Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Prostate Cancer chances high - I guess I should get mine removed now? Options · View
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:25:13 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
My grandfather had it, one of his son's had it - of course both were diagnosed with it when they were over the age of 75...so perhaps I should circumvent being diagnosed with it and just go ahead and get mine removed & beat cancer to the punch?

I've always thought Angelina was hot, but I've also always thought she was dain bramaged too. Her latest decision has again indicated that her elevator is stuck between floors.

What do you think?



(CNN) -- Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman," Jolie wrote. "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:54:06 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
I think she made a courageous decision. An 87% chance is extremely high and that gene mutation is very rare - even among familial high risk groups. I heard she's also planning to have her ovaries removed as well as a preventative precaution. Losing her mother when she was only in her '50's was really traumatic for her and I can totally understand her decision to be proactive in a case like this.

Might be a bit different for prostate cancer since it affects one's sex life etc. But Angie's obviously done with having her kids. And breasts and ovaries aren't going to make a difference to her quality of life. Why should she take that chance of something getting missed along the way when chances are abnormally high that she's going to develop this and then require chemo and other difficult treatments. Why have it playing in the back of your mind constantly? Taking your risk from 87% down to less than 5% makes all kinds of sense to me. I'd probably do the same.

I'm a big Angelina fan and her decision really just makes me even more impressed with her inner strength and life outlook.


CurlyGirly
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:01:28 PM

Rank: CurlyFries

Joined: 10/5/2012
Posts: 1,779
Location: United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I think she made a courageous decision. An 87% chance is extremely high and that gene mutation is very rare - even among familial high risk groups. I heard she's also planning to have her ovaries removed as well as a preventative precaution. Losing her mother when she was only in her '50's was really traumatic for her and I can totally understand her decision to be proactive in a case like this.

Might be a bit different for prostate cancer since it affects one's sex life etc. But Angie's obviously done with having her kids. And breasts and ovaries aren't going to make a difference to her quality of life. Why should she take that chance of something getting missed along the way when chances are abnormally high that she's going to develop this and then require chemo and other difficult treatments. Why have it playing in the back of your mind constantly? Taking your risk from 87% down to less than 5% makes all kinds of sense to me. I'd probably do the same.

I'm a big Angelina fan and her decision really just makes me even more impressed with her inner strength and life outlook.


In total agreement. It's not just her family history of cancer, it's that she tested positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation. I think she made a very informed decision.

WMM, if they tested you and found a similar mutation and told you now that you had an 87% chance of getting prostate cancer, you don't think you would consider your options? dontknow



It won a potato. Aren't you intrigued?



WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:06:50 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
I would do what I have been doing the last 15 years, which is getting myself checked yearly. If I am diagnosed with prostate cancer, then I start with the decision making process...not just because 50% of the men in the two paternal generations ahead of me, were diagnosed with it afflicting them.

I simply think she has acted extremely prematurely. Perhaps with those percentages known, she should not have even ever procreated - thus ending the genetic transfer of possible future disease formation?

'Only you, can prevent forest fires' -- She applied this logic, illogically.





If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:09:30 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
CurlyGirly wrote:


In total agreement. It's not just her family history of cancer, it's that she tested positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation. I think she made a very informed decision.

WMM, if they tested you and found a similar mutation and told you now that you had an 87% chance of getting prostate cancer, you don't think you would consider your options? dontknow


I would wait until I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, then I would seek a 2nd and a third opinion from other specialists who know nothing about the previous visits I'd had with other specialists.

Then I'd probably just take a self induced dirt nap, and keep the insurance companies and medical experimentation profession from profiting from my soon to be dead ass.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
LadyX
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:27:59 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
I applaud her decision, I know it couldn't be easy to do something like that, but it makes a lot of sense. I have to say though, while it's the right decision for her, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that it's right for everyone. I mean, she's really wealthy, and therefore is thoroughly unconcerned with insurance coverage or the cost of treatment. But what about those of us who are? Besides the fact that I'm sure such a preventative procedure wouldn't be covered by most insurance policies, I wonder if getting tested for that gene might cause an insurance company to jack up the premium (or deny coverage altogether) if and when they find out you're positive for it.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:31:39 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
WellMadeMale wrote:
I would do what I have been doing the last 15 years, which is getting myself checked yearly. If I am diagnosed with prostate cancer, then I start with the decision making process...not just because 50% of the men in the two paternal generations ahead of me, were diagnosed with it afflicting them.

