I’m 27 and about to have a double mastectomy

You know I was thinking the same thing. I didn't find out until my grandmother's death at 92, about 4 years ago, that she had ovarian cancer, as did her daughter (my aunt). To say I was shocked was an understatement. I thought immediately of my 14 year old daughter and felt this could have been mentioned a LONG time ago.

alumette, your comment is cruel and ugly.

Who are you to question this woman's choices on such a personal level?

If we followed your "bad genes" advice, we'd have to suggest that 90% of the population not have children.

If you're trying to make a point about adoption versus bearing your own children, fine. But why pick such a horrific situation with which to do so? Where is your self control?

"Why does she want to reproduce that badly?" None of your business.

thank you make progress for saying the exact same things that I thought while reading alumette's comment.

Does she not think of her kids or her future daughter having to go though the same thing, after knowing all this, grandma cancer 3 time, mom, great aunt, honestly not only would it be my call to undergo sergery, There is no way I would give birth to a child. I would never want my kids to go though all of that. I would adopt no questions to it. I would spare my unborn children the torture. I would not be so shelfish.

The fact that quite a few people UNDERSTAND what alulmette was trying to say gives me HOPE.

Being a parent is not ONLY about fulfilling your own selfishness - it's considering the life you will give to another human being. It's about sacrifice. The biggest sacrifice being when you recognize you cannot give a biological child what you would want and then choosing not to conceive in the first place.

Not an easy decision. But being a parent is not easy.

There is an easy answer to this. Ask Lizzie whether she wishes she was never born. I'll bet she says she'd rather have been born with a 40-80% chance of cancer than to have never been born at all.

Why would you say such a thing?!!! AND, even if she adopts, there is a chance that that baby will have the gene too!!! People really don't know what to say out of their mouths. Also, let me make oyu aware of a little breast cancer fact - breast cancer skips a generation, so there is a chance that the baby that she has will NOT have breast cancer if she has a girl!

I lost three sisters to breast cancer, they were all under the age of 40 and in their mid-thirties when they were diagnosed! I also lost a paternal Aunt - three first cousins (Aunt's daughters) and a second cousin (Aunt's granddaughter). I am a two time survivor and have two second cousins who also had breast cancer - fortunately both are alive and doing extremely well, and living great lives!!

SO, before you make stupid comments like that, try THINKING before you speak - you do know how to do that don't you?!!

Personally, having had kidney cancer, I would say that at least she has the opportunity to know in advance. It wasn't until after my diagnosis that I discovered kidney cancer ran in my family, back several generations and there is only limited genetic testing available. Unfortunately back then, they just removed the kidney and never used the word cancer. Now my children know about it and they can be proactive with testing.

As for knowing your medical history and using it as a decision to have or not have children, it's a tough one. Up until a year ago, if someone had asked me if cancer ran in my family I would have said no, so if I had put a child up for adoption 10 years ago, the medical history would have been incorrect, so adoption is not a sure thing either.

Unfortunately life is not that predictable.

Considering the chances of adopting a healthy baby today are very very slim, I cannot blame this woman for choosing to give birth to her own children. Breast feeding does not make you a better mother though. Nor does having breasts make you a woman. You will still be the same person you are today. Only with the best chance of living a long life to be with the children you have. Medical science is moving rapidly and there is always the chance that the BRAC1 gene may be able to be dealt with on the genetic level by the time your daughter is older. Choosing to adopt or not is up to you. Don't let anyone quilt you into it. Have a baby or not is a personal choice. Very few people today can afford to adopt and are willing to take the chance considering how many birth mothers decide to change their minds a few years later and idiot judges allow it. No thank you. Go ahead and have a baby and bottle feed. You can still hold your baby and feel the very same satisfaction as if you were breastfeeding. And you are still you!

Mirac, your obsession with President Obama is really frightening. You should consult a specialist.

The cancer gene did NOT skip a generation in her family so she has a very GOOD chance of handing this horrible gene down to her offspring. KNOWING what she does should make her think twice about having a baby! BUT, she is rushing to have a child to pass on the horrible gene. I'm sure her mother didn't know there was such a thing as a cancer gene and therefore had children out of love. What is her motivation:

"Every female in my family died from breast cancer and I am having my breasts removed so I might not suffer the ugly disease. You my sweet child will probably get it too and either have to spend days and nights crying or taking chemo. Hopefully you won't die too my dear. I love you so much that I would put you through this!"

