mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) I can't even understand this discussion. Boobs aren't important. Life is. And reconstructive surgery has been advanced so greatly... The treatment options aren't that great when you have that gene. And who knows if treatments will improve? Most women would not take that gamble. I'm no fan of Angelina Jolie, but she obviously made the correct decision, after doctor's recommendations, for herself and her family. im a cancer doctor so let me tell you how my patient see it. They understand that "its just breasts". but it is in part identity. Many patients feel very embarrassed when the cry because they lose their hair or whatever, they feel "shallow". I tell them, have you ever got a nice new hair cut; its graet but you feel weird for a while? Well this isnt a nice new haircut. you look different, its not because you wanted it. Its upsetting because physicality is part of our identity. Most people adapt really well. But the psychology is not just about sexuality or "how I look". Its also the identity thing. now the people who claim no one will want to watch her now are just friggin idiots. breast cancer it usually occurs as one cancer in one breast or another. If you breast cancer in both breasts its two separate unrelated cancers. (im excepting metastasis to the opposite breast which is rare and indicated stage IV disease). For most women if they get breast cancer, their risk in the other breast is the same as if they never had one in the first breast. For BRCA patients, the risk for breast cancer and/or ovarian ca is so high its nearly guarenteed. And there is a high likelihood of a new breast cancer in the other breast because the same defective cellular mechanisms are present in those cells too. However you are right that you can wait until it happens and then just treat. The issue if the cancer are more virulant is evolving Also its not about treatment options per se; when these women get breast cancer they have the same options as everyone. its just their RISK is extraordinarily high, nearly guarenteed. Will there be other preventatives? Possibilily. But remember everything comes at a price. you literally can kill yourself with water intoxication if you drink too much water. So the preventatives certainly have side effects. Its a risk benefit ratio and profile assessment. Those looking for the silver bullet are being fed this pablum by press and the american health industry (including the press that covers everything as "the breakthrough miracle" of the month). Edited May 16, 2013 by mostlylurker Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) I can't even understand this discussion. Boobs aren't important. Life is. And reconstructive surgery has been advanced so greatly... The treatment options aren't that great when you have that gene. And who knows if treatments will improve? Most women would not take that gamble. I'm no fan of Angelina Jolie, but she obviously made the correct decision, after doctor's recommendations, for herself and her family. who know if treatment will improve? I do. My husband was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma (sp?) -- by the time he finished his course of treatment, AMGEN a company that designs and manufactures cell development boosters, improved the medication that he was on such that he only had to give himself a shot every two weeks rather than once a day. This enabled him to undergo chemo on a regular basis. During the course of his follow up -- 5 years later, they had dedveloped even better and more effective treatment protocols. He is now 19 years in remission. Most women would not take that gamble. I would. I guess I see it this way: why go through such a radical preventive measure now, when this can be done later -- if and when the development of cancer occurs -- if it comes to that? Boobs aren't important I find many things wrong with this statement, not the least of which it is the fact that it is incredibily dismissive and lacks empathy. How do you define important? If you are talking the difference between a size 34B as opposed to a 34D maybe that is not important. But I have to agree with MostlyLurker -- our bodies and all of our body parts are important and part of our identity as individuals. Right or wrong, a woman looking at herself in the mirror after undergoing such a radical procedure is probably going to suffer from such a shitty self image such that telling her that "boobs aren't important" is not going to help. (On a more cynical note, I also note that if boobs weren't important, alot of plastic surgeons would be financially strapped.) *is it just me or is it getting a little warm in here?* Edited May 16, 2013 by tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Baby Doll 77 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 I was going to respond, but screw it, I don't have time. Nothing I wrote was dismissive or lacked empathy, other than that I think vanity over health is pretty stupid. I give credit to AJ for putting her children first. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