I simply think she has acted extremely prematurely. Perhaps with those percentages known, she should not have even ever procreated - thus ending the genetic transfer of possible future disease formation?

'Only you, can prevent forest fires' -- She applied this logic, illogically.


I could be wrong but she might not have known all of these percentages or that she carried the rare gene when she had kids. I agree with @Dancing_Doll, 87% is insanely high and she doesn't need her breasts to get her another movie or anything she has plenty of money evil4 But more importantly she very well may have saved her own life by making the decision she made!
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:34:18 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
LadyX wrote:
I applaud her decision, I know it couldn't be easy to do something like that, but it makes a lot of sense. I have to say though, while it's the right decision for her, we shouldn't draw the conclusion that it's right for everyone. I mean, she's really wealthy, and therefore is thoroughly unconcerned with insurance coverage or the cost of treatment. But what about those of us who are? Besides the fact that I'm sure such a preventative procedure wouldn't be covered by most insurance policies, I wonder if getting tested for that gene might cause an insurance company to jack up the premium (or deny coverage altogether) if and when they find out you're positive for it.


Testing for the BRCA genes is extremely expensive right now because one company holds the patent on it - which is ridiculous. I get that they wanna make their due cash, but it's a potentially life-saving test that should be made available to more than just the uber rich. I believe it's currently in Supreme Court to have this changed. That would bring the testing costs way down and could become an option for insurance coverage.


Edit - this makes you appreciate when Banting sold the formula for insulin for $1 instead of cashing in on it by selling to one high bidder pharma company who could have then had a monopoly on it's production. He wanted it to be available to everyone who needed it. I wish philosophies like this were more of the norm when it comes to science and medicine.


CurlyGirly
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:34:18 PM

Rank: CurlyFries

Joined: 10/5/2012
Posts: 1,779
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


I would wait until I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, then I would seek a 2nd and a third opinion from other specialists who know nothing about the previous visits I'd had with other specialists.

Then I'd probably just take a self induced dirt nap, and keep the insurance companies and medical experimentation profession from profiting from my soon to be dead ass.


With the following statistics from the American Cancer Society and your probable early detection because of annual checkups, your choice not to fight the prostate cancer seems like your elevator might be stuck between floors. evil4 All joking aside, I don't know how you can tell someone what the right decision is as far as their health.

Quote:
American Cancer Society - Survival rates for prostate cancer

According to the most recent data, when including all men with prostate cancer:

The relative 5-year survival rate is nearly 100%
The relative 10-year survival rate is 98%
The 15-year relative survival rate is 93%


I can't say I would make the same choice as her. My mother is under treatment for breast cancer now. If, on top of that, I found out I had that mutation, I would consider this option. Also, who knows when she had herself tested for the mutation? I'm assuming it was long after she had children.



It won a potato. Aren't you intrigued?



TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:44:29 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,302
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
I dunno. I'm thinking she's a little out in left field. While I applaud her foresight, I think she took it a bit too far.

Instead of changing her habits and lifestyle (like many do) she opted for invasive and dangerous surgery. And she's thinking about having her ovaries removed, too?
Do you have any idea what a woman's ovaries does for them? They help keep our hormones in balance and IF I remember right, those very same hormones that they release can also help or hinder the pace of which cancer can attack our bodies. (Don't quote me on this but I am far too lazy to go looking for backup on the web. I just remember reading something about hormones and the effect they have on our entire body and how it can affect us when we have cancer)

She's never been one to be afraid of taking things to the extreme, but even this is slightly over the edge for me.

Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:53:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
re: prostate cancer etc. An elder friend of mine was diagnosed as a "potential" and had his removed; never was able to have sex again. And more modern reports/research have shown that doctors too eager to remove have been wrong with such consequences. The new procedures and recommendations favor other treatments that do not, repeat, do not remove the prostate. Look into it before you opt for removal, is all I am saying.

Angelina Jolie's decision has nothing to do with the rest of us; she opted for early-preventive removal but also stated that she has a "messed up" mutated gene, so there's that. Each to their own.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:08:36 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
WellMadeMale wrote:
I would do what I have been doing the last 15 years, which is getting myself checked yearly. If I am diagnosed with prostate cancer, then I start with the decision making process...not just because 50% of the men in the two paternal generations ahead of me, were diagnosed with it afflicting them.

