Would you undergo preventive surgery to reduce cancer risk?

NachoBusiness

Obviousily an issue which mainly concerns women, but would be interested in knowing what the general view on this is.

Lot of debate currently regarding this topic given that Angelina Jolie has now had her ovaries removed following on from the double mastectomy which she had two years back after discovering she had a mutation in the BRCA1 gene (which guides repair of damaged DNA and suppresses tumor growth).

Jolie writes about her decision to undergo the latest surgery which results in forced menopause here.

Initially she received a lot of support but seems this second surgery has brought some criticism, such as the following remarks from the idiot that is Katie Hopkins for one:

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/580659883894304769

Obviously surgery to remove or treat a cancer is something that is not really up for debate but what about preemptive surgery. If you were told you had mutations in one of BRCA genes, and hysterectomy or mastectomy (or both) was advised, do you think it is something you would choose to do?

Or, if you are male and were told that because of a BRCA mutation it might be best for you to have a radical prostatectomy, do you think it is something that you would agree to undergo?

Personally I wouldn't as I don't think the possible side side effects or risk of surgery would be worth it. I believe genetic mutations are just one part of a complex picture. They are without question a gun pointed at your head, for sure, but I feel environment and lifestyle choices are what ultimately decides if that trigger is pulled or not. Maybe not letting people smoke around you and not smoking yourself would be a better start.

The Backwards Man

Statistically, if I breathe long enough I'll get cancer. I'm not currently considering taking any measures to curtail my breathing, nor do I plan to in the future.

Generic Dreadhead

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

The_Valeyard

Really depends on the quality of life an operation or change like that would bring. To each their own. Let's hope none of us here are forced to make choices like that!

Mars Bar

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

Did you read it after the Twitter pic? It's a very good opening post if you read the rest and it's a good topic to discuss.

I think I'd have to look at the history of my family to see just how often it occurs. Did her mother have cancer?

EDIT: Her mother died of ovarian cancer. I completely understand in that case.

Links234

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

Yeah, I wish people would stop giving her oxygen, she's a bad troll

The_Valeyard

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, I wish people would stop giving her oxygen, she's a bad troll

I thought she was very enjoyable during the car crash late late valetine show.

eviltwin

I would. They are only breasts and ovaries, I could live without them if it meant not having the fear of cancer hanging over me.

I think Angelina Jolie has a responsibility to minimise the risk of early death for the sake of her kids. As far as I know, HRT will ameliorate many of the symptoms of the forced menopause, and I think she's been very brave to proactively face this threat head on and take preventative action. She's done it quietly and with great dignity, and I'm not a particular fan of hers but I admire how she's handled this. I hope other women with huge risks like she faced take strength from her example when faced with such a terrible choice.

Breast reconstruction has minimised the trauma of the double mastectomy, and hopefully the right hormone therapy will do the same for the removal of her ovaries. I hope she lives a long and well life.

NachoBusiness

Cormac... wrote: »

So you're quoting Katie Hopkins and hoping for some serious debate :rolleyes:

I also quoted Jolie and linked to an article where a specialist on the subject gave his opinion, along also of course with giving my own. Why quoting Katie Hopkin's should stifle or negate that, I don't know. What she said is after all the reason I was even reading about the topic today in the first place. Like or her loathe her (and I loathe her) her opinion is just that, an opinion.

floggg

NachoBusiness wrote: »

Obviousily an issue which mainly concerns women, but would be interested in knowing what the general view on this is.

Lot of debate currently regarding this topic given that Angelina Jolie has now had her ovaries removed following on from the double mastectomy which she had two years back after discovering she had a mutation in the BRCA1 gene (which guides repair of damaged DNA and suppresses tumor growth).

Jolie writes about her decision to undergo the latest surgery which results in forced menopause here.

Initially she received a lot of support but seems this second surgery has brought some criticism, such as the following remarks from the idiot that is Katie Hopkins for one:

https://twitter.com/KTHopkins/status/580659883894304769

Obviously surgery to remove or treat a cancer is something that is not really up for debate but what about preemptive surgery. If you were told you had mutations in one of BRCA genes, and hysterectomy or mastectomy (or both) was advised, do you think it is something you would choose to do?

