She's fortunate that she can afford to pay for what is undoubtedly and expensive medical procedure. It just strikes me as an odd thing to do and I wondered what people think of it.
Its fine and dandy but why should we care?
Are her lungs next?
Poor woman.
She is brave to face this in so drastic a manner.
Since the breast removal was done before any sign of cancer I’m certain they did a very excellent breast reconstruction. This surgery can have excellent results.
The loss of fallopian tubes and ovaries leaves her unable to bear a child in a normal fashion but would not preclude saving eggs from the removed ovaries for later implantation if my understanding of the matter is correct. I’m assuming they are leaving the uterus intact.
report says she had an elevated marker in her blood that was a precursor to ovarian cancer
after losing all her maternal relatives to ovarian cancer which has no early symptoms, this is a lady who was monitoring every signal and acted appropriately imo
so what if she paid for expensive medical tests? Is there a better thing she could invest in than her health?
Well, heart disease is prevalent in my family, so maybe I should have my heart removed?
OK I’m being ridiculous, and maybe I’d have a different opinion if I were in her shoes, but I really think this is over the top. Having some major disposition to a disease does not necessarily mean you’re going to get it. And it’s not wise to have surgery when you don’t need it. There are risks to every procedure. So what happens if she has these organs removed, but something goes wrong in surgery and she dies from complications?
We are all going to die from something. Just doesn’t seem right to me to mutilate oneself to try to prevent the inevitable.
No criticism here. That gene is nothing to mess around with, her probability was VERY high for getting deadly forms of cancer.
I know a woman (with two sisters) who watched her mother and one sister die from breast cancer. When her second sister was diagnosed with a bad prognosis, she didn’t waste any time in getting a double mastectomy. She had a wonderful marriage and two young children and wanted to be there for her family, and this was well before this gene was identified and could be tested for.
I remember when Nancy Reagan was diagnosed, and she took all kinds of criticism for getting a full mastectomy instead of a lumpectomy with chemo and radiation.
I’m not going to judge these women for leaving no stone unturned in trying to nip the situation in the bud.
I do not believe it lowers the body's OVERALL odds of being afflicted by cancer.
If you have a genetic propensity to get cancer then removing parts of your body only lowers the number of organs that maybe be affected. I do not believe it lowers the OVERALL odds of an individual who is genetically predisposed..
She has already had her breats removed and replaced using this mentality..
Some of the medical tests can be invasive. How many surgical biopsies, x-rays, cat scans and anesthesia-related medical tests etc. are considered safe or may possibly trigger other problems?
I have no doubt this was a difficult choice for her to make. Her physical being will be permanently altered - but she will be able to continue her life without that specific fear/anxiety hampering her lifestyle any further.
In my own family, we've had to make similar decisions with regard to prostate cancer - PSA tests swinging unpredicatbly for years... and ovarian cysts persistently recurring. "Watch & wait" worked for a few years in both instances...and then the anxiety roller coaster tipped the decision(s) into final resolution of each problem.
I pray for her and any individual making similar life altering decisions a safe and healthy result/outcome to their very personal decision.
Well, her mother died young of ovarian cancer, her grandmother did, and she has six young children. I’m not opposed to what she did.
These things are not done for “fun.”
There are genetic markers that can be used to predict with almost certainty that you will have a certain form of cancer. Rather than worry about the impacts, people have preventative surgery.
Anyone who thinks she is having surgery to get attention doesn’t know anything about cancer markers, surgery, or Angelina. She gets attention every time she steps out of her door. She doesn’t need or crave any more.
If you think a surgeon of any repute is going to just hack a woman apart, is in need of other things to think about.
Articles have stated that blood tests were showing early indicators of cancer - thus she could well have been 'sick'.
A popular local TV newswoman here did the same thing.
She also frequently speaks of her “deep and abiding Christian faith”.
Maybe it’s just me, but I have difficulty reconciling the two. “You’re an awesome God, other than all of these defective parts you’ve palmed-off on me....yadda yadda.”
She seems to be dismantling her female self, this must have some sort of psychological effect, I wonder how it affects her thinking and view of the world?
A freemartin. Hat tip to Huxley.
Wealthy people do not usually carry health insurance. Most might have a catastrophic but often just self insure.
My mother had breast cancer, a mastectomy, radiation, and chemo. She survived — until she got cancer in her other breast five years later, got another mastectomy, got more radiation, and more chemo. She did not survive the second round.
Wonder what she would do....if her mom had had brain cancer?
I htoguht she did this years ago? Or did she have her breasts removed to cut risk of breast cancer?
She will end up dead at some point in time.