branchop 319 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 I was going to respond, but screw it, I don't have time. Nothing I wrote was dismissive or lacked empathy, other than that I think vanity over health is pretty stupid. I give credit to AJ for putting her children first. I agree with you, in the long run anything you are vain about, hair eye color, and boobs among others, can easily be altered, especially with the bank roll Angelina has. And she admitted to having implants put in, which, in theory, is a vain thing to do. Before I step back through the gates of hell (and wait for it, I will) I think the main argument is knowing your genetic makeup: would you wait for the cancer to start to worry about treatment or do everything to prevent it from happening. Neither one of these is a wrong answer. It is a matter of personal preference, faith in science and God, and coming to your own conclusion. Two people can come to the opposite conclusion and they are both right. My first thought: She doesn't have the gene. *Whew! It is getting HOT!* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
princess 1,711 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 I have no idea how accurate this article is, but thought it was interesting based upon our discussions here.... EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion) Thursday, May 16, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent. To read the entire article, click here. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
princess 1,711 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 Angelina Jolie Covers 'Time' Magazine After Mastectomy | angelina jolie covers time magazine after mastectomy - Photo Gallery | Just Jared Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 I have no idea how accurate this article is, but thought it was interesting based upon our discussions here.... EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion) Thursday, May 16, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent. To read the entire article, click here. It looks as though we may not burn afterall. I can hear it now: the ends justifies the means in this case!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted May 16, 2013 Angelina Jolie Covers 'Time' Magazine After Mastectomy | angelina jolie covers time magazine after mastectomy - Photo Gallery | Just Jared Interesting that she has the perfect pic already to go. *fans self as room seems to be getting cooler* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 I was going to respond, but screw it, I don't have time. Nothing I wrote was dismissive or lacked empathy, other than that I think vanity over health is pretty stupid. I give credit to AJ for putting her children first.frankly she could have put herself first and that would just as fine too. FWIW I dont think you were dismissive or lacked empathy. but my point really was that like most things what the public gets over an issue (medical, legal, policy etc etc) usually is a manifestation of a little learning being a dangerous thing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 yeah an "opinion" is an expose? 'So much bs in so called "natural" health news. they often claim some special insight so-called corporate medicine is denying but are very happy to circulate b.s. claims that link them with sound medical institutions for credibility (see the confederate hopkins claim regarding sugar and cancer that is a facebook favorite). Do you know what doctors call natural therapies when they treat disease? Medicine. I have no idea how accurate this article is, but thought it was interesting based upon our discussions here.... EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion) Thursday, May 16, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger Editor of NaturalNews.com (NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent. To read the entire article, click here. It looks as though we may not burn afterall. I can hear it now: the ends justifies the means in this case!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 Do you know what doctors call natural therapies when they treat disease? Medicine. I like that -- and its so true. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoyaheel 1,874 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 I was (and remain) cynical, but at the same time - I told my husband years ago I would do the same thing! If I had a close family history and BRCA, I'd have a mastectomy in a heartbeat. But that's because I hate my boobs (and I've already had a reduction, then gained weight - lost weight, boobs still big again ) I don't feel about my boobs the way that many women do. But I would never comment on the medical choices another person makes. BUT when that person is Angelina Jolie, and she makes the announcement in the NYfreakingTimes, I feel ok with myself for questioning her motives. How many women have the resources to make the kinds of choices she made? So glad I'm not alone in that hand basket to hell ;-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
branchop 319 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 So glad I'm not alone in that hand basket to hell ;-) Hoya - I scooted over a little just for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kappy22 1 Report post Posted May 17, 2013 If being cynical about Jolie's motives sends one to hell ~ make room for one more in the basket please! I'm not questioning having the procedure done. I'm questioning the way she is going about using it as a PR move. Jolie has shown that everything she does is about PR. And I don't want to hear that she has raised awareness about this as if people haven't already known about. Christina Applegate came out about it years ago. Some how some way, Jolie is getting something out of this or she wouldn't go public with it. When she has her ovaries removed and has to deal with the havoc the change in hormones causes to her body, then just maybe I might give in a little. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kappy22 1 Report post Posted May 18, 2013 Isn't World War Z about to come out? More convenient timing, eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