If it were me, I would NOT have children!! PERIOD!! Why would I when my offspring could end up in the same predicament. I would not have children to make them suffer! We all hope to have healthy children and I realize there is no guarantee but if you know there is an 85% chance they can get a terrible deadly debilitating disease, then why would anyone reproduce?

I feel bad for her but I think there are other options.

Women shouldn't be negative about getting the latest in Reconstruction of the Breast, for Breast Cancer.

One has to have a good, positive attitude for this being a good candidate for any of the new Preventive Breast Cancer Surgery.

Just think of the women in the past, who had no choice by having a huge Radical Breast Cancer Surgery or surgeries, taking all the lymph nodes out. They always had problems with the strength in their arms, and the fact they looked at one or two very long, ugly scars. The only choice they had was buying a prothesis for their bra, which was very heavy and uncomfortable, let alone the huge expense for one. Most women disgarded them, they were too intrusive.

Always a reminder of that terrible time in their lives.

Have children. Cancer runs in my family and some have moved on. Regardless of the time you are given each one of us can make a positive impact on others while we are here on earth.

Mental illness runs in my family, too. I have counciled my daughter NOT to have children. Is this an acceptable standard, but not having children because you have a predisposition to cancer isn't? I believe the best choice is sometimes choosing to not have kids, especially when you know your genetics are less than the optimum.

How do breasts look after reconstruction?

Yeah this woman is brave. I've never had experience with any type of cancer (thank God), but all this stress she's feeling going to all these appointments, and not being able to know what the future is going to be like, it'll be much less when she gets the surgery, and she can try to get reconstruction surgery, too. I say go for it, and she's extremely brave for doing so. That's like jumping off a cliff with a backpack on, not knowing if it's a parachute or not, but knowing it's your only good option. What a corageous woman.

Positive me: Christina Applegate had the same surgery...she looks great to me.

Positive me:

They look great. My friend had this recently done, great grandmother, grandmother, and her mother died at early ages died from Breast Cancer.

The surgeon takes all the breast tissue from underneath the skin and removes it, leaving the entire outer breasts, including nipples like "flaps", putting an expander in the patient to keep the breasts from "shrinking".

In a few weeks or a month, when the first surgery is sufficently healed, the patient goes in again and has the new Silicone implants placed inside. The new silicone will never leak. I saw them, and they look terrific. Very great. She is so very happy. You can choose the size of the implants. It would be wise to keep them from looking like Dolly Parton!

The surgeons were of the best in their field. My friend's breasts look terrific, and she no longer has the worry of an early death from Breast Cancer. This doesn't mean that anyone can be relieved of ever having any other cancer, but my friend is so proud, and much relieved.

I'm proud of her. She is a real great example for this surgery--key, is to have the greatest surgeons a woman can get to do this artful procedure. There is no longer the gnawing anxiety, of when? She has 3 children and a life to live.

It is a miracle. New techiniques in the Medical field are miracles.

Who are you to question this woman's choices on such a personal level?

What do you mean "Who are you?" If the woman didn't want public commentary then she shouldn't have opened herself up to it. You can't put 'your story' out there, and then expect commentary or questions that ONLY line up with your philosophy.

I think it's a valid question: If you know that you are genetically pre-disposed to this particular condition, having it passed on to you through your family bloodline, why would you consider passing it on to your own child?

Personally, I'd probably take the risk, but that's just me. But you can't invite public commentary and then be indignant when they don't all fall in line with your own views.

Why ask - "How do breasts look after reconstruction?" - no matter how good a job a surgeon might do, they simply aren't going to be like, feel like or look like the original equipment. My advice is to simply have them removed - sooner than later - and wear a prosthetic bra rather than having implants. I am a guy - so I will never know the pros and cons of having breasts - but I have lived through my wife's tramatic experience with breast cancer.

Our ordeal began during her third pregnancy and her right breast was removed before the birth of our second son - her age - 32. The lump that trigered the panic had been there for litteraly years. My wife breast fed all three of our kids, while feeding son #1, the Doctor told her that the tenderness was due to lactation, breast feeding women simply had "lumpy", sensitive breasts. When she became pregnant with son #2 more than a year later, the doctor told her that pregnant women had sensitive "lumpy" breasts - no one really bothered to check. We relocated in her 7th month and the new doctor went banannas!!! "Who told you this "cr__p", he did a biopsy and removed her breast a month later, just 4 weeks before son #2 was born. She breast fed until son#2 was 8 months old, then on the advice of her "new" doctor had her left breast removed. They didn't test for specific genes back then, but based on the type and location of the cancer, he told us in most cases it would eventully be bi-lateral, the risk simply wasn't worth taking a chance.

