Posted on 06/18/2013 4:22:21 PM PDT by drewh
Angelina Jolie's decision to get a double mastectomy after learning she had the breast cancer gene mutation has been lauded by many as courageous, empowering, and even heroic. But singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge -- a breast cancer survivor herself -- thinks it's actually the opposite of those things.
Asked about Jolie's recent New York Times op-ed, in which she revealed the news of her mastectomy and breast reconstruction, Etheridge told the Washington Blade that she wouldn't make the same decision for herself. Nor would she encourage others to do so without properly researching their options.
"I have to say I feel a little differently," the Grammy-winning chanteuse (who, incidentally, performed at Brad Pitt's wedding to Jennifer Aniston) said of the choice to get a preventive mastectomy. "I have that gene mutation too, and it's not something I would believe in for myself. I wouldn't call it the brave choice. I actually think it's the most fearful choice you can make when confronting anything with cancer."
"My belief is that cancer comes from inside you, and so much of it has to do with the environment of your body. It's the stress that will turn that gene on or not. Plenty of people have the gene mutation and everything, but it never comes to cancer," she continued, noting that surgical removal of one's breasts is "way down the line on the spectrum of what you can do" to lessen your risk of the disease.
"I've been cancer free for nine years now, and looking back, I completely understand why I got cancer," she added. "There was so much acidity in everything. I really encourage people to go a lot longer and further before coming to that conclusion [of a mastectomy]."
To be fair, Jolie said in her May 14 editorial that the decision to have a mastectomy was a personal one. Her main point was that women should be informed about the various options available to them.
"I want to encourage every woman, especially if you have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, to seek out the information and medical experts who can help you through this aspect of your life, and to make your own informed choices," she wrote.
"Life comes with many challenges," she explained. "The ones that should not scare us are the ones we can take on and take control of."
You're saying you'd rather wait until you get diagnosed with cancer, to do anything, instead of doing something to prevent getting it altogether. If you had a 90% chance of getting cancer by not having the surgery, and a less than 20% chance of getting cancer by having the surgery, which option would you choose?
Absolutely! I agree. Many blessings to you and yours and convalescences as well.
>> Actually I do [understand cancer treatment best practices].
We’ll see.
>> I just disagree with hacking off perfectly healthy body parts merely because there is a chance that the person might later develop cancer.
So you disagree with prophylactic oophorectomy for women with a high probability of contracting ovarian cancer? On what basis?
How about prophylactic hysterectomy for women at risk of endometrial cancers?
If everyone took your advice, and chose not to have anything done until they actually developed cancer, what would be the difference in incidence and mortality from these cancers?
What would be the economic impact of taking your advice?
That's very easy to say, but appropriate action when it comes to cancer doesn't always work, does it? Jolie had a high likelihood of developing breast or ovarian cancer. I don't laud her as "brave"; IMO it was a personal decision involving self-preservation more than bravery. But I understand why she did it.
Norm, my condolences on your loss. God bless you and your daughter.
“You’re saying you’d rather wait until you get diagnosed with cancer, to do anything, instead of doing something to prevent getting it altogether.”
I’m saying, if you’re not sick, you’re not sick.
“If you had a 90% chance of getting cancer by not having the surgery, and a less than 20% chance of getting cancer by having the surgery, which option would you choose?”
I am in fact in a similar situation (and no, it’s none of your business what that is) and I will not have surgery unless there’s a need to have surgery. I don’t take medicine unless I’m sick. I don’t have surgery unless I need it. I don’t pay taxes unless I owe them. I generally don’t eat unless I’m hungry (although my waistline would disagree). I live by a simple rule: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If she didn’t have cancer why remove healthy body parts?
>> the screening for colon cancer isn’t the most fun thing in the world
Are you talking about colonoscopy? Or something else?
Thanks. I just brought it up to point out that cancer kills and has consequences. Real ones. You can’t live without a liver, but you CAN live without breasts.
One of the men on the oncology ward had testicular cancer. He refused the snip that could have saved him. He died before she did.
He may well still be here today.
Risk is not about present actuality. Risk is possible future not definite future. If you are not diseased you should not undergo treatment as if you were.
I thought Etheridge was a lesbian? Do I have my celebrities confused?
You wrote:
“That’s very easy to say, but appropriate action when it comes to cancer doesn’t always work, does it?”
Nope.
“Jolie had a high likelihood of developing breast or ovarian cancer. I don’t laud her as “brave”; IMO it was a personal decision involving self-preservation more than bravery. But I understand why she did it.”
I understand why she did it too. I just don’t think it makes much sense to hack off perfectly healthy body parts in an age where cancer is increasingly beatable anyway.
Not ovarian cancer, which is one of the types she was likely to develop.
That’s lame mumbo-jumbo, and the idea that you should avoid action before the fact to lay off high probability risk borders on absurd.
Whatever. You have made up your mind, clearly NOT based on understanding, but you don’t seem inclined to change it.
I just hope you haven’t encouraged any gullible person to forego a treatment that might save their life. I surely wouldn’t want that on MY conscience.
Yes, she is.
Angelina Jolie’s body parts were not perfectly normal and healthy. She has the BRCA gene mutation. She was walking around with a couple of time bombs. Now she has peace of mind.
I’m sorry that you lost your wife at all, no matter the cause.
“Whatever. You have made up your mind, clearly NOT based on understanding, but you don’t seem inclined to change it.”
I made up my mind based on a deep understanding of the issue and a holistic and organic view of human life. Like a liberal you’re assuming I have no understanding simply because I disagree with you. Notice, I am NOT doing that to you or anyone else in the thread.
“I just hope you haven’t encouraged any gullible person to forego a treatment that might save their life.”
I hope I have encouraged people to not go through major surgery when they are not actually sick.
“I surely wouldn’t want that on MY conscience.”
My conscience is clear. I have done nothing wrong. Why don’t you try to guilt trip a liberal instead?
“Angelina Jolie’s body parts were not perfectly normal and healthy.”
Actually they are - she is not suffering from cancer.
“She has the BRCA gene mutation.”
She doesn’t have cancer.
“She was walking around with a couple of time bombs.”
Nope. She walked around with a POTENTIAL time bomb, not an actual time bomb.
“Now she has peace of mind.”
Probably not for long. I hope she doesn’t get sick, but I bet someone who would resort to this is going to easily have their peace of mind destroyed by something sooner rather than later. Mark my words.
Touched a nerve! Good. I’m over the target. I’m getting that “you’re a liberal” namecalling flak. It’s the last gasp of those with no grasp.
>> you’re assuming I have no understanding simply because I disagree with you
No, I’m *concluding* (not assuming) you have no understanding, based on your own testimony, to me and to others. You have *shown* no understanding, in spite of being given the opportunity to do so. Your nonsensical mumbo-jumbo and claims do NOT constitute understanding. Maybe your public skool teachers told you that your holy opinion was sufficient to carry an argument; if so, they did you a disservice.
Bye now. And please don’t screw up anyone else.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.