This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Breast Cancer - radical solutions!
Read about Miss America who has decided to have a bilateral mastectomy, both breasts off, due to a strong family history even though she has no signs of the disease?
More and more women are choosing this radical solution: is it fear of death or the realisation that life is much more important than appearance or beauty.
Then there are those diagnosed with breast cancer and have to have one off anyway, but decide to have both taken in order to avoid extensive radiation and chemo therapy afterwards. It seems a very definite choice about quality of life being more important than having lengthy drawn out treatments which take a toll on ones life at every possible level for five to ten years ...
Have you or anyone you know chosen the knife over poison?
how do partners, or men in general, feel about it?
Is this an idea worth spreading?
Closing Statement from Kate Blake
Much thanks to everyone who particated, a small but worthwhile discussion. Much thanks Peter for sharing your family history. And special thanks to Linda and Alicji for your views.
Treatment is a very personal choice and one made after obtaining detailed information from the 'experts'.
Good luck to all those confronted with such choices ... may your life be long and healthy.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
Muslim: In some cases, having a foreskin could lead to certain infections under certain circumstances
Me: Well why dont you have your eyes removed incase you develop cataracts then?..
My position was supposed to demonstrate the stupidity of the argument, but sadly some women (according to this topic) took that type of response and said 'hay, good idea!'
This isn't an idea worth spreading, this is the most idiotic idea I've heard all week. Any part of your body can suddenly develop a serious issue inwhich it has to be removed or invasive surgery/medication has to be used, hereditory or not.
Almost certainly that womans family has a history of heart-disease too, is she going to remove her heart awell? no, because that would be stupid wouldn't it...
I understand the fear of a potential threat that could make like incredibly difficult or even end it, but hacking yourself up pre-emptively is simply insane on so many levels and theres just no way anyone would think otherwise had this not been a woman and the subject of breast cancer,
Like a man who just got diabetes and cuts off his feet, a man strapping himself into a wheel chair the moment he gets a job on high-rise construction or me making a topic to tell you all that I'm having my prostate removed and an aortic transplant just incase..
Kate Blake 50+
Can we now take the middle way: a lady has been diagnosed with breast cancer and medically needs a mastectony, only one off. But decides to have both taken off just to be sure.
Now before you argue I know many women - that's a lot because I used to work in hospcie care - who have survived breast cancer twice but none that have survived it three times. In that breast cancer usually returns whether it's 20 months or 20 years later it seems to have a nasty habit of returning.
And because of this doctors insist on the radiation then chemo therapy to lessen the risks - usually 5 to ten years treatment of burning and poisoning of the entire body system. Would you advise her to keep the seemingly healthy one and endure such treatment?
Peter Law 30+
Cancer can return in the other breast. In my limited experience it is just as likely to return in the hips, & then possibly the brain. The time to remove the second breast is when it's infected; not before. I'm sure I read somewhere that lumpectomies are just as effective as mastectomies.
What I don't understand is why they zap the body "just in case", or just to make sure. If there is no cancer to aim at, then the only damage is to healthy cells. The only real cure is through the body's immune system & to zap that must be counter productive.
My family takes daily vitamin B17 via apricot seeds as a preventative. Should I get cancer I would go for minimum surgery plus a comprehensive dietary regime. May not be scientific in the accepted sense, but statistically hopeful,& saves the misery of all that chemo etc. We all die sometime, & I'm up for that. I'm a Christian, :)
:-)
Alicja Daszczuk
As for your question for zapping "in case". Cancer cells detach themselves from the tumour and fluctuate in the blood, they might also be already present in the tissue of the same breast or the other breast, just not yet developed to tumours. However, the cancer cells have different response to drugs and radiation than healthy cells do, what allows for deactivation of cancerous, but not yet forming tumour cells, and microtumours (I am sure you can find some work on the differences in radiobiology between normal and cancerous cells if you would like to explore this topic further). Your conception that there is no cancer after the surgery is optimistic; it's rarely the case.
These practices (radiation therapy, mastectomy instead of breast-sparing surgery) are not set in stone, but are governed by years of clinical experience on remission and recurrence and by detailed risk-benefit analysis.
Of course everyone has a decision to make what to do with their own life, body, or treatment if they unfortunately require one, whether it's governed by religion, personal opinions or just a gut feeling, that's their choice. However the practices that are mentioned are not experiments or assumptions, but are grounded in detailed studies.