Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: The ultimate CW buy in? page 2

  1. #11
    merryish's Avatar
    merryish is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    158
    Shop Now
    Just wanted to note that lungs are necessary for life; breasts are not. There's nothing I can do with breasts that I can't do without them.

    Most women would rather ditch them than die of cancer; if I knew, as this woman did, that my chances of dying of breast cancer were extremely high, I'd have both of mine off in a heartbeat.

  2. #12
    drjoyous's Avatar
    drjoyous is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    south lake tahoe, california
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by cori93437 View Post
    With the gene mutation that she has her breasts are essentially ticking time bombs... not average breasts with the average chance of getting cancer.
    That gene mutation makes this a very different matter than an average woman getting breasts removed as a preventative.

    If I was her I would do exactly the same thing.
    It's a very personal decision.

    I really don't think that you have the right to judge the decision of a person who has that confirmed genetic mutation, and who has already watched the other women in her family die as a result of it because they waited to be diagnosed with the cancer then fought the cancer with tradition methods.

    She is choosing a different path is all, one that should provide a longer life outcome with less illness.
    Ultimately the path that she is choosing is attempting to avoid paying any money to the cancer industry.
    She will have her breasts removed and hopefully avoid all other treatments.
    A single procedure is not more profitable than letting her get cancer and treating her repeatedly for years.

    Feel free to rant.
    I'll feel free to think that your rant is ridiculous.

    There is no amount of clean healthy living that would keep that gene mutation from causing cancer in her at some point, most likely while she is still young trying to raise a family.
    That gene mutation is a serious problem for the women who have it.
    +10000

  3. #13
    catholicchick's Avatar
    catholicchick is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    100
    Here's the problem that no one is talking about - mastectomies don't equate to no breast cancer. My step mother had breast cancer and a mastectomy. 6 years later the cancer came back in the SAME breast. She did not survive the cancer the second time once it metastasized. I think I would think very seriously of cutting my breasts off prior to getting the news I have cancer.

    Genes mutate all the time, think flu season, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get the flu. Most of us have done enough reading and research on this site to realize that we have to be proactive in what we put in our mouths and what we put our bodies through to stay as healthy as possible to avoid sickness and diseases.
    Height - 5'8"
    SW - 191
    CW - 162
    GW - 155

    Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly. Leave the rest to God.

  4. #14
    interzone's Avatar
    interzone is offline Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by catholicchick View Post
    Genes mutate all the time, think flu season, but it doesn't necessarily mean you are going to get the flu. Most of us have done enough reading and research on this site to realize that we have to be proactive in what we put in our mouths and what we put our bodies through to stay as healthy as possible to avoid sickness and diseases.
    I'm surprised it took this long for someone to post some derivative of "eating Primal means, like, no disease ever man! Cavemen didn't get cancer/AIDS/diabetes/pneumonia".

    Your statement above really demonstates true ignorance about human genetics and the association of particular mutations with diseases.

    If I had genetic testing done that indicated a predisposition to breast and/or ovarian cancer, those suckers would gone as soon as I finished having kids.

  5. #15
    Loneketo's Avatar
    Loneketo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by interzone View Post
    I'm surprised it took this long for someone to post some derivative of "eating Primal means, like, no disease ever man! Cavemen didn't get cancer/AIDS/diabetes/pneumonia".

    Your statement above really demonstates true ignorance about human genetics and the association of particular mutations with diseases.

    If I had genetic testing done that indicated a predisposition to breast and/or ovarian cancer, those suckers would gone as soon as I finished having kids.
    And you are being rather ignorant concerning the impact proper lifestyle can have on prevention of everything. If you believe the fact that a certain gene mutation automatically requires a removal of a body part because your absolutely certain that you will get it, and because your doctor reccomends it without the slightest thought of a different approach that has the ability to prevent the problem, then that's no better than what she suggested. We can go back and forth calling each other ignorant, but we are all being ignorant by not considering the other's side, so it's better to reasonablly debate then just say "ignorant."