My wife was very lucky - while she had had the lump for a number of years, there was no lymph node involvement, she had no radiation or chemo - but she did have implants. It took her a number of months before she would even show me the scars, we hugged - and her new "girls" felt like baseballs between us, she couldn't sleep on her stomach and she said they "itched". Her scars and the area where breast tissue was removed was (and is) numb - in short they were never, ever, even remotely close to the "real" thing. To me it never mattered, my wife and I have been married for 33 years and while we both miss them, her breasts were never the reason we got together in the first place.

Sorry to ramble on, but one more point - the two of us went to a Susan G. Komen "Fun Run" a few years ago, at the culmination of the run the organizer called all the Breast Cancer Survivors up to the stage - some 50 women surged forward and collected on the stage behind the podium. The organizer asked one year survivors to raise their hands - all did. Then two year survivors - most did, then five year survivors - a marked reduction in numbers. At 10 years only 5 raised their hands, at 15 years only my wife and one other woman raised a hand. To say the least, the impact was intense and immediate, my wife had survived a crisis that took (takes) nearly everyone else - the surgury was (in my oponion) the key, it was a brave choice and the right choice for both of us - and to this day I don't think she ever asked me for my oponion.

Don't wait until January, this could be a true matter of live or death, that one little metastasized cell that gets loose, invades your lymph system and roots someplace else, before your cancer is big enough to show, is the real problem.

Best wishes for a productive and long life....!!!

Buxxe Moxe:

No, all women should have this miracle surgery. Believe me, they are as natural as your own breasts. Please read my article above yours.

Hawaii2,

Thanks for the information. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have to undergo a double mastectomy as a preventive measure, and I think the women who make this decision are very brave. Knowing they they won't feel like something is missing afterward I'm sure is a great relief.

Rest assured that someone is reading these comments that is trying to make this decision now. You may have just helped someone, and saved a life!

Same here Linda (see my post reply to ALUMETTE) and had a double mastectomy in 2006. Had breast reconstruction, using my own fat from my belly, and my breasts looks really good. The only problem is that they are a tad bigger than my original breast, and attracts too much attention - lol!!

Folks should NOT judge unless that have walked in another's shoes!! I wish you well Linda!

Shes sooo brave and what about the evil insurance companies footing the bill for this unnecessary reconstruction, under the definition in the h/c bill? hahaahahahaha

Mirac reconstruction is necessary and preventative mastectomies will save health care dollars in the long run, as cancer treatment is expensive, including extra post-remission monitoring and possible second or third bouts of cancer.

BsFranken:

Thank you for your great comments.

I am living proof of seeing the results of this double surgery. It is truly darn amazing. It gives me the chills to think how happy my friend is.

Her breasts look completely normal, yes normal. She had the greatest doctors. There was no question why she shouldn't of had it done. Her sister also had the same type of procedure, removing all the breast tissue underneath, leaving the skin and the nipples. The surgery itself will leave very little scarring.

BSFranken, it takes a Positive Mental Attitude to want to live to see your children and family grow older with you.

It doesn't sound like the bride has this attitude. She should thank G-d, that there is excellent reconstruction, without having to actually give up having 2 surgically removed breasts.

To me, this is one of the biggest breakthroughs in preventive Breast Cancer Surgery.

if this woman is ready for this, applause for her! i don't think i would hesitate if i were her either, the breakthroughs in reconstruction (particularly when its preventative) are amazing.

very faint white lines are all that is left, the nipple can be left on, honestly the end result would most likely be an improvement for me personally. (and i am not even 30 yet) no one scoffs when someone wants breast surgery simply for aestetics, why scoff at this?!

no one can say what another person's emotional peace is worth.

What a super and inspiring story. Thank you for your comments. I wish you could see the movie and/or read the book I make a reference to below. Your compassion comes through.

I could not believe what I saw in the wonderful and true story of a 27 year old young lady dx'ed. with Breast Cancer.

I saw it on HBO Free Movies. It may have been under On Demand. The title was "Why I Wore Red Lipstick." When the movie came on, a caption underneath the title was "to my mastectomy." I could NOT believe the advances in Breast Reconstruction.

I found the book on amazon.com.

