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.This is a nicely written piece conveying the woman's courage and sensitivity. She has many children and her own mother died of cancer.
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.
The piece is, however, marred by one sentence (and I would like to know the details of what lies behind this intrusion):
I acknowledge that there are many wonderful holistic doctors working on alternatives to surgery.To what extent did Jolie pursue these alternatives? Does she credit the work of these "wonderful holistic doctors" or is that expression crafted to acknowledge the wonderfulness of the individuals — who might be well-meaning and socially pleasant — without saying that their treatments are any help at all? I note that she says these wonderful folk are "working on alternatives," not that they have any.
Did someone push Jolie to go at least that far, to smile in the direction of alternative medicine? Maybe she thought that her wan acknowledgement — alongside her own dramatic choice of the surgery — is saying (in so many words) to any sensible reader that the "holistic doctors" are a dangerous distraction. But I don't think people are that good at picking up inferences. Those who want to believe in alternative medicine are already weak on science and strong on wishfulness. I suspect that they will read that sentence and think Angelina Jolie thinks holistic doctors are wonderful. That sentence is a shiny light of hope amidst the scary — scene out of a science-fiction film — images of surgery.
Jolie deserves admiration for her bravery and her smart choice, both in getting the surgery and telling us about it. Perhaps as time goes on, she'll say more about the meaning and value of science and its alternatives. She is giving a beautiful performance in the theater of public education, and she has a fabulous opportunity to deliver a profound message that will reach the very people who most need to hear it.
Posts
77 comments:
She can afford the reconstruction surgery. It's been a year I should do a follow-up, I'm suppose to go every six months for an ultra-sound because of my own risk factors. And yes, I'm about her age.
No reason for a Double Mastectomy.
Insane.
An intelligent young single lady (about 38) who attends our church with her parents recently was diagnosed with breast cancer in one breast, so she followed her doctor's advice and had both breasts removed.
That one still puzzles me.
Yes, following up on Renee's comment. My wife's mother died of breast cancer and she had genetic testing done (positive result, fortunately). As we understood it, the double mastectomy option was for peace of mind only. There's no evidence it reduces risk.
"To what extent did Jolie pursue these alternatives? Does she credit the work of these "wonderful holistic doctors" or is that expression crafted to acknowledge the wonderfulness of the individuals — who might be well-meaning and socially pleasant — without saying that their treatments are any help at all? I note that she says these wonderful folk are "working on alternatives," not that they have any."
That's because they don't. The definition of "holistic medicine" sounds wonderful, but the actual practice of it tends towards the uproven at best, outright quackery at worst.
She probably had a lot of new agers or "Medicine='Big Pharma'=Bad" goofballs talking in her ear. That's probably why she made the nod towards it.
I don't know if the preventative treatment was extreme - maybe Pogo can sound off here, but I'm completely unfamiliar with pre-emptive mastectomy - but at least she accepted modern medical science in assessing her genetic risk and didn't go all fruit-loop in choosing her treatment.
Whoops, poor language in the last sentence. Edit: "I don't kow if the preventative treatment was or wasn't extreme." I.e. I personally think it sounds extreme, but I need a surgeon - yes, a genuine, evidence-based medical doctor - to expound on the risks/benefits and when the standard of care would recommend such drastic action or not. I don't know if such practice is indeed accepted and recommended, or if it's a deviation from the standards.
I'll say this: If a surgeon consented to it, it can't be that dramatic of a departure from the standard of care, right? Pogo, or any other doctors reading this, is that right?
It's Hollywood, California. No shortage of new-agers and whackos suggesting weird stuff.
Those who want to believe in alternative medicine are already weak on science and strong on wishfulness.
Amen.
Especially shamanistic homeopathy.
Cancer don't play.
One of my best friends from HS got stomach cancer at 48. Aggressive treatment and he's getting better.
