge and criticize her decision. That's brave and worthy of admiration.
I say great for her.
I'm sure a lot of women get flack for considering this, are probably put under immense pressure not to do this...so a huge star, known for her sex appeal and beauty admitting to this, at a young age, will make it so much easier for other younger women to do if they need to. No one will be able to tell a woman that her sex appeal will be gone after having it done, after seeing that there really is nothing different about Angelina. Knowing your mother died young, knowing that you are most definitely going to get it, well, breasts are not that important compared to being around for your children and family. Good for her for shining more light on this type of situation.... and yes, i know she had reconstruction which makes it different compared to many others...