Obviously you have no history of breast cancer in your family and have never watched a loved one suffer the pain from chemo and/or radiation and then have the cancer turn up again in another part of your body until you are eaten up with cancer. I hope you never have to endure this. Those of us who have gone through this realize the removal of our own breast tissue and reconstruction is NOT mutilation but a road to sanity.

There are no guarantees and I am sure you know that. You may be minimizing your chances to get cancer...maybe. If you have no problem with mutilation, I say..go for it.

It may be easy to think that if you don't have a long history of breast cancer in your family and don't have BRCA1. But to know so many women in your family have had breast cancer and have this gene - that would be cause for thought. I know I would have to do a long hard look at preventative surgery if that were the case. I don't think anyone really can say how they would react or the decisions they would make unless and until they are in that situation. I'm hoping you won't have to be in that situation.

That gene testing will likely save my mom's life. My sister was diagnosed a year ago at 27 years old, had chemo, a double mastectomy and her ovaries removed. Thankfully she already had two children and is since having breast reconstruction and is in remission. She tested positive for BRCA-1 and from that my mom and I were also tested and were positive as well. From the that knowledge, doctors increased screening on my mom and low and behold, a year later an MRI turned up the same cancer in my mom that would not have been found until much later with standard testing. Due to that, she will also have the same surgeries and will beat the cancer, hopefully without chemo because of how early they found it. And I, a man, will be able to test my children someday to track this gene and stop cancer before it starts.

So we may not "know" everything, but I do not blame this woman at all for what she is doing after seeing the results of this gene deformation in my family. My mom was preparing to do the same thing before her diagnosis. You should look into this research and see what hope it has given to those who have this issue before you criticize it.

My entire family has died of cancer. Never breast cancer, but most of my family is dead by 70. Kidney, lung, brain are most prevailent. A great aunt who is still alive had ovarian cancer, but survived, and my mom had cysts and problems so bad she ended up with a hysterectomy when she was 22. It worries me, I feel like I have no chance of living a long healthy life because my genes are already against me, but unlike this lady, there is not much I can do about it. Just this past month I had a greataunt die...it started with skin cancer, then moved to her lungs, it ate her up and she died slowly and painfully. And since then my grandma, who has always had a lot of moles, is taking it more seriously and getting moles tested, and some removed to try and avoid the cancer, having large sections of skin and muscle removed along with the moles that have shown the greatest chance of cancer. This woman is brave and she is smart, and I guess only those with cancer running deep in their family can understand that and understand why she's doing what she's doing.

What I wonder is, why is it that American women seem to have a predisposition to having this "gene", as well as the breast/ovarian cancer that has a high probability of occurring? Asian women do not have much breast cancer, and I'm willing to bet they are not the only ethnic group that has a lower incidence of this than American women. This is not a coincidence; I do not believe enough research is going in this direction, maybe because it's easier to gain sympathy if it's believed that it's all beyond control...and I do not buy that for a second.
Humans have brought cancer into the equation, by what we eat, drink and breathe; and until those issues are addressed, doctors and drug companies will reap the benefits of the "cures". A wiser and less expensive course of action would be to focus on prevention instead.

And, for what it is worth, I have had many skin cancers removed, and I am the only member of my family (of any age) to have cancer of any kind; that doesn't jive with the "genetic" theory.

the G-man - You bring up very good points regarding ethnicity. Asians tend to be in better health overall than most other people, most likely due to their diet. My sister and I were just discussing this the other day. Her husband is Asian and NEVER gets sick. The H1N1 flu just went through her family and he is the only one that didn't get it.

As far as the genetic comment, not all cancer is caused by genes. But if you have 3 relatives that have the same type of cancer, it is something that needs to be looked into. Think of it like allergies. Almost all allergies have the potential to be genetic, but that doesn't mean they are for every single person. You can meet a family that they only have one allergy sufferer and the family next to them might all have allergies. Skin cancer especially, can be more environmental than genetic.

Mammograms.

All women should have Mammograms from the age of 30, yes 30. There are many women who have had breast cancer this early, many. We personally know of them. I am also at high risk for breast cancer. My mother had it, and my sister had two mastectomies 15 years apart. She wasn't able to get the benefit of the new procedure.

Breast cancer can reoccur 15 years later. It is no longer a 5 year time period.

I despise the term "mutilation" because it sounds ugly. In my experience as an orthotist, fitting women for breast prosthesis and mastectomy bras, the appearance of a woman that has had a radical single or double mastectomy is not at all ugly or disfiguring. Yes, it is scar tissue and will be red or raised for some time and then will eventually be white lines on her chest.