My next-door-neighbor had her first child at 38 and was diagnosed with breast cancer 2 years later. Within a week of the diagnosis, she had both breasts removed. 2 years later (today), she's playing with her son and getting him ready for school next year.
My first colonoscopy (TMI?), the doc found 11 polyps. Biopsies showed they were benign, but because I had so many I need to go back in after year.
Another friend got liver cancer and died within 3 months of the diagnosis, leaving a widow and 3 children.
If you knew there was about a 9/10 chance you would die on the road today, would you even go out? If there was a 9/10 chance you would die before your child got married, wouldn't you do whatever it takes to stick around?
Some of us are lucky to have early detection. Others are not.
Bravo (brava?) for your courage, Ms Jolie! Kill that killer before it kills you. That's the way to do it!
Oh, and guys, I put off that colonoscopy for a year. Don't do that. If you're over 50, get it done. The drugs were great, I slept through the entire procedure. -CP
When I was first diagnosed with terminal liver cancer in 2006 I had a few friends who told me that going for the transplant was a mistake and that I should follow herbal holistic methods instead. They were afraid of the surgery and thought I would never come back out of the hospital alive. Even though I have always been a big believer in science and western medicine, when you are in that dire situation, you are willing to consider anything, but thankfully I stuck with science. I always will.
Preventive mastectomy goes back a long way. I remember hearing a "holistic doctor" ranting on KFAC, the classical station in LA many years ago, about "male doctors" removing women's breasts as some sort of revenge therapy.
I have done the operation, or recommended it, a number of times. The indications are a biopsy showing Ductal Carcinoma In situ, or DCIS, a premalignant condition. I've also recommended it for women who have very lumpy breasts and who have had many biopsies, which distort the anatomy.
My sister, 30 years ago, called me about her own situation. She had had nipple discharge and was to have a biopsy when she began to have the same thing in the other breast. The surgeon ignored the second breast discharge.
After the biopsy, she was still worried so I had her send the tissue blocks from the Chicago pathologist to California. One nice thing about pathology is that a second opinion can be done on a piece of tissue half an inch square. We had a pathologist whose wife had had breast cancer and he was very interested in the disease. I had him look at her biopsy. He told me she had DCIS. I called her and told her to find a good plastic surgeon in Chicago and have bilateral subcutaneous mastectomies.
Her biopsy surgeon called me to complain she had "cancerphobia." I told him she was following my advice. After the mastectomies, the tissue showed invasive cancer in one breast.
She did have to delay reconstruction a month because one nipple got dusky but she has had no trouble now in 30 years. She did have one implant changed a few years ago when it got hard.
Since most breast surgeons in California now are women, some of them my former students, the rants about "male doctors" have pretty much gone away.
That's not early detection.
She doesn't have cancer.
We can 'cure' breast cancer completely, by just removing every woman's breasts at the age of 35.
I'm not a real fan of actors and actresses but Jolie has do many good deeds for those in need. She has supported many good causes do, both financially and with her own time.
So prayers for her and her family.
Her genetic profile gave her an extremely high risk. Smart choice in her case.
If only Steve Jobs had been as smart about his health as Jolie seems to be.
If those male quacks (excuse me: "Wonderful Holistic Docs) had a plausible solution to gene level cancer precursors, I bet it would be comprehensive regular professional breast massage rather than the knife.
getting paid to rub Angelina's nippls sounds like good work....
/sarc :)
One of my oldest friends lost both her mother and grandmother to BrCa. When she had a lump, she had the complete breast removed and contemplated the complete double.
I don't judge someone in their shoes. Cancer is merciless.
Er, no, Renee, that wouldn't eliminate breast cancer. Men get breast cancer. Women under 35 get breast cancer. And anyway, so what? I don't get the hostility toward Jolie, or other women who had mastectomy. She's taking a rational step to avoid a devastating illness. It might not be a perfect step; to find out, we'll need years of following women who've discovered that they have the mutant gene and elect to have the surgery, and comparing them to women who have the same mutation and choose not to have the surgery. But honestly, if I were in her shoes, I'd probably choose the same thing. If I got cancer anyway, at least I'd know I tried.
