Angelina Jolie undergoes double mastectomy

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by sundog925, May 14, 2013.

  1. sundog925 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    #1
    So I heard about this a couple days ago, and it seems last night/this morning, its all over the news. Apparently, she chose to have the surgery after learning that she carries the "faulty" BRCA1 gene which ballooned her chance of developing breast cancer by 87%. It also increases a woman's risk of ovarian cancer by 50%. Her mother passed from ovarian cancer.

    No wonder she all but disappeared for awhile.

    Do you feel like such a life altering preventative procedure like this is worth it? Or is science just hooey and she should not of done it and essentially waited and took a chance?

    Men, think about your precious twins down there! Would you take a chance on 87%???

    source CNN: "I decided to be proactive." -Angelina Jolie
     
  2. rovex macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
  3. applesith macrumors 68030

    applesith

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Manhattan
    #3
    If she did go from 87% to 5%, then yes it's worth it. Why would you want to live a short life just to keep breasts?

    If it's breasts or testicles, you can get implants as replacements if you are so concerned about appearances.
     
  4. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #4

    Really? :rolleyes:
     
  5. sundog925 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    #5
    They're essentially the male equivalent of femininity.
     
  6. eawmp1 macrumors 601

    eawmp1

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    FL
    #6
    No, that would be your bank balance. :p

    Breasts, once they've fulfilled their biological function (feeding babies) are biologically a liability. Testicles are not visible, and don't attract mates (so there goes your analogy). They do produce testosterone through the life of the male. And luckily as we age the likelihood of testicular cancer decreases, whereas in women the incidence of breast cancer increased. And as breast cancer is far less curable than testicular cancer, I'd say she made the right choice.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    No, they are not. A woman can have a baby without having breasts. A man can not father a child without testicles.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Well, in sperm could saved from before removal for artificial insemination later, like Lance Armstrong. But yes, I think you're on the right track saying that breasts=femininity, testicles=masculinity is a strained analogy at best.
     
  9. sundog925 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2011
    #9
    You guys are talking semantics.

    I'm saying, breasts are to women what balls are to guys.

    Functionality aside, I'm talking pure emotion.
     
  10. P-Worm macrumors 68020

    P-Worm

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #10
    It seems like you could get implants to have the risk reduction and the looks as well.

    P-Worm
     
  11. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #11
    The statistics here are actually rather vague: does it mean that her chances of developing the cancer are 5% + 87% of 5%? Surely it can't mean that 87% of women with that gene will get cancer? That's an awfully high percentage.
     
  12. Raid macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #12
    Really with such a radical procedure, and something that can deeply impact ones self image (in many ways), I'm sure she did not do this lightly. Whatever her reason I wish her the best and won't bother with speculation. She's still a remarkable woman in my books.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    Very brave of her to do this in such a public way.

    I'm seeing all kinds of stories on how her decision will help save lives. Really? How many women have a spare $3,000 lying around for genetic testing? I'm pretty sure their insurance would not cover an elective mastectomy and reconstructive surgery.
     
  14. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #14
    It is highly likely that 87% of women with that allele ("version" of BRCA1 for the layman) will get breast cancer, that is not uncommon.
    But lets make it clear, all people have BRCA1. I hate it when the media try to explain something they clearly don't understand, and just increase the confusion instead.. Ask an expert please!

    And the 5% just refers to the chance of getting cancer when having that allele and having had a double mastectomy performed.

    I personally think it is an extremely good thing that she does this, as it puts focus on breast cancer! After all, she is a role model for many women.


    It won't make much of a difference now, but in 10 years when you can go to your doctor and order your genome sequenced and checked for 100$, then it will certainly be important, that people know they can do it. But even now, spending a few 1000$ on getting to know if you have faulty genes, is a small investment for an extended life, right?
     
  15. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #15
    Does the 87% chance mean 87% developing breast cancer before a certain age or before death? I wonder what the curve looks like of percent chance compared to age.
     
  16. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16

    My point was that this isn't in reach of most women, not that the test isn't a good idea.
     
  17. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #17
    The 87% increase number doesn't seem to jive with this information from ABC.
    From 12% to 60%... that would be a 500% increase in likelihood!

     
  18. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #18
    You want to talk full emotion? Here is full emotion, straightforward and blunt.

    Would you take the chance of 87% going down to 5% if it means being able to have that much longer of a life with your children and family? Would you throw away the chance to see your offspring grow up just to keep your bits?

    If so, your dedication to and appreciation of family leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

    BL.
     
  19. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    The doctors estimating her risk probably took into account that her mother died of breast cancer and other elements of family/personal medical history.
     
  20. steve knight macrumors 68020

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #20
    Men's Rights Activist group are all pissed off cause they think they own every woman's body. nothing like a bunch of woman haters who would have trouble paying someone to have sex with them giving woman advice.
     
  21. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #21
    I'd say that role goes more to my wang than anything.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #22
    tmw
     
  23. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    If that's what you like to call it. Seems a bit extreme to me.
     

Share This Page