Reconstructive surgery has come a long way since I started working with mastectomy patients. For those that are eligible, I sincerely hope that their insurance company will foot the bill. Since boob jobs have become the "norm" for many American women who aren't satisfied with their breast size, the stigma of having "artificial" breasts is gone.

Lizzie is an intelligent and courageous woman who is making an extremely difficult decision. I would do the same thing if I had her odds of getting cancer. I'm interested to know how many generations the gene goes through until it's no longer such a high risk. That would help me decide if I wanted to have my own children, or adopt.

Breast feeding is a wonderful experience which I was unsuccessful at because I just wasn't producing milk. We tried for two weeks and it became more and more frustrating. I had a difficult delivery and my system was all screwed up. Holding my son close to me while bottle feeding was a little less rewarding, but it is possible to bond regardless of how the baby is fed. Both of my kids turned out just fine with bottle feeding. They're happy, normal, intelligent and they know EVERYTHING at 23 & 25! I must have gone a bit overboard on the bonding thing because they're both still LIVING AT HOME! LOL

Alumette:

Can you imagine a women who is destined to have a death from Breast cancer, because of family genetics; having this anxiety and fear their entire life. They have children and want to be around as a Mother for them.

Life is to be lived without the worry that it could happen at any moment. It is a death sentence for women who have strong genetics of other family members that died an early death from it.

Democratic Woman
I don't say genetic predisposition isn't real, but I do believe that if other factors (like diet and environment) are given more consideration, then said predisposition doesn't have to become a reality.
The medical community (doctors, drug companies, etc) have no vested interest in Americans being healthy; they won't make any money if that happens. So they downplay the role of diet and environment (and vitamin/mineral supplements, one of which is keeping me away from death's door when our fabulous medical system cannot), and instead induce panic by telling people of the horrors of cancer and how they are probably going to get it.
Man is cancer's method of delivery; we have brought this on ourselves.

My mom was on one side of the living healthy spectrum and my sister was on the other; my sister did and does live/eat/etc. VERY healthy!! CANCER has NO prejudice!

OK...then why do so few Asians have cancer? Answer, please...since cancer has no prejudice.

I bet all those people who lived near Love Canal ate very healthy, too...

Nature vs. nuture, G-man. Nurture may mitigate, but if nature determines that you will have breast cancer, it does not mean you failed at taking care of yourself. I'm sensing that you want to place "blame" but don't want to come out and say it. When the deck is stacked against you, there are limits to changing that, and sometimes there's nothing you can do.

Take sickle cell - are you going to blame blacks for being diagnosed? Take type 1 diabetes - many of those who take excellent care of themselves sooner or later succumb to problems common to diabetics, which result in amputation or blindness. There are plenty of lung cancer victims who never smoked a cigarette in their lives or lived in a manufacturing town or were exposed to others' smoke day and night.

Sorry, don't buy it; obviously, the medical/drug community has you thinking the way they want.
You didn't answer the question I asked, either; oh, you say it's "nature" that causes American women (and people in general) to have higher rates of cancer than other ethnicities in other countries? That's hilarious...you must be a professional comedian.

I am speaking of cancer only, not sickle cell anemia or diabetes, neither of which is cancer. Stay on topic, please.
And to your last statement; there may be some, but there aren't "plenty", as you suggest.

It is actually extremely rare.

Getting enough Vitamin D, through sunshine and vitamins are connected to getting breast cancer, along with genetic testing. Many Oncologists and Specialists believe this is true. In our State, there is a higher rate for Breast Cancer, and Multiple Sclerosis than in any other part of the country.

Wonder if women living in sunshine states have the decreased chance of getting breast cancer?

You obviously don't get what an analogy is, or why I selected the diseases I did to illustrate my points. Nor do I appreciate some arrogant jack*** assuming it's OK to talk down to me because I am a woman.

I never would wish disease on anyone, but I can't say I'd feel sorry for you if you were diagnosed with something, because you wouldn't be able to comprehend it could happen to someone as perfect as yourself.

At the very least, hopefully some A-A person here will weigh in regard to your believing that blacks are to blame for sickle cell anemia.

I don't think women in Japan spend a great deal of time in the sun, but check out their breast cancer rate.
One thing they do is eat fresh food every day; they eat practically nothing out of a can, or that has been pre-cooked/prepackaged.
Coincidence?