Most men develop prostate cancer. I wouldn't suggest that men have their prostate removed before cancer actually shows up.
Freeman,
Doctors disagree on the worth of this. Before testing, my wife's doctor advised that we be clear in our minds, in advance, on what we'd do with the information. The choice is far from clear.
"...weak on science..." You mean the science that brought us Vioxx and Thalidomide? How about muscle destroying, brain damaging statins?
How about saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. Or, fat makes you fat.
Weak on science? I'd say, skeptical of what we refer to as science today.
Cheers
Jennifer Aniston is now contemplating a triple mastectomy.
She chooses for herself, her husband and her kids. Not for the public's approval so I'm going to give her a lot of leeway. My mother had breast cancer (and more) and died at 49 when I was 14. I wish she would have had an option.
Gutsy move.Praying for her and the family.Have lost too many in my life to disparage what anyone feels they have to do to beat the crab.
@Chuck, you do realize, I hope, that it was a scientist who blocked the sale of thalidomide in the USA.
Wow, I just checked, and she is still alive! Goodness!
Link.
Allen, men who have prostate cancer often don't have it removed even then---there are types of prostate cancer that are so slow-growing that men can live years after the diagnosis with no problem, and then die of old age. Wait-and-see is common with prostate cancer, not with breast. They are different cancers. Besides, Jolie's surgery probably won't keep her from having a healthy, satisfying sex life the way removing a prostate would.
I hate when people compare prostate cancer to breast cancer, or pancreatic cancer to bone cancer, or leukemia to melanoma for that matter. They're different diseases with different problems, not just the same thing happening on different parts of the body.
Speaking of mastectomies, there's at least one boob that needs to be removed from this thread...
Never change, Whores.
Hate to say it, but it will be interesting to see how this affects her career.
Chuck Currie said...
"...weak on science..." You mean the science that brought us Vioxx and Thalidomide?
Vioxx worked. It was the only thing that alleviated The Blonde's aches and pains; Celebrex had no effect (she has some interesting body chemistry, she can stop any kind of battery (watch, phone, etc.) next to her skin for more than a few minutes).
The reason Vioxx is off the market is ambulance chasers like John Edwards.
PS The Blonde is a fan of the holistic stuff and, mirabile dictu, it does work for her.
She takes some stuff for her blood pressure that seems to work much better than what the doctor prescribes.
YMMV
traditionalguy said...
"An intelligent young single lady (about 38) who attends our church with her parents recently was diagnosed with breast cancer in one breast, so she followed her doctor's advice and had both breasts removed.
That one still puzzles me."
My mother did the same thing. It has to do with the type of cancer. Some are extremely likely to appear in the second breast as well. At least that was what they said 15-20 years ago. Maybe things have changed. But it seemed a perfectly rational thing to do. I would have done the same.
""...weak on science..." You mean the science that brought us Vioxx and Thalidomide? How about muscle destroying, brain damaging statins?
How about saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. Or, fat makes you fat."
Science is skeptical on science; that's why medical recommendations are continually changing. They're updating in response to the generation of knew or deeper knowledge.
You can cite Vioxx and Thalidomide all you want, but I'll cite metformin, Fluticasone/Salmeterol (aka Advair), lansoprazole, and so on in return. Cancer survivors such as my mom will cite a plethora of other drugs such as tamoxifen, herceptin, and an array of treatments not involving drugs (radiotherapy, for example) in just allowing them to live, let alone live well after cancer.
Plus, I've been on statins for years; my brain's functioning perfectly fine, thank you. So are my muscles.