Or, if you are male and were told that because of a BRCA mutation it might be best for you to have a radical prostatectomy, do you think it is something that you would agree to undergo?

Personally I wouldn't as I don't think the possible side side effects or risk of surgery would be worth it. I believe genetic mutations are just one part of a complex picture. They are without question a gun pointed at your head, for sure, but I feel environment and lifestyle choices are what ultimately decides if that trigger is pulled or not. Maybe not letting people smoke around you and not smoking yourself would be a better start.

Sorry, what was the question again?

I was too busy judging you for thinking that taking the time to embed a tweet from Katie Hopkins would add something to the conversation to keep track.

Katie Hopkins is an utter cow, belittling Jolie for what must have been an awful decision. That woman is pure poison.

Canis Lupus

I'm currently undergoing chemo. It's pretty sucky and even with Hodgkins lymphoma and like 95% survival rate there's no guarantee it won't come back in a year or two...

With this knowledge in hand.... If I was told I had a reeeeally high chance of getting a type of cancer, ie 75% chance or more then yeah, I'd potentially consider biting the bullet but again it depends on what cancer and the negatives of the surgery. Tough call to make say if I was told to remove my prostate at 33...

Wompa1

I don't begrudge her getting the operation. It's a little rich that she feels compelled to be an example for others in a country in which Healthcare costs a fortune and such preventetive optional surgeries are the most expensive.
The media also keeps portraying her as brave.

A comedian had said, "She's really brave when you think about it. If she didn't have the operation there was a 95% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death."

Wompa1

Wompa1 wrote: »

I don't begrudge her getting the operation. It's a little rich that she feels compelled to be an example for others in a country in which Healthcare costs a fortune and such preventetive optional surgeries are the most expensive.
The media also keeps portraying her as brave.

A comedian had said, "She's really brave when you think about it. If she didn't have the operation there was a 95% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death."

To be fair, facing something like that head-on takes guts. So many people put their heads in the sand and hope for the best, she chose to swing into action and bring on the challenges of menopause and hormone therapy instead of sitting tight and hoping for the best.

Mars Bar

I didn't actually answer the question posed.

Yes I would.

My family has a strong history of brain issues such as tumours and bleeds including my mother. My cousin in his late twenties suffered a bleed in the brain just this week. His father died in 1998 because of a haemorrhage. I wouldn't be adverse to having my brain removed if that wasn't so problematic in itself! :pac:

seamus

I guess it depends on the risk. If you're doing to reduce a 0.5% risk to a 0.05% risk, then you're probably being insanely overreactive.

Jolie is probably quite a bit more paranoid about cancer than most, understandably so. But the risks she's been quoted for her personally aren't small ones. So it seems like a pretty rational choice on her part. If the risk was 10% or so, then the rational choice is probably a six-monthly check up and test for it. If the risk is 87%, then it seems more logical to whip that thing off and remove the risk completely.

Cancer's a bitch. While survival rates are good if you catch it early, they're not perfect. So if you've a high chance of developing a particular type of cancer, the most effective way of not dying from cancer would be to whip it off.

Capt'n Midnight

The Backwards Man wrote: »

Statistically, if I breathe long enough I'll get cancer. I'm not currently considering taking any measures to curtail my breathing, nor do I plan to in the future.

Oxygen is mutagenic, good luck avoiding that one.

seamus wrote: »

I guess it depends on the risk. If you're doing to reduce a 0.5% risk to a 0.05% risk, then you're probably being insanely overreactive.

Surgery carries risks too. Also she'd have access to the quality of health care and surgeons that the rest of use could only dream of. She ain't going under the hammer with Dr Nick.

Also the approximate dose from a CT scan of the abdomen—increases the lifetime risk of developing any cancer by 0.1 percent. Avoid CAT scans unless there is just cause.




As it's AH
Has she checked the odds for brain cancer ? :pac:

Penny Tration

Yes, i would.