annabeast 24 Report post Posted May 19, 2013 Wow, just came in on this, and I am in TOTAL agreement with everyone who is expressing skepticism in her motives. It was my first thought... I even wondered if she really just wanted a boob job and is using this to garner sympathy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 22, 2013 yeah they're baaaack. This time they're not only highly sexual but so in love he wont do sex scenes with others! Because that is clearly the sign of a healthy and strong, respectful relationship. :insert liz lemon massive eye roll here: "Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie’s daughter, 8-year-old Zahara, is in those precious pre-teen years when it is firmly believed that all boys have cooties, and the thought of mom and dad smooching is totally cringe-worthy. Papa Brad opens up in the June/July issue of Esquire about his eldest daughter’s disdain for her parents’ public displays of affection, telling the mag, "Once I walked in and Angie was standing there and Zahara walked up and said, 'Daddy, you're not going to start making out with Mommy again, are you?' And it's like that." And while the hot Hollywood couple may lock lips at home (much to their daughter's dismay), the heartthrob has placed a self-imposed ban on filming sex scenes with other women at work, so it looks like the steamy scenes will continue to take place at home. Sorry, Zahara! Check out the vid to hear more about how Brad avoids hot scenes in his film projects out of respect for Angelina!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
princess 1,711 Report post Posted May 22, 2013 yeah they're baaaack. This time they're not only highly sexual but so in love he wont do sex scenes with others! Because that is clearly the sign of a healthy and strong, respectful relationship. :insert liz lemon massive eye roll here: Could not have said better myself!! Except maybe to add the actual for ya! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
branchop 319 Report post Posted May 22, 2013 yeah they're baaaack. This time they're not only highly sexual but so in love he wont do sex scenes with others! Because that is clearly the sign of a healthy and strong, respectful relationship. :insert liz lemon massive eye roll here: You don't think the "no sex scenes" rule has anything to do with the rumors of his horrible hygiene, and that while his buddy George still has the ladies swooning, him, not so much? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
fykeylicious 1,099 Report post Posted May 22, 2013 I am just SO BORED by these two. Every photo of them, every article about them - YAWN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hoyaheel 1,874 Report post Posted May 23, 2013 I actually love how the bit in Page Six today about Jolie is actually a dig at NBC for firing Ann Curry Jolie shuns TV Last Updated: 12:12 AM, May 23, 2013 Posted: 12:04 AM, May 23, 2013 Not even Ann Curry could curry favor with Angelina Jolie for an interview with the actress about her voluntary double mastectomy. We hear NBC pushed the network news correspondent to get the first television chat with Jolie, following her shocking announcement last week that she’d had the surgery. But Jolie’s turned down Curry, and every other news outlet, for now. The NBC journalist had a long-standing relationship with Jolie and Brad Pitt, having interviewed them several times. After Curry was fired from the “Today” show last year, Jolie made it known that she wouldn’t speak with anyone else at the network. NBC declined to comment last night. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
l1zz1e 0 Report post Posted May 23, 2013 too bad he couldn't have shown the same respect for JA. I just read something a few days ago where he was negatively comparing that marriage to the current one. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyler 408 Report post Posted May 23, 2013 too bad he couldn't have shown the same respect for JA. I just read something a few days ago where he was negatively comparing that marriage to the current one. http://now.msn.com/brad-pitt-slams-jennife...w?ocid=ansnowex Well, I gues fair is fair since she could be quiet about thier marriage either. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 24, 2013 yeah they're baaaack. This time they're not only highly sexual but so in love he wont do sex scenes with others! Because that is clearly the sign of a healthy and strong, respectful relationship. :insert liz lemon massive eye roll here: Could not have said better myself!! Except maybe to add the actual for ya! ta princess! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mostlylurker 2 Report post Posted May 24, 2013 too bad he couldn't have shown the same respect for JA. I just read something a few days ago where he was negatively comparing that marriage to the current one.its not respect for AJ. he's whipped. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