GK You are the jackass, and ignorant to boot; did you read any of my prior posts? Never anywhere did I mention anything, or even hint about blacks being responsible for sickle cell anemia, you racist pig. Take your racist agenda elsewhere.
You are an idiot. I do have cancer (skin), and it's maybe because I wasn't born black? WAAAAAAAAA
Get a life you loser.

Let's see if I can explain this again: the topic is breast cancer. No one has mentioned diabetes or sickle cell until you came along to attack my point of view becasue you disagree with it, then for absloutely no reason say that I said blacks are to blame for sickle cell. What a fool.

And I am talking down to you because you are stupid and can't read!

Alumette -- I'm with you. Just a thought, but have any studies been done showing a difference in the incidence of breast cancer between women who have had children & women who have not. I happen to believe child birth is harder on a woman than most believe.

Alumette:

Genetic testing starts with DNA. It is 99 per cent correct.

Can understand your apprehension.

Linda. Congratuations on your satisfied reconstruction!. Yes, taking fat off the stomach or hips does a much better job of a good reconstruction for Breast Cancer.

Pink is the Color!

I believe the decision have the genetic studies done for BRCA1 and 2 was one of the most important considerations Lizzie will ever make. I totally support her preventive steps to have the mastectomies and later removal of ovaries. She does want a baby.

I found your ideas interesting.

While there are tremendous numbers of breast cancer survivors, it is known now that the chance of this/these genes being passed on from one female generation to the other is TREMENDOUS!. Some of these cancers can be especially aggressive to treat, and the very best treatment known may well not be good enough. I do believe there are many aspects that go hand in hand with the best prevention awareness and preventive treatment possible. Also, the numbers of male breast cancer coming to light again bring up both genetic and environmental influences.

I also want to mention that Asian women do have far fewer incidents of Breast Cancer than American women do. Several comments were made.

However, genetic predisposition to stomach cancer is of greater incidence in the Asian population. I commend many Asian countries for their awareness and surveillence in the populations. This includes exams. as well as noting symptoms.

alumette:

I have to agree with you here. Cancer is so prevalent these days, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to find a family who has not experienced that illness in one form or another.

I cannot imagine doing something as drastic as removing body parts "just in case" a cancer developed. What about other cancers where you cannot live without the organ infected? My friend's mother died of brain cancer...so does that mean she is doomed because she obviously can't remove her brain as a protective measure. I wonder if removing the female reproductive system guarantees the person to be cancer-free in all other instances?

I guess it's not a decision to be taken lightly....and to each their own, but it would be terribly unfortunate to go through all that preventative trauma and then end up dying from something else....or ironically....another form of cancer.

JustForStarters - There is always the possibilty of getting another form of cancer, and we all die eventually. Did either of you really look at the statistics for someone with this gene?

DW:

"...called the BRCA1 gene — gives me a 40 percent to 85 percent lifetime risk of developing breast cancer..."

YES...I did 'look at the stats'. However, 40-85% risk is quite a discrepancy...as in a huge difference between 40% risk as opposed to 85% risk. Perhaps this woman would be in the 40% risk range. Do you still think that's 'risky' enough to have your breasts and ovaries removed as a preventative measure? I don't!

And your comment that "we all die eventually" is stupid and childish when you are trying to make a point in favor of this woman's decision...if you feel that way, then wouldn't that same dumb comment apply to the author...you know...don't bother with the preventive measure because "we all die eventually"? Did you really look at your comment before you posted it? Get it???

40% is enough - that's 1 in every 2.5 people! - now, if were were talking 1 in a 100, 1000 or more, yeah, it would be extreme to take preventative measures.

I think it is a vast assumption to say that decisions regarding this gene, or any other genetic test, are made based on panic. I have known that I carry the BRCA1 gene for over a decade. Since before I could drink a beer legally, I have had mammograms and ultrasounds of my breasts. I have been biopsied six times – each very stressful and scary. For over a decade, I have chosen not to have the surgery. Other women in my family have chosen to have the surgery. It is a very personal choice. I chose to wait based on the assumption that medical technology would continue to improve and my options would increase. There are many more options now than a decade ago but still the most preventative and sure is the surgery. The developments have been in the area of testing, not in prevention. And the testing is very uncomfortable and in some cases, as stressful as contemplating the surgery. It is still a personnel choice – and not generally one made immediately or in panic.

