Unnecessary Mutilation? Angelina Jolie and Pre-Cancer Breast Removal
Angelina Jolie has publicly revealed her decision to have her breasts removed in a double mastectomy (and then replaced with reconstructive implants) because she feared that her genetic makeup would eventually give her the fatal breast cancer that killed her mother. This move, and the public reaction and media circus surrounding it, is controversial. Angelina Jolie’s editorial in the NYTimes on her medical procedure:
[...] 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.
Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.
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. I started with the breasts, as my risk of breast cancer is higher than my risk of ovarian cancer, and the surgery is more complex.
On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this private and to carry on with my work.
But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.
My own process began on Feb. 2 with a procedure known as a “nipple delay,” which rules out disease in the breast ducts behind the nipple and draws extra blood flow to the area. This causes some pain and a lot of bruising, but it increases the chance of saving the nipple.
Two weeks later I had the major surgery, where the breast tissue is removed and temporary fillers are put in place. The operation can take eight hours. You wake up with drain tubes and expanders in your breasts. It does feel like a scene out of a science-fiction film. But days after surgery you can be back to a normal life.
Nine weeks later, the final surgery is completed with the reconstruction of the breasts with an implant. There have been many advances in this procedure in the last few years, and the results can be beautiful. [...]
Source: NYTimes.com
Questions to consider:
Is removing body parts in a bid to stave off potential future issues unnecessary mutilation?
Is this not ’pre-crime’, but ’pre-cancer’?
What else would or could you remove from a healthy body ’just in case’?
Why are options such as natural alternatives not receiving the publicity that total removal does?
How might this influential woman’s surgery, and media attention, affect women and girls and their views on health and natural medical options?
The following video examines the issue:
"Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and Robert Scott Bell talk about how Angelina Jolie refuses to empower women with real choices about cancer prevention and instead wants to corral women into a "cancer industry meat grinder" that mutilates and poisons women with surgery, chemotherapy and radiation." (TheHealthRanger)
By Red Ice Creations