It's ludicrous to cite corrected mistakes as examples of why to distrust science; after all, it was empirical, evidence based medical practice that discovered the problems with those drugs and provided the evidence to pull them off the market. I noticed you didn't mention that in your post. Furthermore, it's further ludicrous to cast such distrust as skepticism; genuine skepticism compels a person to study all evidence, not merely cherry picked examples, and draw fully informed analyses of risks and benefits. What you posted is cynicism.
Being "weak on science" is not understanding any of this, and demonstrating such by attempting to criticize the very process that limited the damage and provided the mechanism for removal in the examples you cited. That's simply being cynical instead of trying to understand. And that never helps anyone.
Yes ed, sometimes it (natural medicine) works and works much better. I've had much better luck going to a naturopathic doctor than my western medical doctor.
It's not always the best choice, but ignoring it out of hand as some do is ignorant. Glad it works for you guys.
She probably had a lot of new agers or "Medicine='Big Pharma'=Bad" goofballs talking in her ear. That's probably why she made the nod towards it.
This. I think Jolie's comment was a gracious way of saying "bug off" to those fans and foes who would cover her up with "good" advice.
Freeman is right.
I had a friend whose family carries whatever the BRCA1 gene. Her sister was diagnosed with breast cancer in her 30s, IIRC. Several years later (and after numerous road races for cancer research), my friend had a double mastectomy.
She had a masters degree in nursing, (neuro), a masters degree in bioethics, and her husband was a surgeon and they had 4 kids.
A tough decision but I think she knew well what she was doing and why.
Palladian -- right on, dude.
About both Jobs and the boob.
"Michael K said...
Preventive mastectomy goes back a long way..."
It probably does. A quick lookup reveals the Mayo Clinic site for "prophylactic mastectomy" (I'm not linking because for some odd reason, Google Blogger deletes any of my posts with links before the professor can OK them... I don't understand why). Granted, that's just a web page, but still, if the Mayo Clinic is that open about it, it's got to be accepted practice for some circumstances. Despite seeming like an extreme measure to take.
Aside: Mayo Clinic... that name's begging for a Looney Tunes episode. :D
JAL said..."
This. I think Jolie's comment was a gracious way of saying "bug off" to those fans and foes who would cover her up with "good" advice."
This. Can you imagine future cocktail parties? Every quack and weirdo on the planet, and their Hollywood "patients", would insist on whispering advice in her ear and tsk tsking. If only she would drink more green smoothies and carrot juice, all would be well.
CEO-MMP said...
Yes ed, sometimes it (natural medicine) works and works much better. I've had much better luck going to a naturopathic doctor than my western medical doctor.
It's not always the best choice, but ignoring it out of hand as some do is ignorant. Glad it works for you guys.
I never said she "ignored it out of hand", but, after 43 years as a floor nurse, she's seen that some "modern medicine" isn't as effective as advertised ("exploratory" surgery for cancer kills a lot of people because, if there is a tumor, it will metastasize the second the air hits it).
She has no problem trying the conventional solution, but, if it doesn't work, she isn't too proud to go to plan B.
It all goes back to having children. Jolie knows what it was like to lose a mother to breast cancer. She doesn't wish the same on her children, especially because they are so young.
I can't fault her at all. If I knew I had an 87% chance of cancer, I wouldn't wait to find it, I'd eliminate the risk. Mammography and self exams might find the cancer after it has already spread.
"My mother did the same thing. It has to do with the type of cancer. Some are extremely likely to appear in the second breast as well. At least that was what they said 15-20 years ago. Maybe things have changed. But it seemed a perfectly rational thing to do. I would have done the same."
You're referring to lobular carcinoma in situ, in which 25% are bilateral at diagnosis. The same, of course, applies to the invasive cancer.
"Palladian said...
If only Steve Jobs had been as smart about his health as Jolie seems to be."
In his specific case, I wonder if he was screwed no matter what. That said, I hear ya; alt-med may be comforting, but I'd want proof that a treatment has been demonstrated to work before I agree to it. I don't want comfort, I want proof. And if something's uncomfortable, so be it. Beat the disease, I'd say to any doctor, and don't try to fill my ears with hokum. A genuine doctor would understand that perfectly.