Alumette:

It is deninitely not Mutilation. There are other choices such as Lumpectomies, which have to be followed Chemo and in some cases Radiation. This is for patients who have just the beginning stages of Breast Cancer, and no generational history of deaths caused by this disease.

M.J. Schmidt:

Many do not go under Chemotherapy anymore, i.e. my sister who had 2 breasts removed within 15 years of each other.

Their is medication named Arimidex, which replaces the Chemo. She has not had side effects. I believe Insurance does pay for the medication that is taken daily for 5 years.

What are you talking about? We already circumsize newborn boys just for looks, or because they might get a UTI or infections once they're in a home in their 80's. At least these women have the choice themselves, no one gives these baby boys a chance to say if they want their foreskin or not.

And as far as to avoid testicular cancer, if you told me you have an 85%+ chance of developing testicular cancer and chances are it will kill you, I bet many would have their testicles removed. Unlike how Tom Green portrayed it, it is actually a serious thing.

SWMG:

I think if you look at the stats of men who develop prostate cancer, you'd be surprised by the percentage! There are some options for men with prostate cancer, but likely they will endure many weeks of chemo and some do die from it.

I'm not sure that any man would volunteer to have his penis removed....'just in case' he developed this disease.

Some need to do a little research...'prostate" removal is not "penis" removal.
All men, if they live long enough, will probably develop prostate cancer; if I'm 90 and I get prostate cancer, will I really care?
The author of the story said there was a 40-85 percent chance; that's huge range of almost 50%. If I'm told I have a 40% chance of developing prostate cancer or testicular cancer, I will make the wise choice of research to learn more and monitor my own health. Starting to cut things off is a little drastic unless death is imminent, because no matter what you cut off, we all still die, one way or another. For those of you who do not believe in the afterlife, I feel for you.

I think that even if a man could learn he has a sexual organ cancer gene, and the likelihood of contracting cancer is 50% or greater or less, won't take preventative measures (or even have the sense to load up on life insurance for their wife and kids ASAP).

Women, however, are far more sensible, especially if they have children to raise. It's called being responsible.

50%? Why don't you go ahead and crawl up in your little fetal position and live the rest of your life sucking your thumb? Because you obviously live a life afraid of everything.
Preventative measures vary, and having your prostate removed or a testicle (or both) removed because you MIGHT have a 50% chance of getting cancer is not a rational act.

You're dumber than I thought if you would risk a 1 in 2 chance in cancer to protect your family jewels.

Gman:

Done my research thanks....my point was that men wouldn't want to take such drastic measures in order to prevent illness, whereas the woman in this story was willing to do so, just in case.

Alumette --I think this is something everyone has to decide for themselves. My point is that if you haven't been through the pain of watching a loved one die from cancer or its treatment and if you haven't had to face the fear of having breast cancer yourself, you shouldn't put others down for making a decision to save their own lives. I watched loved ones go through the pain, watched them die and when I had to face the fact that it was happening to me also, I took matters in my own hands and had the surgery and reconstruction. I am VERY glad that I did. I no longer have to worry about it and my kids still have me in their lives. I am all they have. Their father has died and I am happy to be here for them. My insurance took care of all expenses because it was a preventive measure and would keep them from having to pay for the cancer treatments. Most of all, I do NOT have to worry about having breast cancer anymore. I hope this is something you never have to face, but if you do, I hope you will consider ALL options.

Except removing your penis and removing your prostate are a tad bit different. And comparing breast to penis doesn't exactly work. Namely because sex and urniation come from the penis, where as breasts are more of an astetic. You can live a perfectly normal and healthy life without breasts. Breast to testicle would at least be a bit closer.

You also sound like a guy who would crack a joke about a flat chested women in a bar w/ your equally pig-like buddies. You need to educate yourself a bit.

Breastfeeding reduces breasts to flat, sunny side up eggs. Other conditions may result in breasts that look like those long skinny ballons clowns blow up to make animals with.

You seem to think that the only option is triple-G implant sizes. Most women in these situations go for the same size, or even smaller implants - with the purpose of restoring natural curves they previous had. Some women choose to get for breast reductions to eliminate constant back pain.

There's also no shame in a woman who never really developed breasts to get implants suitable to her height, weight and frame.

You're right about women not looking at a man missing a testicle as damaged goods, but unfortunately, at their very core, men decide what woman he will pick to be a part of his life, and which he will reject, based on physical appeal. Despite major surgical advance, can a post radical mastecomy implant look as good as a natural breast with a implant done for pure cosmetic purposes?