I simply think she has acted extremely prematurely. Perhaps with those percentages known, she should not have even ever procreated - thus ending the genetic transfer of possible future disease formation?

'Only you, can prevent forest fires' -- She applied this logic, illogically.





I think Steve Jobs also had yearly exams but from what I have read, not sure it helped ind the end ;no pun intended' and even being richer than God didn't help. I know prostate and pancreatic cancers are 2 different types but even early diagnois doesn't always work. But she did have nice boobies
sprite
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:11:32 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
i would have done the same. thing is, she's just removed her risk. not taking any action until you actually have cancer is risky. at best, you still have your breasts removed, you have to go thru chemo and radiation and you may very well die. it'd be one thing if you have relatively low risk but 87% it's pretty much a given that she'll end up going a lot that she now never has to worry about. and it's not just her. it takes a toll on family as well - 8 kids and a husband who have to go thru it with her. i think what she did was not only incredibly brave, but incredibly wise as well.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Naughtygrl73
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:21:53 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 1,418
Location: The Naughty Mansion, Australia
The long term survival of men with prostate cancer is substantially different to women with breast cancer.
My father was recently diagnosed with the disease. He had been monitored with a simple blood test for a couple of years, when the hormones elevated to a substantial risk, they removed the cancer. Done. Cured. 100% cancer free.
If caught early, prostate cancer, has a fantastic cure rate, unlike breast cancer.
I don't think it's fair to compare the two diseases as being one and the same.

The removal of breasts can be repaired with breast augmentation, a family member suffered from cancer, she chose after her treatment to have a breast implant, she looks terrific.
Having your prostate removed as a preventative is obviously a little premature. The risks can be high of having erectile dysfunction and I believe, the treatment is successful enough that it's a little ridiculous to even compare the two forms of cancer prevention.

If my risks were the same as Angelina's, I too, would probably make the same decision about breast removal. i have four children, and to be honest, my breasts just aren't worth not being here For them. I'd definitely think twice about having my ovaries removed, as they play a huge part in regulating a woman's hormonal balance, but in saying that if the risks were high enough, I'd make the choice to remove them, rather than die.


ManInNewHampshire
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:23:25 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2013
Posts: 139
Location: Under the radar, United States
I will only comment on the prostate cancer. The survival statistics stated above are if the cancer is detected and removed before any cancer cells "escape" from the prostate gland. If they have escaped all bets are off. They can only tell if any cells have escaped by examining the prostate gland after removal.

Detecting prostate cancer can only reliably be done by biopsy.
ManInNewHampshire
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 4:29:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2013
Posts: 139
Location: Under the radar, United States
Follow-up
I am in no way recommending prostate removal as a preventative measure. Also, I do not feel prostate cancer and breast cancer can be directly compared.
Mazza
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:04:44 PM

Rank: Mazztastic

Joined: 9/20/2012
Posts: 3,048
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
While I do think that removal of cancerous or even pre-cancerous body parts is a brave step, I do not agree that removal of body parts as a prophylactic approach is clever at all...

There are many other options than drastic surgery, but they do take a certain level of commitment and that can often be the problem. Lifestyle changes can be difficult to put in place and easy to drop out of or let go - how many smokers get diagnosed with cancer yet won't stop smoking, or morbidly obese whose problems could be solved by losing weight do not etc etc

Although it may sound crazy, radical surgery can actually seem like an easier option than making the changes needed, however, it's the equivalent of applying a band aid... The underlying cause is still there at the end of the day.


Quote:
• The claim that you have a "percent risk" of breast cancer is a big lie which implies you have no control over cancer.

• BRCA1 genes can be kept quiet (suppressed) through proper foods and lifestyle choices. A gene is not a death sentence.

• The implication that there is only ONE way to reduce breast cancer risk is a complete lie. There are thousands of options and strategies for preventing cancer. Never be cornered into surgery by a group of surgeons pushing irrational fear.

• Cancer micro-tumors exist in everyone. Cancer must be "managed" in everyone to keep it in check and avoid the growth of tumors.

• The cancer industry tricks women using unethical fear tactics to scare women with false statistics into high-profit cancer procedures that only cause them harm.