If the Wiki on Jobs is correct, though, he did realize the mistake at the end, though (" According to Jobs's biographer, Walter Isaacson, "for nine months he refused to undergo surgery for his pancreatic cancer – a decision he later regretted as his health declined."). That's sad, but unfortunately hard won wisdom like that is often lost when the patient dies.
MayoClinic.com
"Who may consider prophylactic mastectomy to reduce breast cancer risk?
All women are at risk of breast cancer just by being female and advancing in age. But some factors increase your risk significantly. You may consider prophylactic mastectomy if you have:
Already had cancer in one breast.
A family history of breast cancer. If you have a mother, sister or daughter with breast cancer, especially if she was diagnosed before age 50...
Positive results from gene testing. Genes known to increase the risk of breast and ovarian cancers include BRCA1 and BRCA2.
Breast changes that increase your risk of breast cancer.
Radiation therapy.
Dense breasts.
Your doctor determines whether you're at high risk of breast cancer based on your risk factors and on mathematical models that calculate your lifetime risk of breast cancer."
Among the appropriate surveillance and risk-reduction options for a known carrier of a breast cancer gene (BRCA1 or BRCA2) mutation:
Prophylactic bilateral mastectomy: 90% risk reduction
Prophylactic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy: 50% breast cancer risk reduction if performed before age 50 years
Edutcher:
My blonde does the same thing.
Does your blonde set off alarms when exiting a store? Can she read your mind? Do car alarms go off when she walks by?
Somebody might point out that males care less about breasts than the female narrative has it, as well.
Yes ed, sometimes it (natural medicine) works and works much better. I've had much better luck going to a naturopathic doctor than my western medical doctor.
It's not always the best choice, but ignoring it out of hand as some do is ignorant. Glad it works for you guys.
I never said she "ignored it out of hand", but, after 43 years as a floor nurse, she's seen that some "modern medicine" isn't as effective as advertised ("exploratory" surgery for cancer kills a lot of people because, if there is a tumor, it will metastasize the second the air hits it).
She has no problem trying the conventional solution, but, if it doesn't work, she isn't too proud to go to plan B."
Ed, I didn't say she (or you guys) ignore anything out of hand. I said it was good that she was that open minded and good that stuff was working for her.
My 'ignoring out of hand' comment was directed at other people who immediately believe anything not sold by western doctors is garbage.
Think about it this way: Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine have been around for thousands of years. Western medicin has been around really a couple of hundred.
Why believe anything has all--or the only--answers?
Especially since so much of western medicine is driven by the almighty dollar--but that's nowhere near being on topic.
I have no interest in arguing the issue, I figure that whatever people are comfortable with is what's best for them. I just wish other people felt the same in return, you know?
And reading some of the comments here makes me sad. A woman went to a doctor and had both her breasts removed because she has a chance she might get cancer, and Tibore says at least she "didn't go all fruit-loop in choosing her treatment."
Howard said...
My blonde does the same thing.
Does your blonde set off alarms when exiting a store? Can she read your mind? Do car alarms go off when she walks by?
No, but only the youngest of her 3 brothers has the same problem. She also has problems with some medicines (Celebrex doesn't work for her, etc.).
"...and had both her breasts removed because she has a chance she might get cancer..."
And reduced her risk by 90%.
The issues with prostate cancer are different than with breast cancer.
Prostate cancer tends to grow slowly. It can grow so slowly, in fact, that some doctors just advise "watchful waiting"--especially if the man is elderly. For many older men, prostate cancer produces no symptoms and the man ends up dying of something else altogether.
The 10-year survival rate for all men with prostate cancer--even including those with aggressive cancer--is 98%.
So men just don't have the risks and urgency with prostate cancer that women do with breast cancer.