  6. #16
    Loneketo's Avatar
    Loneketo is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    US
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by interzone View Post
    I'm surprised it took this long for someone to post some derivative of "eating Primal means, like, no disease ever man! Cavemen didn't get cancer/AIDS/diabetes/pneumonia".

    Your statement above really demonstates true ignorance about human genetics and the association of particular mutations with diseases.

    If I had genetic testing done that indicated a predisposition to breast and/or ovarian cancer, those suckers would gone as soon as I finished having kids.
    And you are being rather ignorant concerning the impact proper lifestyle can have on prevention of everything. If you believe the fact that a certain gene mutation automatically requires a removal of a body part because your absolutely certain that you will get it, and because your doctor reccomends it without the slightest thought of a different approach that has the ability to prevent the problem, then that's no better than what she suggested. We can go back and forth calling each other ignorant, but we are all being ignorant by not considering the other's side, so it's better to reasonablly debate then just say "ignorant."

    Genes are not the be all end all, determining your life. If you limit yourself to saying I have no choice "because of my genes" we'll, I don't know what else to say to such static decision.
    Last edited by Loneketo; 12-13-2012 at 07:53 PM.

  7. #17
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,090
    I think it is a radical step, but it's also her decision, and as Alex Good points out, she can have reconstructive surgery to boot -- thus basically replacing the breasts that she has. and, she can choose the size/shape of them, which is an added bonus.

    And, seeing as I'm not in her shoes, I can't say what I would do. Many of my clients over the years have asked me the opinion on the procedure after they were diagnosed with cancer, and I mostly posit ideas: it's your body, and you will choose what is right; male doctors might push one direction, without having the proper bedside manner about it, so recognize that particular humanity, and try to take it out of the equation -- dont' do anything because he says so, but also don't avoid it because he doesnt' seem to understand or care about the emotional side of the idea of *cutting off yoru breasts*.

    THis latter one is important because breasts are signifiers -- very important aspects of female beauty. I love/adore my breasts. I really, really, really am attached to them. I am very emotional about them. They are really important to my self identity. And, they did nourish my son for 3 years -- which is no small thing.

    Would I be fine without them? Yes. Would I get reconstructions? Probably. Would I be happy with the reconstruction? I have no idea -- probably.

    But it would still be a BIG emotional decision to cut them off -- whether I had cancer, or whether I had the gene for it or whatever. I don't imagine that this young woman had an easy go of choosing this, or was looking forward to the major surgery that it is.

  8. #18
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Approximately 60% of women with the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations will get breast cancer. 15-40% will get ovarian cancer. We're not talking a minor possibility here.
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  9. #19
    EagleRiverDee's Avatar
    EagleRiverDee is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Eagle River, Alaska
    Posts
    673
    Honestly I look at this as *such* a personal decision that I guess I don't understand why people would judge it. The breast cancer gene, if you have it, pretty much guarantees you will get breast cancer. Young. And once you've had cancer, it has a tendency to recur. The treatment for breast cancer often involves a mastectomy anyway, as well as radiation and chemotherapy. My mother and my grandmother had breast cancer. The cancer returned in my grandmother after she had a mastectomy and she died. My mother is a survivor- so far. I watched my mom shrink from 135 lbs to 100 lbs as she underwent chemotherapy. And I've heard her tell me (and mean it) that if she gets cancer again she'll choose to die rather than undergo chemo for a second time. Frankly if a person KNOWS they are going to get cancer, and they'd rather have just the mastectomy rather than a mastectomy + the illness that goes with radiation and/or chemo I could definitely understand that. Regardless I wouldn't inject my pompous disagreement into what amounts to an incredibly personal and difficult decision. I can assure you that no woman just decides to get a double mastectomy. A lot of thought goes into it, and they do it to save their own lives and to be there for their husbands and their children. No one wants to be mutilated. Imagine having that as your choice. Mutilated and alive, or not mutilated and dead. That's what a woman with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation has.

  10. #20
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,090
    while she is at it, she might consider egg harvesting, too. just in case anything happens and infertility results (a common side effect of cancer treatment, since she could get it anyway -- even with breasts removed). Just to be extra safe, assuming she wants children.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •