Posted on 05/13/2013 10:08:45 PM PDT by CaptainK
Then I’m sure when some doc tells you that you have an 85% chance of succumbing to a heart attack in the next few years without needed surgery, you’ll just take your chances instead of living in fear?
Really?
Believe me. I know. The first time I had cancer our insurance company refused to pay for many things for two years. Finally paid, but our credit score took a big dive. :( It was horrible.
So far, we’ve been lucky with our insurance this time around.
Of course there is no guarantee, but statistics do mean something, you know.
All U.S. Cancer death reported for 2011- 2012:
12.72 per hundred thousand population.
U.S. auto deaths projected for 2013: 10/11 per hundred thousand population.
Mizz Jolie has almost equal odds of dying in a car.
This was a plot on the FX newtork's plastic surgery exploitation soap opera "Nip/Tuck" several years ago. A woman's mother had died of it and she was afraid. Of course she never put her cigarette down the entire episode so I guess her fear of cancer was selective. The doctors refused to do it so so took an automated knife to herself to force their hand. The gruesome clip is on you tube.
Have a mammogram every 2 months if you want Angie, she could have afforded that.
Boy. I mean the "87% risk" figure for a body part that can be easily replaced with serviceable fakes? Makes perfect sense I guess, but preventative amputation still makes me uneasy.
Network.
That's like John Holmes giving up his U-KNOW-WHAT as a pre-empt for avoiding Herpes.
I remember that episode and thinking: “Forgot your lungs, eh sweetheart?”. Nip/Tuck was one Hell of a show.
AJ: Tough, tough call. If it was me, I’d get checked every 2-3 months and see what happens. OTOH, you have a real (or perceived) ticking time bomb inside of you, driving you insane. If you can get it taken care of, you do.
OTOOH, most of us males, should we live long enough, will have some degree of prostate cancer to deal with.
Having had one parent die of cancer (father was a chain smoker), I’ll have to applaud her. Did she jump the gun? IMO, there must have been SOMETHING that made her do this now.
She made her decision, if it allows her to have quality years with her family, good for her and them. Who cares about her career; she’s got fame and more wealth than she probably could ever spend.
Its got be playing hell with her mind. I feel bad for her.
Either way, it’s a tough decision to make.
Good synopsis, brother.
No she didn't - only a biopsy. We were never offered the genetic testing and we used a very god facility in Austin. That was about 6 years ago - so I don't know if it was as advanced as today.
What I saw my wife go through with a single radical mastectomy and lymphadenectomy, it's a VERY significant decision to undergo for stage 0 cancer (precancerous growth), let alone proactively having a double mastectomy. But on a positive note, my wife is pretty happy with her implants! ;-)
We have a son, but it's still essential to document and keep the family medical history. It is important information for any sibling or decedent. In fact, we stored blood from the umbilical chord during his birth since it contains stem cells and can be used for any future family member (as I understand it). It's well worth the $80 per year (we did that 12 years ago so it's pretty cheep).
I'll take back my "blood letting" comment after further information. My post here explains my more emotional initial response. My wife wasn't given the option for genetic testing for some reason. Maybe all of the factors precluded that test (family history, age at first child, etc.) or maybe 6 years hence it has advanced to a much higher level or predictability.
Whatever the case, it's a significant decisions that can only be made after carefully weighing all of the facts. I worry that without this careful analysis, some women will over estimate the "probability" of a future event and needlessly undergo something quite profound and possibly fatal from the procedure itself or complications afterward.
I'm reminded of the PSA prostate cancer test for men. It's clear that it was oversold, or better studies have since revealed a much lower level of predictability. Having the prostrate removed, while nowhere near as radical as a mastectomy, can create a lifetime of side effects, which may be worse then side effects from a mastectomy.
“Good synopsis, brother.”
Thanks, brother!
If you are talking randomly selected people that might be true.
In her case she’s a high risk cancer candidate (due to genetics) AND low risk for auto death (due to being wealthy, traveling a lot of the time in limos, private jets, etc.)
83 of 152 and 151 of 151
I was all set to say she was completely off her gourd until I saw the “87%” figure. If it’s actually that high, for breasts a very nice but replaceable body part, you could even argue it’s easy call as opposed to worrying all the time.
Her career will be fine, as far as anyone knew she could have had fake bongos already.
Now if she gets her ovaries, which have hormonal uses even if she doesn’t plan to have more kids, scooped out because of the “50% risk” figure then that’s another matter.
My uncle has cancer, it started in the colon or stomach, not looking too great.
How old is that uncle?
61.
He’s my aunt’s husband not a blood uncle, I know of no cancer in my (genetic) family, except my grandpa’s (over 80 yrs old) prostate cancer that was caught early and beat.
God Bless both your Grandpa and Uncle.
Thank you.
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.