Regarding her inclusion of "holistic" alternatives, on balance the article is quite strongly in favor of the medical practices and procedures that cured her.
Perhaps she included the sentence as a way of not disrespecting those who believe in holistic approaches, and still opening the door for them to think of Western medicine more favorably.
In debate, one acknowledges the arguments of the other side, and devalues the arguments. Here, she is allowing people to consider the Western medicine while remaining safe in their irrational belief in holistic medicines.
In any event, that's the simplest explanation of the sentence given the very pro Western Medicine aspect of the article.
Breast Cancer risk calculator
There is no such thing as holistic medicine. It's snake oil until proven otherwise by the scientific method.
And for what it's worth, I've had a strongly unfavorable impression of Angelina forever. She broke up a marriage, and has covered her body with tats.
Now I have a more favorable view of her. If she really does not care for holistic medical approaches, my respect for her intelligence would soar.
There is no such thing as holistic medicine. It's snake oil until proven otherwise by the scientific method.
It's not for me, but I'm thinking that false hope may be better than no hope at all, for some people.
Meanwhile, I'm certain there is a lot of scamming going on.
bagoh20:
So every day you are alive is a free day. That has to be an amazing experience.
Are you ever unhappy?
I have to figure out how to get there, hopefully not by beating a terminal disease, though.
She broke up a marriage
This may be true, but it takes two to tango.
"CEO-MMP said...
Why believe anything has all--or the only--answers?"
Because it's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. You can get statistics for survival from current evidence based medical practices, you can get mechanisms for why things work, you can get information for when and why they fail, and you can really be truly well informed about the treatment you or a loved one is receiving.
Whereas with alt-med... well, if anyone can find me a case where holistic, homeopathic, or other alternative practice has actually established a track record of successfully treating cancer, then show me. But it must be a verifiable track record, not individual testimonials; I'm swayed by evidence, not anecdote, and I can always find someone who's seen a UFO or thinks Elvis is still alive. Anecdote don't cut it, and that's precisely what alt-med provides as "proof".
No one says modern medical practice is perfect. At best, it's only well documented in what it knows, and poorly documented in what it doesn't know. Futhermore, modern medical researchers are well aware of what they don't know; that's why so many express frustration at modern medical science's limits (look up the pioneer of anti-angiogenesis cancer treatments for an example of this). But I'll put up modern, evidence-based practices documentation and establishment of efficacy against anything alt-med has even attempted to provide.
Track record. Not belief. At least I know the failure rate and reasons for failure in "scientific" medical treatments I take. Can't say the same for alt-meds.
"And reading some of the comments here makes me sad. A woman went to a doctor and had both her breasts removed because she has a chance she might get cancer, and Tibore says at least she "didn't go all fruit-loop in choosing her treatment."
I said it because it's perfectly justifiable to say it. I'm sorry you're taking it so hard, but unpleasant truths must be faced. And the unpleasant truth is that the real distinction is not between conventional and alternative medicine, it's between proven and unproven.
If an "alt-med" treatment ever gets proven, you can bet your wallet that companies will fall over themselves to market it. And "conventional" medical practice will drop its resistance to it. But again: Proof. Clinical studies. Analysis. Validation over time and number of patients. That I can discover with modern medical practice. That I can never find from alt-med practitioners. I have to go to sites like What's The Harm (whatstheharm.net) just to get those stories. And I have to go to the very scientific sources alt-med dismisses for studies on those treatments (example: "Effect of Homeopathic Treatment on Gene Expression in Copenhagen Rat Tumor Tissues", Integr Cancer Ther 2006; 5; 350). At that point, we're not even talking alt- versus conventional, we're talking simple professionalism. And again, alt-med simply does not provide it.
It may make you sad, but it's the evidence-based truth. Sorry you're sad. But I cannot and will not deny the truth. Alt med is unproven. And in many cases - such as homeopathy, which has been studied - disproven. That's just the reality of it.
