I don't know if prevents cancer or what but a lot of wives keep their husband's balls in their purses.
Brave
- Thread starter Walter
- Start date
all the more power to her. obviously she will feel better knowing she did something to prevent cancer,
as there is not much else to do to prevent it.
a friend of mine had one cancerous breast, then about a year later, had the other removed so she could
settle down and stop worrying about getting it again.
If what she had done makes her feel more content, then she did the right thing, she seems like a strong
woman, has had her children, she can wear bras that are designed for just such a person, any size she
likes, live on.
absolutely, well said.
the gene they found made her chances of developing cancer 'very high', removing her breasts does nothing to
alter her life, she can live a healthy life, and with the right bras, no one will ever see any difference
in her body.
each to his/her own.
as there is not much else to do to prevent it.
a friend of mine had one cancerous breast, then about a year later, had the other removed so she could
settle down and stop worrying about getting it again.
If what she had done makes her feel more content, then she did the right thing, she seems like a strong
woman, has had her children, she can wear bras that are designed for just such a person, any size she
likes, live on.
absolutely, well said.
the gene they found made her chances of developing cancer 'very high', removing her breasts does nothing to
alter her life, she can live a healthy life, and with the right bras, no one will ever see any difference
in her body.
each to his/her own.
87% is some pretty steep odds.
I get bits sliced off of me all the time on lower odds than that thanks to my history with melanoma.
Agreed and obviously she has the support of numb nuts... which is great. I bet if you asked any man whose wife died from BC would he want her back sans boobs... they would of course say yes.
She is young though, it's a big step at that age especially when one relies on one's looks to make the millions. It' not just your average body, it's a multi-million dollar body
Plus, she's never been 'sans boobs'. She didn't have the style of mastectomy you'd have from cancer. They didn't need to take the skin. They preserved everything but the breast tissue.
I'm pretty sure you are... you'd need testosterone if you had them gone, unlike breasts.
Personally I think its rather stupid. And Karrie, if you have melanoma that's way different than thinking you might get melanoma and decide to start cutting things off.
Angelina Jolie could develop lung cancer tomorrow, or heart disease, should she opt for a lung transplant or maybe a triple bypass. Sorry, I'll wait until I get a disease before I opt for drastic surgery.
In addition to my rather insenstive post I might add that Jolie can afford to pay for the medical treatment she gets. I'm guessing that average Americans can't afford such a decision. Perhaps even Canadians. Wouldn't a double Masectomy without the presence of cancer be considered elective?
Angelina Jolie could develop lung cancer tomorrow, or heart disease, should she opt for a lung transplant or maybe a triple bypass. Sorry, I'll wait until I get a disease before I opt for drastic surgery.
In addition to my rather insenstive post I might add that Jolie can afford to pay for the medical treatment she gets. I'm guessing that average Americans can't afford such a decision. Perhaps even Canadians. Wouldn't a double Masectomy without the presence of cancer be considered elective?
My chances of a recurrence of melanoma are lower than 87%, but they still biopsy every mole that looks at them wrong because of it.
And no, in the presence of the faulty gene, and an 87% chance of cancer, I don't think the procedure would be considered simply elective. It would be considered preventative, which is viewed differently in our health care system. The reconstruction however might have been seen as elective.
In BC here it is not elective if you carry the gene. Neither is reconstruction, all is paid for by medicare. Any time you see an over 80% chance of Cancer there is no question about surgery IMO.
My wife has not yet had reconstruction. She had over a year of fighting infection from the removal so it may never happen.
How the healthcare system views it and how the HMO's view may well be two different things.
I still can't agree with such a decision. Never mind that it is a very big procedure, based on a the presumption of a disease that has not yet or may not occur.
As to your melanoma, you were already diagnosed so that is a different ball game.
Statistics currently place me at 20% or less risk of recurrent melanoma. But they will continue to slice and dice. Because 20%, when there's a history, a marker, a reason.... 20% is terrifyingly high. 87% would be unthinkable. And believe you me, that gene is as much a marker as my wonky mole was.
Oh, those horrible Americans!
Look on the bright side. Where would rich Canadians go for their medical care if you didn't have a country right next door with platinum-quality care for those who got the bucks?
Rich people deserve medical care too.
Actually, I'm not begrudging Americans. I like the United States quite a lot. And I agree, our healthcare system needs to be fixed, not that yours doesn't. What I'm addressing is the choice have a surgery like this and I'm not sure that double masectomy is covered under our healthcare system without the presence of cancer. In fact I'm not sure the genetic testing is done without cost. The Utopians like to say we have universal healthcare, but we really don't.
Well, let's call it "universal-ish," shall we?
Folks as can pay will always get the best. Don't see that changing.
I have just about grown up with our health care system. I got married and we have two children who have grown up with the system, and now they both have children of their own. Our health care system has taken care of all of our medical needs without any problems, and there have been six or eight broken bones, plus all the usual family medical care needs, all of which have been handled without a question over more than forty five years. As far as I'm concerned, our system is as good as anyone's We haven't had Angelina's problem but if we did, I'm sure it could be handled without it costing us what her's did.
Last edited:
Provided you don't have to wait six weeks for an MRI or two months for a Cat Scan. I just watched a friend go through a very long politicized wait before being diagnosed. The outlook is not good, but the wait time from the first doctors visit to getting a diagnosis was nothing short of disgusting. Maybe it's Ontario, maybe BC is better, but short of a broken bone, some stitches there is a hell of a lot of room for improvement.