My breasts can be reconstructed, and hrt will sort the medically induced menopause.

For me, it seems a no-brainer.

Drumpot

My wife has the brca gene and is being strongly urged by all in the medical profession to have her ovaries and breasts removed by the cancer clinic she attends. She is only in her mid 30s. Her cousin got breast cancer and was dead within 2 years but that's not the only reason she is getting it done.

We have been advised on the statistics and there is a really high percentage chance she will get cancer the older she gets. It's up in the 70% range.

I wish people would research this stuff before talking through their arses about it.

Penny Tration

Drumpot wrote: »

My wife has the brca gene and is being strongly urged by all in the medical profession to have her ovaries and breasts removed by the cancer clinic she attends. She is only in her mid 30s. Her cousin got breast cancer and was dead within 2 years but that's not the only reason she is getting it done.

We have been advised on the statistics and there is a really high percentage chance she will get cancer the older she gets. It's up in the 70% range.

I wish people would research this stuff before talking through their arses about it.

That must be terrifying for you and your wife.

I wish her all the best with the surgery and recovery.

efb

Yes

One eyed Jack

I wouldn't, tbh, not even if I were aware of a 99% risk that I would develop any of the numerous types of male cancer. I place the risk to my mental health above any risk to my physical health.

I have a history in my family of heart disease, and I had an incident myself at 33 where I was just lucky to have gotten to a hospital on time to prevent a major heart failure. I was acutely aware of the symptoms given that it happened only a month after my own father had died of massive heart failure, (and this was only two years after he'd had a quad-bypass done).

I would still prefer to live my life to it's fullest than to be always conscious of the fact that I am shortening my life-span by doing so. I can certainly appreciate Angelina's reasons for electing to opt for preventative surgery, and I think raising awareness of these possible cancers and so on is a good thing. I also applauded Jade Goody for her raising awareness of cervical cancer during her short lifetime, and how she encouraged and inspired many women to get checked, but I wouldn't necessarily encourage women to go to the extremes that Angelina Jolie has chosen for herself.

If there were a history of testicular, prostate or bowel cancer in my family for example, I wouldn't elect to have what I consider elective preventative surgery done, at the risk of having it compromise my mental health. I would sooner deal with cancer IF it were to happen, rather than take extreme preventative measures as if it is an inevitability.

Wompa1

Candie wrote: »

To be fair, facing something like that head-on takes guts. So many people put their heads in the sand and hope for the best, she chose to swing into action and bring on the challenges of menopause and hormone therapy instead of sitting tight and hoping for the best.

But when the alternative is death and you've got all the money in the world, no real work demands, you set your schedule...that's not brave, it's just common sense.

Wompa1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn't, tbh, not even if I were aware of a 99% risk that I would develop any of the numerous types of male cancer. I place the risk to my mental health above any risk to my physical health.

I have a history in my family of heart disease, and I had an incident myself at 33 where I was just lucky to have gotten to a hospital on time to prevent a major heart failure. I was acutely aware of the symptoms given that it happened only a month after my own father had died of massive heart failure, (and this was only two years after he'd had a quad-bypass done).

I would still prefer to live my life to it's fullest than to be always conscious of the fact that I am shortening my life-span by doing so. I can certainly appreciate Angelina's reasons for electing to opt for preventative surgery, and I think raising awareness of these possible cancers and so on is a good thing. I also applauded Jade Goody for her raising awareness of cervical cancer during her short lifetime, and how she encouraged and inspired many women to get checked, but I wouldn't necessarily encourage women to go to the extremes that Angelina Jolie has chosen for herself.

If there were a history of testicular, prostate or bowel cancer in my family for example, I wouldn't elect to have what I consider elective preventative surgery done, at the risk of having it compromise my mental health. I would sooner deal with cancer IF it were to happen, rather than take extreme preventative measures as if it is an inevitability.

Did she shorten her life by getting the operation? I didn't think she did.

One eyed Jack

Wompa1 wrote: »

Did she shorten her life by getting the operation? I didn't think she did.

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Rosie Rant

Yes. I wouldn't hesitate.

Canis Lupus

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Do you imagine being diagnosed with a cancer you could have prevented would be good for your mental health?

One eyed Jack

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Do you imagine being diagnosed with a cancer you could have prevented would be good for your mental health?

I imagine being diagnosed with anything I could have prevented wouldn't be good for my mental health.

But I also imagine that the extreme measures I would have to take to prevent such possibilities would have a far more detrimental effect on my mental health in the meantime.

It's easy in theory to say for example that if I were to find out that I was at 99% risk of developing testicular cancer in my lifetime that I should have my sperm frozen and my testes removed, but the consequences of living with that condition would IMO have a far more detrimental effect on my mental health than knowing I have prevented one single possibility, no matter how high the risk.

Wacker The Attacker

No.

If cancer happens then handle it then

Saralee4

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That was kinda my point - she is possibly extending her life, but at what cost to her mental health?

For me personally, the cost to my mental health is too high a price to pay to preserve my physical health.

Yea jack but it is possible that she had an overwhelming fear of getting cancer after seeing her mother suffer from it, then to be told you have a high chance of getting it from predictive tests probably increased that fear and that would not have a good impact on your mental health either.

I think if I did have the opportunity to do something like that then I probably would if I was told the odds were that high but you don't really know how you will deal with that kind of information. Some people who consider themselves weak become really strong when faced with illness or trauma.

I dont really commend or dissaprove of Angelina Jolies choice. I think its down to her but I think the type of care and aftercare she would receive and the help with her family and being out of work is just not really an option to people who are not as privileged as she is.

It kind of reminds me of that south park episode where they figure Magic Johnson has a cure for AIDS because he's lived with it for so long. One of the characters runs around telling everyone there's a cure for aids passing by a third world country and they all cheer but turns out the cure for aids is having lots of money!

eviltwin

It's not her fault she has the money to access the best possible health care. If I had her millions I'd get the best treatment money could buy.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not her fault she has the money to access the best possible health care. If I had her millions I'd get the best treatment money could buy.

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was her "fault" that she has money to access the best possible health care. I do think however, that it's irresponsible of the media to be so focused on her decision as though it should be seen as an encouragement to ordinary women to undergo such extreme preventative measures without access to the same best possible health care and treatment that Angelina can afford.

Encourage women to get themselves checked - good idea.

Encourage women to go to the extremes Angelina has gone to - I'm really not so sure that's actually a good idea.

Saralee4

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not her fault she has the money to access the best possible health care. If I had her millions I'd get the best treatment money could buy.

No I wasn't saying it was her fault, just more available that's all. Like I said if I was in the position I would seriously consider it myself but realistically I don't have that option.

I don't think she should be ridiculed or praised. It's just an option that she has and she chose what was best for her.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was her "fault" that she has money to access the best possible health care. I do think however, that it's irresponsible of the media to be so focused on her decision as though it should be seen as an encouragement to ordinary women to undergo such extreme preventative measures without access to the same best possible health care and treatment that Angelina can afford.

Encourage women to get themselves checked - good idea.

Encourage women to go to the extremes Angelina has gone to - I'm really not so sure that's actually a good idea.

It's not. No reports I've heard or read have been encouraging anyone to do the same, just raising awareness of the gene and the treatment available. There was an Irish woman on the radio during the week who had done it so it's not just an option for A listers with massive salaries. I think it's ultimately her decision. She has young children so I can understand why she did it. I wouldn't even have to think twice. I can live without my breasts and ovaries, I would never put my children through the pain of losing me to a cancer I could have prevented.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Saralee4

eviltwin wrote: »

It's not. No reports I've heard or read have been encouraging anyone to do the same, just raising awareness of the gene and the treatment available. There was an Irish woman on the radio during the week who had done it so it's not just an option for A listers with massive salaries. I think it's ultimately her decision. She has young children so I can understand why she did it. I wouldn't even have to think twice. I can live without my breasts and ovaries, I would never put my children through the pain of losing me to a cancer I could have prevented.

