Thread: Angelina Jolie undergoes double mastectomy

Fair play to her for going public with it. A lot of women are reluctant to do this and many pay the price.

ninemsn staff 2:52pm May 14, 2013
Angelina Jolie has revealed she has had a double mastectomy and is urging other women to seek information about their own risk of breast cancer.

Jolie, in an opinion piece for the The New York Times, said she finished the preventative mastectomies involved on April 27 and had no regrets about removing her breast tissue.
She said her mother died from cancer at 56 and she wanted to be able to reassure her own children they didn't have to worry.
"They have asked if the same could happen to me," Jolie wrote.
"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."
She said the surgery had decreased her chances of developing breast cancer from 87 percent to five percent.
"I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer," she said.
"It is reassuring that they see nothing that makes them uncomfortable.
"They can see my small scars and that's it.
"Everything else is just Mommy, the same as she always was."
She said her partner, Brad Pitt, had supported her throughout the three months of treatment and was at the breast centre for every surgery she underwent.
"We managed to find moments to laugh together," she said.
"We knew this was the right thing to do for our family and that it would bring us closer.
"And it has."
Source: The New York Times

Angelina Jolie undergoes double mastectomy

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

preventative mastectomies

This part really angers me. Wehn I was staying in London, there was a woman who went on the morning news to talk about having had this done. It looks like doctors in the west are giving this option far too easily, and women are having their breasts removed.

This sets a scary precedent for the next generation of girls and women. Women who have had this radical surgery have children. What will happen when their daughters reach puberty and after that? Will these mothers suggest they do the same because there's a genetic facto in some cancers?

Originally Posted by natalie8

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

preventative mastectomies

This part really angers me. Wehn I was staying in London, there was a woman who went on the morning news to talk about having had this done. It looks like doctors in the west are giving this option far too easily, and women are having their breasts removed.

This sets a scary precedent for the next generation of girls and women. Women who have had this radical surgery have children. What will happen when their daughters reach puberty and after that? Will these mothers suggest they do the same because there's a genetic facto in some cancers?

Hopefully there will be some better way to handle the problem for younger women in the near future.

Preventative mastectomy sounds radical but if what she said about having an 85% chance of developing breast cancer is true, I can't blame her.

Originally Posted by natalie8

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

preventative mastectomies

This part really angers me. Wehn I was staying in London, there was a woman who went on the morning news to talk about having had this done. It looks like doctors in the west are giving this option far too easily, and women are having their breasts removed.

This sets a scary precedent for the next generation of girls and women. Women who have had this radical surgery have children. What will happen when their daughters reach puberty and after that? Will these mothers suggest they do the same because there's a genetic facto in some cancers?

I think they'd probably have to do what she did - assess the risks based on expert advice, and make a choice. But hopefully as science progresses, there may even be gene therapy that mitigates or even eliminates the risks.

Granted, with her cash she can get her and her family a much better level of expertise though.

Originally Posted by natalie8

What will happen when their daughters reach puberty and after that? Will these mothers suggest they do the same because there's a genetic facto in some

Most will not have the procedure due to lack of capital. They are no less deserving if they option for this, but we know this is a entitlement response by Jolie not something she did for humanity. If I had 85 % risk of Breast cancer and ovarian cancer according to a gene test, I might be trying to get it done as well.

Will she be removing her ovaries as well?

Woman's decisions are hard issues. Glad I don't have to make those kind of decisions.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think they'd probably have to do what she did - assess the risks based on expert advice, and make a choice. But hopefully as science progresses, there may even be gene therapy that mitigates or even eliminates the risks.

Nope. I will always stand by my disagreement with this. It's very scary to see that women believe that removing their breasts will reduce their risk of cancer. Harry, you probably haven't seen my posts on S Landreth's cancer thread, but I did have breast cancer. I've been through all the sh1t, like chemo, radiation, hormone therapy, full mastectomy and I'm still on medication to control the hormones.

Any time I see women making the decision to remove their breasts, I cringe. I see some posts have been deleted, but what if you have a history of other types of cancer, should people just start cutting off body parts?

There are many types of breast cancer, and sometimes it starts somewhere else. Mine started in the axillary lymph nodes, but it was later determined that it was hormone receptive. Different cases require different treatment.

Also, if women are truly worried about a genetic link, why do they have children rather than adopting?

Originally Posted by natalie8

I see some posts have been deleted, but what if you have a history of other types of cancer, should people just start cutting off body parts?

Usually there is a serious point in the dribble I write - glad you picked it up where as the wanker mod didn't (too quick with your delete button mate).

I am with you 100% on this for various reasons. Cutting your self up just in case? Where will it end? Testing at birth and terminating those with a propensity to disease or crime?

