No f'n way - that's crazy.
Absolutely, makes perfect sense to me.
I'm in morning for Angie's natural boobs...
"He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
Why put yourself through major surgery if you don't have to?
Caught early, what are the odds that you survive?
65% chance you'll get something means 35% chance you won't.
I've had exactly the same surgery twice. It's called a pelvic laparoscopy.
The first time, I had it while I was ill and weak. I had a gigantic ovarian cyst that had to be removed. Recovery was slow and painful (relatively speaking).
The second time (keep in mind, I had scar tissue at this point), I had it electively while healthy. I was feeling fine the very same day and I healed twice as fast.
That's why you do the surgery when you're still healthy. Especially if you damn well know you're probably going to wind up sick if you don't.
I'm sorry, but I think sitting around waiting to get cancer is ridiculous. They're just boobs.
Keep in mind, not ALL types of breast cancer have a good survival rate. Some of them are quite grim.
And even if you manage to luck out and get a cancer that's easier to treat, your chance of survival is STILL more than 10% lower than it would have been if you'd had the surgery first.
I don't get why someone would risk that over boobs.
There's huge risks for infections in hospitals.
We're all susceptible to all kinds of cancers.
We can't just run out and cut off all the parts of our bodies that "might" get cancer.
Obviously - she's allowed to do whatever she wants....but I think it's pretty nutty.
Surgery while healthy is nowhere near as risky as waiting to get cancer. Surgery is actually not all that risky on something like boobs, that doesn't involve any major support structures or nerves. If you're not getting surgery in a back alley, worrying about some sort of major infection is a bit silly.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 05-14-13 at 06:13 AM.
If it was my wife, and the risk really is that high (87% chance of getting cancer in her lifetime) I might encourage her to do it. I don't know if it would be better to wait til we're done having kids so she could breastfeed or not.
If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.
If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Smoke is right. There is a gene mutation that increases your risks of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer, among other types of cancers. I'll bet that Angelina also has a family history of breast cancer in close first-degree relatives. That is another indicator. And even having the breasts removed is no guarantee that she still won't develop cancer one day because it is nearly impossible to remove ALL of that tissue, and monitoring is no guarantee that they can find a cancer before it is too late. There are plenty of times when it is missed.
A woman’s lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer is greatly increased if she inherits a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2. Such a woman has an increased risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer at an early age (before menopause) and often has multiple, close family members who have been diagnosed with these diseases. Harmful BRCA1 mutations may also increase a woman’s risk of developing cervical, uterine, pancreatic, and colon cancer (1, 2). Harmful BRCA2 mutations may additionally increase the risk of pancreatic cancer, stomach cancer, gallbladder and bile duct cancer, and melanoma (3).
Men with harmful BRCA1 mutations also have an increased risk of breast cancer and, possibly, of pancreatic cancer, testicular cancer, and early-onset prostate cancer. However, male breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, and prostate cancer appear to be more strongly associated with BRCA2 gene mutations (2–4).
The likelihood that a breast and/or ovarian cancer is associated with a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is highest in families with a history of multiple cases of breast cancer, cases of both breast and ovarian cancer, one or more family members with two primary cancers (original tumors that develop at different sites in the body), or an Ashkenazi (Central and Eastern European) Jewish background (see Question 6). However, not every woman in such families carries a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, and not every cancer in such families is linked to a harmful mutation in one of these genes. Furthermore, not every woman who has a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation will develop breast and/or ovarian cancer.
According to estimates of lifetime risk, about 12.0 percent of women (120 out of 1,000) in the general population will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives compared with about 60 percent of women (600 out of 1,000) who have inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (4, 5). In other words, a woman who has inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is about five times more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman who does not have such a mutation.
CDC: Deadly drug-resistant bacteria on rise in U.S. hospitals - CBS News
One in 12 Canadian adults in hospital are infected with a superbug, study finds - The Globe and Mail
Infections With 'Nightmare Bacteria' Are On The Rise In U.S. Hospitals : Shots - Health News : NPR
Rise of hospital infections | Mail Online
Hospital infection rates continue alarming rise - Health - Health care | NBC News
damn....double post.... sorry