@Pogo: Thanks for the info!
lol. Thanks Tibore!
And I appreciate that you're sorry I'm sad. :)
Nah. To each his own. I don't mean to come across like I worship at the altar of everything whack-job alt med and everything western medicine is eeeeeeeeevil.
I've just personally had a lot more success from a more natural route than I ever did with western medicine. I had a long standing gut infection that would wax and wane, my regular doctor was no help. Zero.
Naturopath nailed it in the first half hour I saw him.
And it was an over-eager western style full of himself punk doctor that killed my grampa. Well, if he'd just killed him I'd be better about it. But he hurt him badly enough (stupid botched surgery that should never have happened because like so many western docs he was full of himself) so I got to watch the most important person in my life die slowly over a couple of months.
He was old. Probably woulda died anyway. Maybe even like that. I get that. Doesn't help.
That said, when I had a tick bite last fall that acted funny I went for the mega dose antibiotics instead of mega doses of vitamin C and wheat grass.
You know?
Meh. We're way off topic.
Jolie had very little choice in either of these decisions. With an 87% risk of cancer there was no rational choice other than to have the surgery. And, with the obsessive intrusion by the tabloids into celebrity's lives, she had no choice but to go public. It would have come out eventually.
When life hands you lemons you make lemonade. She has turned an extreme negative for her personally into a small positive that may help save some lives. My heart goes out to her and everyone else in the same situation.
She broke up a marriage
Why is the woman blamed?
It's 'cause Brad Pitt is so dreamy, isn't it?
Why is the woman blamed?
I was thinking about Angelina, not about Brad Pitt.
Though in general, I do think it's harder for a guy to keep his pants zipped than for a woman to keep her pants on.
Meh. It's Hollywood. Do you really think that any of them keep their pants on?
Angelina's sin was that Brad decided he'd rather be monogamous-ish with her instead of his current monogamous-ish partner.
I think there's a whole hierarchy to marriage and fame that the rest of us aren't privy too. Its like the whole A-rod divorce. A-rod's ex wasn't pissed that he cheated on her, it was that he cheated on her with someone famous. But a regular groupie or stripper? Who cares.
blogger Pogo said...
"...and had both her breasts removed because she has a chance she might get cancer..."
And reduced her risk by 90%."
Pogo, if they don't want to know, they won't listen.
Examples of traditional treatment being overturned by new, and even unlikely, therapy are all through the history of medicine.
I wrote a book about it which you can even order through althouse portal.
For example, Mercury was the only treatment for syphilis until 1905. It was discovered in the 13th century by Paracelsus. It was said, "A night with Venus leads to a life with Mercury." It worked but was very toxic. That's where Mercurochrome came from. Some of you old folks may remember when that was what you put on a cut.
Meh. It's Hollywood. Do you really think that any of them keep their pants on?
I should view people different based on their job description?
Got it. That's why it's OK for people like Clinton grope a little once in a while, and ex heads of NOW will defend them.
Meanwhile, I'm talking about my personal views here. You can like/dislike Angelina all you want. I added that comment merely to remove the idea I had some bias because she is hot, when giving her a compliment of having a brain.
Her body, her call.
The pre-emptive mastectomy isn't that insane, it saves her from endless days and nights dreading a repeat of her mother's fate, especially when she can have her breasts re-constructed and enhanced. Unlike the old procedures when the breasts were lobbed off leaving a flat chest and scarred tissues.
Why is it that every time I hear the words Alternative and Holistic with respect to medicine, the face of that giant fat quack Andrew Weil come up in my mind? That fat sack of shit should be flogged for the medicinal insanity he's foisted onto the general public. He is the face of NewAge alternative medicine.
If a guy or gal in a white coat tells me i have an 87% of developing any sort of cancer because of one of my genes, it would give me pause but I wouldn't mutilate myself. Jolie is pretty credulous. She may have good reason for this, having tragically lost her mother young, but the congratulations are a little overdone. There are stories published about doctors being wrong almost every day of the week.