Originally Posted by natalie8

Also, if women are truly worried about a genetic link, why do they have children rather than adopting?

Yep - completely agree again.

These bloody celebs clogging up the minds of people send out horrendous messages sometimes, and this is a prime example.

Albeit, she is a famous person I am sure that it took a hell of a lot of tests and tests and consideration for her to go through this. I am not sure she did this "because she is rich and famous" but because she had to for her health and longevity. Also, to make other women aware of the risks. If a famous person like her gets the message out, then it can only do good. I hope her natural daughters have not inherited the gene.

Nat, I didn't know. I wish you well.

Originally Posted by natalie8

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I think they'd probably have to do what she did - assess the risks based on expert advice, and make a choice. But hopefully as science progresses, there may even be gene therapy that mitigates or even eliminates the risks.

Nope. I will always stand by my disagreement with this. It's very scary to see that women believe that removing their breasts will reduce their risk of cancer. Harry, you probably haven't seen my posts on S Landreth's cancer thread, but I did have breast cancer. I've been through all the sh1t, like chemo, radiation, hormone therapy, full mastectomy and I'm still on medication to control the hormones.

Any time I see women making the decision to remove their breasts, I cringe. I see some posts have been deleted, but what if you have a history of other types of cancer, should people just start cutting off body parts?

There are many types of breast cancer, and sometimes it starts somewhere else. Mine started in the axillary lymph nodes, but it was later determined that it was hormone receptive. Different cases require different treatment.

Also, if women are truly worried about a genetic link, why do they have children rather than adopting?

The big difference is that joline was screened and KNOWN to carry the BRCA1 mutation that puts her at much, much greater risk than women who do not carry this gene.

carrying a BRCA1 mutation it is nearly 100% sure that should would develop breast cancer if she lived to the age of over 70.

Its a very, very different case from women who do not carry this gene mutation.

I agree it is radical, and it does not go for "women who are scared of getting breast cancer", but it does fly for women who carry the BRCA1 mutation.

She has a 50% chance of passing this gene mutation onto her kids - at some point if they do inherit, they will have to make the same choice.

Originally Posted by natalie8

Nope. I will always stand by my disagreement with this. It's very scary to see that women believe that removing their breasts will reduce their risk of cancer. Harry, you probably haven't seen my posts on S Landreth's cancer thread, but I did have breast cancer. I've been through all the sh1t, like chemo, radiation, hormone therapy, full mastectomy and I'm still on medication to control the hormones.
There are many types of breast cancer, and sometimes it starts somewhere else. Mine started in the axillary lymph nodes, but it was later determined that it was hormone receptive. Different cases require different treatment.

As someone whose sister had a double m. last year and is still undergoing chemo and radio, etc., with an outlook of buying an extra few years, it is a subject about which I think deeply. My sister was really reluctant to undergo the mastectomy despite the strongest advice possible from the oncologist. I managed to convince her that it probably wouldn't do any harm because at 59 it was probably too late to start a pole-dancing career, and after lots of chats she's OK with it now.

But I know what a horrendous decision it must be, and Jolie didn't just take it on a whim. She was told she would have an 87% chance of developing breast cancer. Those are pretty rotten odds! In this day and age, removing breast tissue and replacing them with implants make it a lot less traumatic than it used to be. And perhaps having seen her mother die of cancer is a powerful factor in her decision, and she wants to be around for her own kids (albeit adopted).

I don't think she's trivialised it at all, perhaps if more women were aware that a mastectomy (or even lumpectomy) today need not be the invasive and destructive job it once was, they would be more willing to consider it and less fearful of the consequences.

Also, if women are truly worried about a genetic link, why do they have children rather than adopting?

I live in a country where it is illegal to get married unless you get tested first for the Sickle Cell Anaemia gene thingy. Yet parents routinely ignore the law knowing that the chances are they are guaranteed a doomed child. Allah's will, innit.

She's rebuilt them though, not quite the mastectomy that many women have to undergo.

Angelina Jolie stunned the world when she revealed she had undergone a preventative double mastectomy today.

The actress had her first surgery to remove her breasts on February 2, completing the process with a complete reconstruction, including implants, on April 27.

She has described her new breasts as "beautiful" and says she is relieved her six kids won't have to worry about her succumbing to cancer.

"I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer," she wrote

Originally Posted by kingwilly

She's rebuilt them though, not quite the mastectomy that many women have to undergo.

Angelina Jolie stunned the world when she revealed she had undergone a preventative double mastectomy today.

The actress had her first surgery to remove her breasts on February 2, completing the process with a complete reconstruction, including implants, on April 27.

She has described her new breasts as "beautiful" and says she is relieved her six kids won't have to worry about her succumbing to cancer.

