Angelina Jolie gets double mastectomy

Last-12-Exit

I am not going to pretend I know anything about breast or orvarian cancers. I was surprised to hear about this only because she is only 37 years old. My wife is 33 with no breast cancer in her family. So she told me she has not yet been told to worry about mamograms yet.
I guess my question is when are women supposed to start checking for these cancers? Do insurance companies pay for preventitve procedures like this? If she wasn't "Angelina Jolie", would she be able to do this?

Jeanwah

I heard (by chance) that she has some rare gene that can cause cancer, that's why it was done.

gimmesometruth27

Jeanwah wrote:

I heard (by chance) that she has some rare gene that can cause cancer, that's why it was done.

her doctors said there was a >80% chance she was going to get breast cancer. the odds were not in her favor. breast cancer is nothing to play around with.

Cliffy6745

The op-ed said she had an 87% chance of cancer based on the gene and her family history with her Mom dying before 60. This procedure reduced it to something like less than 5%.

And no, a big portion of her point was that this type of treatment is not available for all women due to its costs, and it needs to be. Probably the most important point she made, which is going to get lost in the celebrity talk of "Angelina Jolie getting her breasts removed".

BinauralJam

This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

riotgrl

I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

Cliffy6745

BinauralJam wrote:

This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.

BinauralJam

Cliffy6745 wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.

i don't know. I'd be scared either way i think.

Jeanwah

riotgrl wrote:

I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.

Cliffy6745

BinauralJam wrote:

Cliffy6745 wrote:

BinauralJam wrote:

This seems to be an extreme reaction to a possible health risk. Letting Fear rule her decision making.

I work with a girl who has double FF's, her mother, grand mother and great grand mother all died of breast cancer. The insurance companies wouldn't cover a mammogram until she was 40, when she was 35 she started paying to have them done out of pocket, she's 45 now and so far so good.

But if you have the money and are capable of reducing an 87% chance of cancer to less than a 5% chance of cancer, wouldn't you?

The bigger issues is the second paragraph, which is hopefully what people will talk about with this situation.

i don't know. I'd be scared either way i think.

True, me too.

Cancer is the fucking worst.

riotgrl

Jeanwah wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.

Exactly what I thought when I read this. What's next? Or better question, who's next? I'm a huge believer in science but sometimes it scares me. How far are we going to go?

chadwick

the radio station I had on this morning said she chose to have her breasts removed because she holds a gene that gives her a 90% chance of having breast cancer. they said "she took action into her own hands" & had her breasts removed, saying it was a three month process

Jeanwah

riotgrl wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

riotgrl wrote:

I happened to run across this from one of the food blogs that I follow. Apparently, the company that does this genetic screening does so at huge costs to the individual and this is the only company that does it because they have patented their gene testing. No chance for a second opinion? Is this really the best our medical industry has to offer us women - die or cut off your breasts? Isn't there a third way?

http://bcaction.org/our-take-on-breast-cancer/gene-patenting/

Human gene patenting. Just the sound of it sounds so wrong.

Exactly what I thought when I read this. What's next? Or better question, who's next? I'm a huge believer in science but sometimes it scares me. How far are we going to go?

I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

norm

Jeanwah wrote:

I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one

chadwick

why couldn't she get mammograms every month & if & when cancer shows up then she acts on it. I personally think it is a pretty wild decision but what the hell do I know

hedonist

Jeanwah wrote:

I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

I imagine - hell, I hope - most women would, or could. It's too drastic a step not to.

Someone in my extended family had this done earlier this year, after initially having a lumpectomy. Given that her mother's been fighting breast cancer for years, she felt it was her best option...the least risky gamble.

chadwick

will jolie have artificial breasts added or is she calling it good?

Cliffy6745

chadwick wrote:

will jolie have artificial breasts added or is she calling it good?

She got some sort of implants as part of the process

riotgrl

norm wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one

True, she is at a greater risk but where are the alternatives? Did she try other things first? Genetic predisposition "could" be mitigated by environmental changes including diet. Maybe she tried those things and chose this alternative. But my guess is that she knew nothing of the environmental changes she could make that might help from triggering her genetic marker.

Last-12-Exit

So are women supposed to begin the mammograms at 40? Is that a doctor recomendation or an insurance company mandate?

norm

riotgrl wrote:

norm wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I wonder if Jolie got a second opinion, or is she even allowed, since only one company offers this gene patent? There would be no way to compare without having options.

her mother died from breast cancer at 56...combine that with the positive result of the gene, she made a tough choice but i think a well informed one

True, she is at a greater risk but where are the alternatives? Did she try other things first? Genetic predisposition "could" be mitigated by environmental changes including diet. Maybe she tried those things and chose this alternative. But my guess is that she knew nothing of the environmental changes she could make that might help from triggering her genetic marker.

obviously i/we have no idea all that she might have tried so i'm just going by the assumption that, for her, this was the best route...in my experience, no matter you try, cancer will find a way...hell, she could still get breast cancer even without breasts...sounds strange, but i've seen it happen