This woman was smart not to test until AFTER she got married; hopefully, the marriage will survive, as it is new, and the true reality of this won't hit him until after the surgery.

Lots of unanswered questions here - do most insurances pay/not pay for preventative mastectomys? Can the gene be identified with fetal testing and if so, removed/ made harmless? If not, is medicine close to a breakthrough? Maybe do something with the cord cells? She doesn't sound like someone who would abort under any circumstances, but it is a legal option.

If they had, and a chance they may get it, is 2 dif. things.

If there was a 90% chance my pinky was gonna get cancer. I would not have it removed. Also, I constantly worry about cancer, and have never had my genes checked. Just seen people go down. That being said. I will not even look on the computer to see what it says about symptoms I have from time to time. Cause I realize, this would drive me batty.

These docs should be ashamed. LOL, I even am thinking now, that this is another subliminal post by good ole MSNBC.

GK- from some of the new reconstructive surgeries i have been reading about, they sound like they may actually look just as good if not better than the woman's natural breasts in the 1st place. i have seen some breast reduction cases with similar techniques and the scars are so very very faint and even hidden by the areole tissue.

she may have not only the emotional stability she wants but as a "bonus" to this difficult decision she may have an even better physical appearance.

lets face it, this society loves to put natural breast on a pedestal, but the reality is the look that society seems to deem as ideal (look at all magazines and celebrities, etc) is perfectly proportional, symetrical, and very very high, rounded breasts. that's not nature, that's a good bra or a good doctor.

What a courageous lady who knows who she is.

You are an encourager, and I wish you the very best of every single thing.

Yes, breast cancer can happen with NO family history. We really need to know this.

Also, there is the more recent awareness of "Inflammatory Breast Disease." This was on TV and in articles. It is often misdiagnosed by some physicians as a simple dermatological problem. It is NOT, and valuable life saving time is lost.

kellie - i agree with you. Don't have it done just to have it done. Go ahead and have your children, but if a lump is detected, please consider ALL options. The best thing, in my opinion, you can do is to live for your family.

In a way, I agree. But, people do have hope that some day there will be a cure for Breast Cancer. To not have kids because theres a chance your kid will have Breast Cancer, is to say that you give up.

As it has been since the beginning...Her life, her body, her choice.

We all have a ugly gene floating around in us, but if were able we must reproduce naturally.

Slippery slope subject so I'm gone.

That's a pretty elitist view you are taking. Not one doctor has suggested that to my family. Who are you to question who should and should not have children? I have BRCA-1 and am absolutely planning on having children. There is a 50% they will inherit it from me and a 50% we would have a girl who would be much more likely to be affected by it. Then she would have a chance to get breast cancer but there is a good chance she would either take preventative measures or beat it.

Maybe we should just breed perfect people without defects and of a certain IQ. Does this sound familiar? This is the very concept that lead to Hitler's rise. It is easy to dole out judgement when you are not affected by the outcomes but take a minute and consider what you are saying before you tell the world.

Yeah right, I'm sure this woman, who has obviously thought deeply about her situation, would change her mind because a few random people on the internet think they know more about her life that she does. This article offers one person's in-depth experience with a difficult issue, and it's a shame that some people can't read it without judging her. Another possible reaction is to reconsider one's own preconceived notions about how something should be dealt with.

Yeah right, I'm sure this woman, who has obviously thought deeply about her situation, would change her mind because a few random people on the internet think they know more about her life that she does. This article offers one person's in-depth experience with a difficult issue, and it's a shame that some people can't read it without judging her. Another possible reaction is to reconsider one's own preconceived notions about how something should be dealt with.

c-beyond,

You can have frequent colonoscopies to keep an eye on any colon problems. By the time breast cancer is picked up in a routine mammogram, it is usually large enough to be mutating and spreading. Colon CA doesn't grow and mutate as quickly as breast CA. I know this because my colo-rectal surgeon and I were just discussing this.

If you were found to carry a gene that would give you an 80% chance of getting colon cancer what would you do?

I would keep my Colan and if I was diagnosed with Colan Cancer I would fight for my life as my Mom did and hopefully win. I've already been diagnosed with Cervical Cancer and beat it. They told me I couldn't have anymore children and I did.

My point is we are letting Cancer get the best of us. I refuse to live in fear. Even though I watched my Mom die from the disease I will not take extreme evasive measures. I am in way judging hers or any one else's decision on this matter. This is just the way I see things.