"I can tell my children that they don't need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer," she wrote

True, and not always what many women can afford, sadly.

^The rich have options, the poor nothing. I question the statement, "it does people good to know there's an option." Good for Jolie, but what about all the others carrying the same gene? They cannot just reach into the bank account and pull out $100,000.

I can see this getting funding by the NHS and Obama care?

Butchers.....

Originally Posted by ltnt

^The rich have options, the poor nothing. I question the statement, "it does people good to know there's an option." Good for Jolie, but what about all the others carrying the same gene? They cannot just reach into the bank account and pull out $100,000.

I can see this getting funding by the NHS and Obama care?

Depends which aspect you are talking about. Screening for BRCA1 mutations is definately supported by NHS (if you meet certain criteria, based mostly on family history), and, as far as I can see from reading around prophylactic mastectomy in positive (mutation) cases would also be supported by NHS.

For the reconstruction side - dunno -but my guess would be probably.

I wonder how many men know that hundreds of males are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the UK alone?

And no, that is not a cue for some cretinous katoey quip.

There are some telling statistics here:

These ten facts from the World Health Organisation on cancer may surprise you:

1. There are more than 100 types of cancers; any part of the body can be affected.
2. In 2008, 7.6 million people died of cancer - 13% of all deaths worldwide.
3. About 70% of all cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.
4. Worldwide, the 5 most common types of cancer that kill men are (in order of frequency): lung, stomach, liver, colorectal and oesophagus.
5. Worldwide, the 5 most common types of cancer that kill women are (in the order of frequency): breast, lung, stomach, colorectal and cervical. In many developing countries, cervical cancer is the most common cancer.
6. Tobacco use is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world causing 22% of cancer deaths
7. One fifth of all cancers worldwide are caused by a chronic infection, for example human papillomavirus (HPV) causes cervical cancer and hepatitis B virus (HBV) causes liver cancer.
8. Cancers of major public health relevance such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer can be cured if detected early and treated adequately.
9. All patients in need of pain relief could be helped if current knowledge about pain control and palliative care were applied.
10. More than 30% of cancer could be prevented, mainly by not using tobacco, having a healthy diet, being physically active and moderating the use of alcohol. In developing countries up to 20% of cancer deaths could be prevented by immunization against the infection of HBV and HPV.

3. About 70% of all cancer deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries.

Seems if you move back to the west, you could do yourself and your family a lot of good as well. I wonder if America is considered a low- or middle-income country? There are plenty of poor poor areas in America which could be considered close to third world. Maybe point #3 is actually saying that poor people die from cancer 99% of the time.





On the topic of cutting things off early...

South Carolina sued for removing male genitals of ‘hermaphrodite’ toddler | The Raw Story


..

^ Up to you as rural Surin proved, not everyone has something decent to say about it. I suppose he has a point? Perhaps a new thread about it with his point of view would open a new door to enlightenment?

Sober tone when? Humbert, everyone loves a drunk.

Originally Posted by nigelandjan

Kudos to her hubby for the support given to her , apparently he was supporting beside her all the way .

I wish them both well for the future together , as a memebr of the opposite sex one can only wonder at the amount of mental trauma , let alone the physical side of things a woman has to undergo when faced with this bastard disease .

On a positive note having met someone who has gone through it and come out the other side , I can tell you Nat is a glowing , radiant young lady with a lovely smile

Hey, we all know she is!!!

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I wonder how many men know that hundreds of males are diagnosed with breast cancer every year in the UK alone?

This is true and many people aren't aware of this. Also the points listed about cancer are very telling and good to know.

Originally Posted by nigelandjan

On a positive note having met someone who has gone through it and come out the other side , I can tell you Nat is a glowing , radiant young lady with a lovely smile

Thanks, Nigel, harry and Patsy and anyone else who said kind words or greened me.

Although some might say this is a "Woman's Issue", IMO she made a personal choice about a potentially serious health issue. It was her choice, right or wrong, and I hope it does add years to her life.

As for the publicity, hopefully most women are smart enough to make their own choices after getting competent medical advice about something as serious as cancer.

Anyone who makes potentially life-threatening decisions based upon what some celebrity has done, doesn't have a firm grasp on reality IMO.

I do wish Jolie well.

Santi,

RickThai

Hell, if Angelina can open up and teach women that this is an important road to take for their health. Good for her. We have a history of breast cancer in my family. I shall certainly be finding out more.

And who cares if she had them removed and re-built. She did it for her health, not on some hollywoodien health thing of the week.

And men should check their testicles too, you never know whats hiding in there.

Good luck with it all Pat , wish you all the best ,,

Originally Posted by patsycat

And men should check their testicles too, you never know whats hiding in there.

Thanks for the tip ,just having a quick shuffle