A boob job alone costs thousands. So removal and the reconstruction is going to cost more. Also the gene testing cost at the beginning. Then your out of work while sick, need someone to look after your kids. What happens if the reconstruction goes wrong? You see all the time on those shows about plastic surgery how things can go wrong often costing the person thousands to fix it. You'd still need to have a bit of money to spare to even consider it at this time.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Saralee4

justbored wrote: »

the gene test is free in Ireland. I took 6 weeks for each of the surgeries. I don't think that's a lot of time so reduce risk of these diseases.

Really is the gene testing free, I didn't know that. Must look into it.

Not everyone has private health insurance though.

eviltwin

Saralee4 wrote: »

A boob job alone costs thousands. So removal and the reconstruction is going to cost more. Also the gene testing cost at the beginning. Then your out of work while sick, need someone to look after your kids. What happens if the reconstruction goes wrong? You see all the time on those shows about plastic surgery how things can go wrong often costing the person thousands to fix it. You'd still need to have a bit of money to spare to even consider it at this time.

Who looks after my kids if I'm dead? I know it's major surgery but I'd put my faith in the medical team to take care of me. I feel it's worth it.

justbored

This post has been deleted.

Cold War Kid

I'd say I would, but would find it devastating. I know cancer would obviously be even more devastating, but that still wouldn't change how hard I'd find having the procedure done at the time and after.

Links234 wrote: »

Yeah, I wish people would stop giving her oxygen, she's a bad troll

That's the thing - people are saying she's looking for attention, yet responding to her tweet. I realise I'm also doing so by the way.

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think anyone was suggesting it was her "fault" that she has money to access the best possible health care. I do think however, that it's irresponsible of the media to be so focused on her decision as though it should be seen as an encouragement to ordinary women to undergo such extreme preventative measures without access to the same best possible health care and treatment that Angelina can afford.

Encourage women to get themselves checked - good idea.

Encourage women to go to the extremes Angelina has gone to - I'm really not so sure that's actually a good idea.

Saralee4 wrote: »

Really is the gene testing free, I didn't know that. Must look into it.

Not everyone has private health insurance though.

Jez you don't have to have AJ's wealth to avail of preventative surgery in this country. If you have the risk factors, like she did, your doctor should offer you genetic screening and then you can make a decision to have surgery or not. If you have health insurance, great. If you don't, well that's great too, because the state will pay for it. That's the beauty of socialised health care. Of course it saves money in the long term. - saves on the costs of lifetime screening for the disease, and for the folk who would have developed disease, saves on the treatment. And cancer treatment is very expensive.
Personally, I wouldn't have to think twice if I had a risk anywhere approaching AJ's. As for protection of mental health - tbh, waiting everyday for the arrival of possible symptoms of cancer (which of course can be very nonspecific, so every ache, pain, lump or bump could be it) would surly drive the most sane amongst us demented. Breasts, ovaries, testicles - they're only appendages - they can all be replaced with something fake if you want. And that something won't kill you.

One eyed Jack

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Jez you don't have to have AJ's wealth to avail of preventative surgery in this country. If you have the risk factors, like she did, your doctor should offer you genetic screening and then you can make a decision to have surgery or not. If you have health insurance, great. If you don't, well that's great too, because the state will pay for it. That's the beauty of socialised health care. Of course it saves money in the long term. - saves on the costs of lifetime screening for the disease, and for the folk who would have developed disease, saves on the treatment. And cancer treatment is very expensive.

The cost of treatment and aftercare and so on wouldn't be a factor for me personally, though I can understand from society's perspective how it would work out cheaper to take preventative measures than the cost of treatment after the fact.

Obviously prevention is better than cure, but their perspective on the risks involved and whether the benefits outweigh those risks, is something that would be a very individual choice. I wouldn't want anyone here to think I mean to be intentionally offensive, but they made or would make a decision that was right or would be right for them. I can honestly say that decision wouldn't be for me.

It's not as though I haven't thought about it either, there are many other conditions I'm aware of that I'm in a much higher risk category for, but I still wouldn't spend that much time thinking about the risk of developing those conditions.