One thing Jolie forgot to mention in her article is the new term "indolent breast cancer" -- so named because doctors decided after the fact that some cancers were so "indolent" they treatment wasn't required after all. So was she at 87% risk for breast cancer or "breast cancer"? No one will ever know.
Something remarkable is the universal way in which Jolie is hailed for her "courage." And let us recall that the bits she had removed have absolutely no necessity. The one thing they inarguably do -- feed babies -- can very easily be done by bottle, and half of mothers do it that way anyway.
Let us suppose that there were a connection between, say cancer and AIDS for men and keeping your foreskin. And as it happens, this is true, although the connection is weak. But let's suppose for some men it is strong, and you can predict which ones. Some famous actor gets himself circumsized to reduce the risk. Or if we want to make it more obvious in appearance, let's say it's some weird facial cancer, and he has to have his jaw removed and reconstructed, and his face isn't quite exactly the same, and if you look closely (e.g. during sex) you can see the scars and wonder.
He pens a somber column about how he manfully faced up to the risk and took the step. It's published and talked about all over the place, and tens of thousands applaud his mighty courage, right?
Ah ha ha ha. We would merely mock him, if he didn't do it, even if it involved whacking off his balls or reconstructing his dick, for being narcissistically over-attached to his symbols of masculinity, and question the latter. A real man doesn't define himself by...
No matter how far feminism goes, we still treat the girls like they're delicate l'il flowers. Oh! You hurt your boobies! And you so pretty and all...gosh, how awful that must have been. Do you need a tissue? You're so, so brave.
No wait...what am I thinking? Retraining kicking in here...of course, this is all the patriarchy's fault. If young men didn't force poor Angelina into making movies for $10 mil a pop that more or less just showcase her tits, so millions of 15-25 year-old boys can ogle them, she'd never have been oppressed by this exaggerated sense of the importance of her tits in the first place, and we'd no more be celebrating her courage than if she'd decided to have her gall bladder out because of stones. Damn men!
A very rational and highly intelligent friend of mine had similar surgery several years back for the same reason. She had a husband and two young children and said the decision was an easy one. I do doubt that she would recommend holistic medicine as an alternative though the subject did not come up.
Steve Jobs tried the holistic alternative and he was supposedly one of the smartest men alive. He is no longer in that category. Death is the ultimate in equality.
There are many different kinds of holistic treatments and many different kinds of cancers. There are also many different kinds of smart.
Carl said...
"Something remarkable is the universal way in which Jolie is hailed for her "courage." And let us recall that the bits she had removed have absolutely no necessity."
While I agree with your point about the overdone praise of her courage, the "no necessity" point is rather strange. For a large portion of women, I daresay the huge majority, those "bits" as you call them are a large part of female sexual pleasure. What an odd thing to say.
Her mom die of ovarian cancer at 50-something... fairly recently.
If you have that genetic market, it is the smart choice. Christina Applegate had to make it as well. Linda McCartney on the other hand went the natural route. I think it really helps women when icons of hotness like the former two do things like this. Disclosure: I've been a Jolie 'supporter' since the pre-Brad blood vial days and 'Girl Interrupted'. I'm too close to her age to be a fan.
I know someone who had a preemptive double masectomy when they found just a small Stage 1 mass in one breast. However when they put the resulting "material" through the labs they found many more starter area in one breast. None in the other. She does not have the marker, but is older than both.
Great day when they can turn off those markers/genes at will.
BRCA also puts men at higher risk for prostate cancer (not the slow-growing kind), both for pancreatic cancer and women at higher risk for ovarian and breast cancer. Cool that she is spreading the word for the newer, better, nipple-sparing surgeries. It is still a huge mutilation an injury to any female. Giving up your breasts for better odds on life is a terrible choice. Potentially giving up her ovaries later would deeply affect her sexual libido and functioning.
Post a Comment