• The claim that cutting off healthy breasts somehow "empowers" women is sick and demented. Women are far more empowered by honest information on nutrition and healthy living that allows them to keep their bodies intact rather than being sliced up by dishonest cancer surgeons.


Natural News Article About Angelina Jolie

It's certainly worth considering ALL of the options available to you before making any life-changing decision...

(that applies whatever your issue, whether you're male or female)
emersonbosworth
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:10:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/9/2013
Posts: 241
Location: United States
About three years ago I discovered I had prostate cancer. My doctor thought I should have the seeds implanted instead of removal, which I did. No more cancer. Still get a hard on.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:17:52 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
Alright, so I used prostate cancer as an example, I could have just as easily mentioned another organ which could be removed (or transplanted) etc...with some degree of success.

Male or female, it makes no difference to me. If a person wants to have any sort of invasive last ditch surgery in an attempt to prolong their life or to enhance their life or, I guess to prevent the chance that a disease might actually blossom because of genetic markers in our bodies...

Hell, go for it.

I just think it's a bit radical, but I suppose if you've got the bank to afford it - nothing is too out there.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:21:04 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,301
Location: Cakeland, United States
ManinNewHampshire wrote:
Follow-up
I am in no way recommending prostate removal as a preventative measure. Also, I do not feel prostate cancer and breast cancer can be directly compared.


I wasn't comparing either, but I didn't think clearly enough. As in this place, this think tank - I've come to learn that someone has to be precise when they word theories or attempt to engage discussion.

Men can get breast cancer too. We don't have ovaries of course, so merely transpose it over to testicular cancer.

The Think Tank is Hard ass Central! evil4

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 5:22:28 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
WellMadeMale wrote:
Alright, so I used prostate cancer as an example, I could have just as easily mentioned another organ which could be removed (or transplanted) etc...with some degree of success.

Male or female, it makes no difference to me. If a person wants to have any sort of invasive last ditch surgery in an attempt to prolong their life or to enhance their life or, I guess to prevent the chance that a disease might actually blossom because of genetic markers in our bodies...

Hell, go for it.

I just think it's a bit radical, but I suppose if you've got the bank to afford it - nothing is too out there.


I totally understand where you're coming from. However, I also think that if someone told me I could prolong my life simply by removing a body part that was almost guaranteed to begin ailing at some point, I wouldn't shrug it off and take my chances, I'd seriously consider, and maybe even go through with, the removal.
Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 7:34:46 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,400
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:
My grandfather had it, one of his son's had it - of course both were diagnosed with it when they were over the age of 75...so perhaps I should circumvent being diagnosed with it and just go ahead and get mine removed & beat cancer to the punch?

I've always thought Angelina was hot, but I've also always thought she was dain bramaged too. Her latest decision has again indicated that her elevator is stuck between floors.

What do you think?



(CNN) -- Actress Angelina Jolie announced in a New York Times op-ed article on Tuesday that she underwent a preventive double mastectomy after learning that she carries a mutation of the BRCA1 gene, which sharply increases her risk of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer.

"My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman," Jolie wrote. "Once I knew that this was my reality, I decided to be proactive and to minimize the risk as much I could. I made a decision to have a preventive double mastectomy."


From what I understand, all men who live long enough will get prostrate cancer. You need regular prostate exams though. Angelina Jolie could get regular breast exams. I'm not sure preventative surgery is a good idea. There are also complications that come from surgery.

Did Angelina Jolie get her ovaries removed as well? She could probably afford to hire someone to give her daily breast exams and pap smears. She could probably buy a mammogram machine and keep it in her house. If I were her, I think I'd be getting a second opinion.

If I had Brad Pitt in my house he'd be busy examining my breasts now.
Buz
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 8:25:14 PM

Rank: The Linebacker

Joined: 3/2/2011
Posts: 5,834
Location: Atlanta, United States
If you did get it when you reach 75 or so, could you not get a penis pump implant? You would still have your testicles, so you could still get it on and chase the old ladies around the nursing home.

What about preventive measures? What all does that entail? Diet, medication?

Ruthie
Posted: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 9:14:59 PM

Rank: Story Verifier

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,400
Location: United States
Buz wrote:
If you did get it when you reach 75 or so, could you not get a penis pump implant? You would still have your testicles, so you could still get it on and chase the old ladies around the nursing home.

What about preventive measures? What all does that entail? Diet, medication?


You could get a penile implant. Why wait though? You might be impotent some day. Go and get one now.
ManInNewHampshire
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 3:05:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/23/2013
Posts: 139
Location: Under the radar, United States
My understanding about having the BRCA1 gene is that a woman would need to be tested for cancer every 6 months. The idea of living under constant fear of what they will find next could be extremely disruptive to a woman's life. I am not sure how I would decide if I had to be tested every 6 months.

The prostate issue is really another discussion. I understand it was used as an example. But the prostate issue is something that has a lot of misunderstandings and fears. It should probably have it's own forum if someone wanted to explore that issue.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 6:59:39 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,376
Location: Alabama, United States
I think her decision was way premature and a huge over reaction guided by fear. First of all, what if the test is wrong? She has an 87% chance of getting breast cancer according to ONE company that holds the patent to the test, so she has no way to get a second opinion and there's no way to verify if the test is right. And no one can really predict the future, in all honesty. It's a probability test, and there's no guarantee it's correct. Angelina has plenty of money, she could have been tested for any cancer cells 2 or 3 times a year and still come out ahead money wise. And it would be a far less drastic approach.

Her mom died of cancer, but what was her mom's lifestyle? Did she smoke, have a bad diet?

Most women won't be able to afford this option, elective double mastectomy followed up by reconstructive surgery. Now any "normal" woman whose mother and grandmother have died of breast cancer is reading this story and worrying even more about her future. It's like she's indirectly been given a death sentence because she can't have her currently healthy breasts removed. She's going to have to wait until the hammer drops and she's diagnosed, resigned to a fate she can't control because she's not rich. And could likely lead to her taking less proactive steps to improve her chances. "Well if I can't have my tits cut off there's no reason for clean living, it won't be enough to prevent it anyway." Talk about the media giving women a bad image of their own bodies! I agree with Maz, giving the impression that this sort of invasive and premature over reactive surgery empowers women is a farce. It does the opposite, making women afraid of their bodies.

Mutilating your body out of fear of a perceived future illness, in my mind, isn't clear thinking. It's fear driven paranoia. It's her body and she can do what she wants, but i'm not ready to exalt her as the patron saint of breast cancer for her decision. If her body does have a predispositon for cancer, will the cancer cells in her body just give up? Anytime we try to prevent nature from taking it's course, nature finds a way. Now instead of breast cancer, she may get colon cancer, or lymphoma, or throat cancer. All of which are as equally or more deadly than breast cancer.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 7:28:31 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 537,775
If you have a mutated gene, doesn't mean you WILL get breast or ovarian cancer however the chances can be very high. I don't believe there is an answer to this about whether her or anyone's decision to have a double mastectomy is right or wrong. Each case is different.

I would like to say though, that when you have watched a mother and 3 daughters die one by one from breast cancer, you might understand the 4th and 5th daughters decision to have a double mastectomy after finding out they both had the mutated gene. I certainly understand it.


Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:11:15 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
lafayettemister wrote:


Her mom died of cancer, but what was her mom's lifestyle? Did she smoke, have a bad diet?


Her mother, Marcheline Bertrand, was an actress/model and seemed to lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle. She struggled with ovarian cancer for 8 yrs before she finally died at age 56. Angelina's grandmother died at 45. AND... she has the BRCA gene. That's a lot of things against her chances to remain cancer free for life. Sure she could have taken a 'wait and see' approach until she's actually got cancer cells growing within her and then go for rounds of chemo, hope to go into remission and continue to be hypervigilant if she manages to catch it early but the stressors that come with all that are very real.

There's also the chance of something going misdiagnosed - especially if she has dense fibrous breasts that make mammograms more difficult to read. At least this gives her some peace of mind and that can be worth a lot on its own - to not have to worry - to not have to contemplate the accuracy of mammograms or whether this year is "the year" that she'll need to have chemo and deal with a serious health battle. Sure, other health issues can arise in anyone - but, damn - 87% is a scary stat.

Obviously she's not suggesting women rush out to get this done just because there's breast cancer in the family. But hey - it's her choice to have it done. Christina Applegate did the same thing a few yrs ago but with less media fanfare than this. It's obviously a personal choice, just as any elective surgery is - whether it's for cosmetic of preventative health reasons. In Angie's case she's watched the agony of seeing family members die and doesn't want to put her own family through the same thing.

I'm surprised people have issues with it. It's not like this is a bill to force all women with BRCA or familial histories to do this - she made the choice and then shared it with the public. No big deal. I doubt women will be storming their surgeons' office to get the same thing done on a whim. We're not children - we can take responsibility for our lifestyles and choices, and yes, even those options that we maybe can't afford, without indulging victimized tantrum-throwing lapses of logic because of it.


sprite
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 9:55:08 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,656
Location: My Tower, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Her mother, Marcheline Bertrand, was an actress/model and seemed to lead a reasonably healthy lifestyle. She struggled with ovarian cancer for 8 yrs before she finally died at age 56. Angelina's grandmother died at 45. AND... she has the BRCA gene. That's a lot of things against her chances to remain cancer free for life. Sure she could have taken a 'wait and see' approach until she's actually got cancer cells growing within her and then go for rounds of chemo, hope to go into remission and continue to be hypervigilant if she manages to catch it early but the stressors that come with all that are very real.

There's also the chance of something going misdiagnosed - especially if she has dense fibrous breasts that make mammograms more difficult to read. At least this gives her some peace of mind and that can be worth a lot on its own - to not have to worry - to not have to contemplate the accuracy of mammograms or whether this year is "the year" that she'll need to have chemo and deal with a serious health battle. Sure, other health issues can arise in anyone - but, damn - 87% is a scary stat.

Obviously she's not suggesting women rush out to get this done just because there's breast cancer in the family. But hey - it's her choice to have it done. Christina Applegate did the same thing a few yrs ago but with less media fanfare than this. It's obviously a personal choice, just as any elective surgery is - whether it's for cosmetic of preventative health reasons. In Angie's case she's watched the agony of seeing family members die and doesn't want to put her own family through the same thing.

I'm surprised people have issues with it. It's not like this is a bill to force all women with BRCA or familial histories to do this - she made the choice and then shared it with the public. No big deal. I doubt women will be storming their surgeons' office to get the same thing done on a whim. We're not children - we can take responsibility for our lifestyles and choices, and yes, even those options that we maybe can't afford, without indulging victimized tantrum-throwing lapses of logic because of it.


part of the issue here, is the personality. for some reason, people HATE Ms Jolie. they still blame her for 'breaking up America's perfect marriage of Brad and Jen'. I bet real money that, if Jennifer Aniston had come out and had the same thing done, people would be 100% behind her, but because it's Angie, it's a different reaction. ou bet i would do something similar. for those of you not aware of everything that goes hand in hand with treatment, a little information: .

chemotherapy is a poison. it kills cells. fact: treatment for cancer in the form of chemotherapy takes 10 years off your life. that's literal. if you would have normally lived to 80 and you've gone thru chemo, that number is reduced to 70. Twice in one life time, if it comes back and has to be treated again, it now become 60. that's why preventative measures are better than reactive. now, i'd had a normal chance of getting breast cancer would i have done this? no. 87% is NOT a normal chance, tho.

so, like i said, i applaud her decision. i'd have done the same.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, May 16, 2013 10:18:20 AM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 6,300
Location: West Coast
sprite wrote:


part of the issue here, is the personality. for some reason, people HATE Ms Jolie. they still blame her for 'breaking up America's perfect marriage of Brad and Jen'. I bet real money that, if Jennifer Aniston had come out and had the same thing done, people would be 100% behind her, but because it's Angie, it's a different reaction.


I totally agree and I just don't get it. I've always been Team Angelina. She does so much as far as Hollywood stars go with her UN humanitarian services, financial donations to various causes and disasters. She said once that she recognizes that she makes 'stupid amounts of money' for what she does and she's the first celeb to step up to the plate and dish out tens of millions of dollars for relief/charity causes and gets directly involved with her time and efforts. She raises her family quietly - tries to stay out of the general limelight. She is one of the few in Hollywood that will always get my total respect. If you look at this track record of what she's accomplished I don't understand how anyone can hate on her, other than just random jealousy.

So she broke up Brad and Jen. Big deal. That marriage was doomed way before Angelina showed up on the scene. If Jen hadn't been the uber-likeable golden girl from Friends, nobody would have cared either way.


Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.