A brave woman.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22520720
She said her doctors estimated she had an 87% risk of breast cancer and a 50% risk of ovarian cancer. "I decided to be proactive and to minimise the risk as much I could," she wrote.
Its a no brainer if you have the gene that you get the operation, I'm sure like most things in the States it cost money for it, I'd like to think that the NH will pay for it over here if it's determinded that you have it.
Be sad to see this gone! but no doubt she'll have cosmetic surgery to have a better look
(http://img.portwallpaper.com/imgcel/Angelina_Jolie/Angelina-Jolie-311.JPG)
Brave move, particularly for someone who seemed to be a sex maniac. But maybe she has cooled down now.
It must be a very hard decision for any woman to make.
Quote from: Orior on May 14, 2013, 11:32:34 AM
Brave move, particularly for someone who seemed to be a sex maniac. But maybe she has cooled down now.
I think she can still have sex, though like most married women with kids she probably can't be bother ;)
Massive decision! No brainer, I know! But with a woman doing this, it is really voluntary decimation of her body. Being a Celebrity star where she was a sex symbol (and surely some of the adoration would go to her head) this would make the decision extra big. God bless the poor woman, no matter how much money she has to solve some of the problems, it's a hard sacrifice at such a young age.
Quote from: From the Bunker on May 14, 2013, 01:10:58 PM
Massive decision! No brainer, I know! But with a woman doing this, it is really voluntary decimation of her body. Being a Celebrity star where she was a sex symbol (and surely some of the adoration would go to her head) this would make the decision extra big. God bless the poor woman, no matter how much money she has to solve some of the problems, it's a hard sacrifice at such a young age.
Too right. Cancer has no respect for fame and fortune. The wife's cousin died aged 39 a couple of weeks ago, leaving behind a husband and 3 children (6, 4 and 2yo). It is good that there are diagnostic tools available to give people the option these days and reconstruction is possible after the surgery.
laoislad.. hes heart broken..
i like her, i dont know her but she has something i like
Quote from: seafoid on May 14, 2013, 11:34:28 AM
It must be a very hard decision for any woman to make.
I know we go at it on a few different topics - but I was just discussing this with my wife this morning and we both seemed pretty confident that it would be a no brainer. You can't take chances with your health. I'd have the nuts off in the morning and sent away in a shoe box without a second glance if someone told me I was headed for life threatening cancer. I'd worry for any woman, or man for that matter, for whom an issue like this caused much of a second thought. Maybe that's crazy of me?
Well theres a difference between the nuts off and the boobs off. She can have cosmetic surgery and still look and feel like a woman and continue to reproduce.
If the nuts are gone your Fathering days are over..... I'm sure you'd have second thoughts before moving forward on something like that......
Not at all. Are you kidding me? The moral responsibility lies towards those I provide and care for, myself included! Wouldn't have a second thought kind.
If you're staring down the barrel of a life threatening illness and you decide to dilly dally on something as preposterous as MORE kids, when you have one or more already, there's something amiss!
I thought she was reducing the chances of developing it. Prevention tater than cure
I don't think it's preposterous to think twice about the decision to do that or keep having kids.
Sure you may as well cut them aff now Puck just in case. And don't think twice about it. Patsy Lol
Emma Parlons: "If somebody said your flight was 86% likely to come down, you wouldn't get on that aeroplane"
Very tough decision for anyone to make I'd imagine. Best of luck to her. I would be slightly worried that this might spawn a bit of an industry though, given the high profile of Jolie, and a couple of others if I remember correctly. If you were the ones doing that test, would you tell someone they had a 20% chance of cancer, or would you tell them they had a 40% chance? I'm thinking of the inclination to err on the side of caution. It would be horrendous if the health professionals became afraid of telling someone you'll probably be fine, in case they get a lawsuit or something later on.
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 15, 2013, 08:40:00 AM
Very tough decision for anyone to make I'd imagine. Best of luck to her. I would be slightly worried that this might spawn a bit of an industry though, given the high profile of Jolie, and a couple of others if I remember correctly. If you were the ones doing that test, would you tell someone they had a 20% chance of cancer, or would you tell them they had a 40% chance? I'm thinking of the inclination to err on the side of caution. It would be horrendous if the health professionals became afraid of telling someone you'll probably be fine, in case they get a lawsuit or something later on.
Had not thought of it that way! Feck, it's a tough auld world!
There's a 60% chance or sunshine, rather than,
there's a 40% of rain?
Sue that
The whole discussion has massive significance for any woman who has been adapted. If she has no knowledge of family history i.e. whether or not her bioligical mother has had breast cancer or not, or any other family history, she is faced with deciding whether to get the test done to check if she has the defective gene.
I can understand concerns that this might lead to a glut of people demanding that if a procedure is good enough for Angelina it's good enough for them. But on balance I think her decision, while not one I'd wish on anyone, is a positive development. My next door neighbour in Liverpool was* a genetic counsellor. Her job was to discuss the options with people like Angelina Jolie and help them through the ordeal. For her, the biggest problem was that people were obviously reluctant to take such a massive step, especially when they'd often be perfectly healthy at the time. Countless times she would be nudging people in what the numbers were telling her was the right direction - you can't come out and say "have the bloody op, you're a walking timebomb!" - and countless times they would say no only to fall victim to cancer later. If she was still doing this job, I'm certain she'd be pleased that this difficult task has been made a bit easier for health care professionals, or at least a bit more understandable to the laywoman.
*I saw 'was', she got cancer herself and (unsurprisingly) left the job. Happily she's made a full recovery.
I see Frankie put his foot (sorry mouth) in it again with a few crude jokes in relation to this. I think there is a misunderstanding of the chances of her developing breast cancer, she was 87% more likely to get it than normal, which put her down as a 1 in 4 chance of getting it overall