Personally, I wouldn't have to think twice if I had a risk anywhere approaching AJ's. As for protection of mental health - tbh, waiting everyday for the arrival of possible symptoms of cancer (which of course can be very nonspecific, so every ache, pain, lump or bump could be it) would surly drive the most sane amongst us demented. Breasts, ovaries, testicles - they're only appendages - they can all be replaced with something fake if you want. And that something won't kill you.

A couple of years ago, during a routine medical procedure, doctors found and removed a lump and after a biopsy told me I would need to come back again in five years time. It's just not something I've given much thought to since. I know you're saying testes are 'only' appendages, but I happen to be very attached to mine, so I could never be so blasé about saying they were 'only' anything.

At one point I thought I was being equally pragmatic when I went to hack off my leg, because I'm literally carrying around a permanently dead leg. I was only lucky that I came to my senses before I went through with it. It's definitely one of those situations for me personally where I wouldn't be able to make that decision until I was actually in that situation, and even then it would take a considerable amount of thought before I would undergo such preventative measures. I can respect other people's decision that they made the choice that was right for them, but I couldn't say at this point in time that I would make that same choice for myself.

PARlance

I struggle with the logic of:
I'm at serious risk of dying to a heart attack but I won't change anything because I'm happy.
I've had a lump but it's not big deal.
But I've a sore leg and I needed to be on the operating table before I realised I shouldn't get it chopped off.....

Saralee4

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Jez you don't have to have AJ's wealth to avail of preventative surgery in this country. If you have the risk factors, like she did, your doctor should offer you genetic screening and then you can make a decision to have surgery or not. If you have health insurance, great. If you don't, well that's great too, because the state will pay for it. That's the beauty of socialised health care. Of course it saves money in the long term. - saves on the costs of lifetime screening for the disease, and for the folk who would have developed disease, saves on the treatment. And cancer treatment is very expensive.
Personally, I wouldn't have to think twice if I had a risk anywhere approaching AJ's. As for protection of mental health - tbh, waiting everyday for the arrival of possible symptoms of cancer (which of course can be very nonspecific, so every ache, pain, lump or bump could be it) would surly drive the most sane amongst us demented. Breasts, ovaries, testicles - they're only appendages - they can all be replaced with something fake if you want. And that something won't kill you.

I don't think you would have to have Angelinas wealth in order to get preventative surgery and from what ive heard here it seems that it is more available than I previously thought which is great and I might look into having a test myself however the financial side is still a factor in this. You have to make a decision as a 'healthy' person to undergo surgery. The cost of childcare, missing out on work and other factors are something that people have to consider not to mention if the surgery goes wrong.

In terms of the 'beauty' of our socialised healthcare system, I know a bloke who has a fractured wrist that the hospital have said needs an urgent operation because his bone is dying. He does not qualify for a medical card and does not have private health insurance. The doctor in the hospital told him that he needs to get the operation asap. He said that it really should be done within six weeks that he would be referred to a clinic as urgent. The guy rang the clinic to get an idea of where he is on this urgency list and to know when to give his job an idea of when he will need time off. The woman at the clinic practically laughed and told him not to even think about it for the next year at least as that is how long the 'urgency' list is so he is walking round with a fractured wrist and dying bone for the next year.

It would be great to bring in preventative as the main approach just like mammograms and smear tests but what happens if this is introduced and you have a surge of patients every year with a probable health mutation seeking a preventative treatment on the socialised health system? This is a probability that you may get the disease so there is a good chance that you are going to have a lot more people getting the surgery than actually would have ended up needing cancer treatment also. Maybe in a couple of years this would work out better financially for the health system because you would have less cancer patients later on, needing treatment but what happens in the mean time if your on the waiting list for one, two years or more and in this time you develop cancer?

Like I have said I personally would probably get this procedure done myself because i would rather have some control over the situation if that is a possibility however I am just trying to see from another side of view because i can understand how this procedure might not be possible for everyone and also would not be a choice for everyone and i think its important to respect that.

