Quick Hit: More women with breast cancer preemptively remove healthy breast
A study in in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society, says that a rising number of women are having a healthy breast removed after being diagnosed with breast cancer as a preventative measure.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Quick Hit: More women with breast cancer preemptively remove healthy breast.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16257
The Moth podcast recently featured a woman telling her story about this. MP3 is here.
Life matters. Tits don't.
My tiny tits have never been important to my femininity or sexuality. I would chop them off in a heartbeat if I knew they were prone to cancer. Except for lactation, they are not functional organs. I don't blame women who have more attachment to their breasts, but my priority would be removing as much future cancer risk as possible.
I am so conflicted about this. On the one hand, I would agree that preserving life is a hell of a lot more important than preserving a feminine appearance. And I do understand that removing an apparently healthy breast is the right decision for some women.
On the other hand, I don't agree with the sentiment that breasts don't matter. Maybe yours don't matter to you, and that's just fine. But as you yourself acknowledged, not everyone feels that way
I too have "tiny tits," but my breasts areimportant to me. They're an integral part of my sexuality, and a symbol of my womanhood. Also, they feel nice. And they're cute.
I would certainly be willing to lose a breast if doing so would dramatically decrease my cancer risk. But I have yet to see convincing evidence that removing a healthy breast dramatically increases survival rates. To me, this smells like another aggressive medical intervention, which entails a lot of pain for a statistically tiny pay-off. Bottom line: I would not be willing to lose a breast to cut my cancer risk by a couple of percent.
One more thing: "life matters, tits don't" is a very reasonable sentiment. But how far should it go? Given my family history, ethnicity, body type, and contraceptive use, I have an elevated risk of developing breast cancer--as high as 30 percent.
Does that mean I should get my breasts lopped off right now, when I'm twenty-one and in perfect health? Is it foolish of me not to? Where do we draw the line?
That's good.
With a family history, I've often thought about removing both of mine. Not only would I be able to function easier, but I wouldn't get cancer. Win-win situation, no? If I only had the money.
I really don't see why more women don't just chop them off and forget about it.
I'm one of those women. I was diagnosed with breast cancer in my left breast at age 38. At the time I had a 17 month old and a 5 year old. The moment I decided to have a mastectomy I decided that the other was going as well.
Women make the decision for a variety of reasons, mine was because I wasn't going to deal with this again. I wasn't going to do all of the radiation and chemo only to risk the cancer coming back in the other (contralateral) breast two or three or four years later.
My surgery was just over three years ago and I have not yet had reconstruction. I'm not sure when I will. The chances of recurrence decrease sharply after five years so I may wait until then. Who knows?
It's funny, when I hear about a woman having a mastectomy I almost expect to hear them say the other breast is going too. Maybe it's just because I know younger survivors who just don't play around.
If you want to read more about cancer survivorship you can check out my blog at http://www.aftercancernowwhat.com
Life is more important, of course, but it always makes me sad when someone has to remove a part of her (or his) body to survive, especially if it's done preemptively, because it shows how much fear there is.
I'd have'em chop them suckers off without giving it two seconds thought.
The cancer I had at 25 was not breast cancer, and I'm at considerably higher risk for lymphoma now. If I could have my lymphatic system removed, I'd do it in a second. When medical technology (and the society that goes with it) has a better way to prevent recurrence, that will be great. Now is not that time.
Breasts serve no functional purpose outside of sex, aesthetics and breastfeeding. If your sexuality isn't dependant on your breasts, if your self estee isn't dependant on your breasts and you have no desire to breastfeed I really see no reason- other than financial not to cut the cancer off.
Breasts serve no functional purpose outside of sex, aesthetics and breastfeeding. If your sexuality isn't dependant on your breasts, if your self estee isn't dependant on your breasts and you have no desire to breastfeed I really see no reason- other than financial not to cut the cancer off.
While I understand this kind of sentiment, "Life matters. Tits don't..." as another person who has gone through this, to me it sounds both flippant and more than a little callus.
It is true that any person is more than a body part in essence, a woman is more than her breasts. However the reality of living with a different post-operative body, often with massive scarring that will always be visible, a reconstructed breast, and nipples that are non-existent or are also reconstructed which is a procedure that is difficult and rarely "takes" well, isn't always easy. The change is permanent. Breast feeding is no longer a possibility. There is massive nerve damage and with a mastectomy, it can take years for any feeling to return to the chest area and if it does, it is nothing like it was before surgery. And you are different than you were before in a way that is both visible and tactile.
Like the commenter aftercancer above, I too have gone through the cancer diagnosis and decided to have a prophylactic mastectomy because I wanted to be as sure as possible that I wouldn't have to deal with this issue again. Digging through the feministing community posts the user AquarianPath talks about dealing with one's emotions and the feedback of those around her in making her decision to have a mastectomy after her breast cancer diagnosis.
Ultimately, I think my point is that the knee-jerk reaction of someone who I assume has not actually had to deal with the situation saying something like, there's no question that I'd cut off my breasts, they're not that important, is kind of off-putting. It seems to negate that breast cancer patients sometimes have a lot of surgical options. Doing what is safest, usually a mastectomy, may have a lot of unanticipated emotional fall-out. If body image is a feminist issue, and I think it is, I don't think that a breast cancer patient should be compelled to feel badly about grieving the loss of a body part, even if it is something as non-functional as a breast.
I think age may have a lot to do with it. A woman who may already be dealing with feeling like she's "losing her looks" may be more reluctant to just chop off the other one too.
The diagnosis might also be part of it; I know I've read that lobular cancers are more likely to "mirror" than ductal ones.