I don't think its fair to label anyone who doesn't feel that it is for them as, a mother who is leaving her kids behind, because she chose that the procedure was not for her and not the best in thing to do at that time in her life or couldn't get it done because at the time her friend was dying, then she had some other issue to deal with or couldn't take time away from work or many other possible reasons and unfortunately later on developed cancer and died.

In my opinion there is no wrong and right decision here. Its based on personal situation and circumstance and you have to try to see it from all sides but just be happy with your own decisions and possibilities and deal with the consequences if so but it is not anyone's place to say whether it is wrong or a right thing to do for someone else. You can only speak for yourself and try to understand other peoples reasons for their choices about their own body

ProfessorPlum

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The cost of treatment and aftercare and so on wouldn't be a factor for me personally, though I can understand from society's perspective how it would work out cheaper to take preventative measures than the cost of treatment after the fact.

Obviously prevention is better than cure, but their perspective on the risks involved and whether the benefits outweigh those risks, is something that would be a very individual choice. I wouldn't want anyone here to think I mean to be intentionally offensive, but they made or would make a decision that was right or would be right for them. I can honestly say that decision wouldn't be for me.

It's not as though I haven't thought about it either, there are many other conditions I'm aware of that I'm in a much higher risk category for, but I still wouldn't spend that much time thinking about the risk of developing those conditions.





A couple of years ago, during a routine medical procedure, doctors found and removed a lump and after a biopsy told me I would need to come back again in five years time. It's just not something I've given much thought to since. I know you're saying testes are 'only' appendages, but I happen to be very attached to mine, so I could never be so blasé about saying they were 'only' anything.

At one point I thought I was being equally pragmatic when I went to hack off my leg, because I'm literally carrying around a permanently dead leg. I was only lucky that I came to my senses before I went through with it. It's definitely one of those situations for me personally where I wouldn't be able to make that decision until I was actually in that situation, and even then it would take a considerable amount of thought before I would undergo such preventative measures. I can respect other people's decision that they made the choice that was right for them, but I couldn't say at this point in time that I would make that same choice for myself.

God yeah - it's every bodies own personal decision, and of course everyone has their own views about how important a 'bit' is to them. And of course the risks of a particular surgery versus the risk if developing disease need to be weighed up. I'd also include in the the ease of screening or detecting the disease if it develops. So for instance in AJ's case, she had a very high chance of developing cancer, the surgery to remove the ovaries is simple and straightforward with very few risks, and ovarian cancer had a nasty habit of often being very advanced before it's detected. I've no idea how personally attached to her ovaries AJ was, but their function can be replaced by HRT.
Equally, I've known people like you who've dragged their non functioning and constantly painful leg around for years. Some of these people have elected to have an amputation and use a prosthesis, some haven't. It's a very individual choice. FWIW, I can't remember a single case of someone regretting their decision to amputate. I think that by the time you get to the point of begging someone to chop your leg off you're sure.

Katgurl

I've actually made this decision already. I had cancer of the uterus - the surgeons removed the tumour, it was enormous but low grade. I had to make a decision regarding a hysterectomy to avoid the cancer returning. I decided not to after some time; I don't want to go into early menopause, I couldn't face more surgery (it was extremely painful), my life had been in a permanent state of disruption.

Laois_Man

Since both my parents died of cancer, once I get my lungs and my brain removed, I'll be sorted!!

Tarzana2

Thinking about it, I think I'd be fine without boobs. I actually have big enough ones, but I never think about them, rarely accentuate them, never feel superior because I have big boobs. I'm more into accentuating bum and legs. Some men aren't boob men, and I guess I'm not a boob woman! I guess it comes down to aesthetics and I think boobs of all size look good. I'd hope that they are given some kind of shape that doesn't look odd under clothing, but if I had a high risk of getting breast cancer, yeah, I'd do it!

Capt'n Midnight

Only a few generations ago people would get all their teeth removed to prevent further dental problems. Denture for life from your 20's

Around the time of the great fire of London 10% of the deaths not attributable to plague were to teeth.



Interesting to compare this to some people's attitudes on vaccines.