Post: #26

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)w00t Wrote:  Sweet Mother of God.
I thought women would do that AFTER a cancer-breakout and not as a preventive measure.

Most do wait until they get it, and even then many opt for a lumpectomy instead of a mastectomy. I think with the advances they've made in being able to identify the genetic marker, more women are at least thinking about taking the preventive measure.

Post: #27

Wow thats insane. Respect to her, can't imagine it was an easy decision/process.

Post: #28

This a ridiculous over reaction. Why wouldn't she get regular exams and have them removed when cancer actually presents. Having a genetic predisposition in no way guarantees she'll get cancer.

Since all men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough, should we all line up to have our prostates cut out?

Post: #29

(05-14-2013 10:51 AM)Hobnob Wrote:  This a ridiculous over reaction. Why wouldn't she get regular exams and have them removed when cancer actually presents. Having a genetic predisposition in no way guarantees she'll get cancer.

Since all men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough, should we all line up to have our prostates cut out?

Would you rather live in fear, constantly running back and forth to the doctor, worrying, or would you take a step to greatly reduce or eliminate the chance of getting sick? And where did you read that most men will eventually get prostate cancer? She had information that she had an 87% chance of contracting the disease, so why sit and wait to get sick and undergo treatments that in themselves make you sick? And then you'll be worried about it returning. Having the disease in your family is a STRONG indicator.

Post: #30

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Read the NY Times article. She had a procedure that preserved the nipple, then they removed the breast tissue. She then had implants put in, and is happy with the result.

No more cancer, and tits!! What's not to love?

Post: #31

There's 50% chance that the feminist cancer will eat our livelihoods in courts.

How about we remove the risk completely and cut off bitches before they spread too wide.

Post: #32

I wonder if women are going to start having their breasts removed to make a political statement like "breasts are part of the patriarchy".

Post: #33

(05-14-2013 10:38 AM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)w00t Wrote:  Sweet Mother of God.
I thought women would do that AFTER a cancer-breakout and not as a preventive measure.

she has 87% odds of getting it. Same thing. She might as well have found it already.

Imagine the stress of waiting on an 87% chance of having cancer, with a huge family. You wouldn't be able to enjoy life at all.

I dont know man ... I wouldnt chop my balls off because some quack told me I had a 90% chance of getting cancer there.
I mean theres a 100% chance Im gonna die, doesnt mean it stresses me out so much I'd rather end it myself. Whats wrong with regular check ups and pulling the trigger when its really neccessary?

Post: #34

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Read the NY Times article. She had a procedure that preserved the nipple, then they removed the breast tissue. She then had implants put in, and is happy with the result.

It's like no one read the article. She probably looks better now than before.

Post: #35

(05-14-2013 11:15 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:51 AM)Hobnob Wrote:  This a ridiculous over reaction. Why wouldn't she get regular exams and have them removed when cancer actually presents. Having a genetic predisposition in no way guarantees she'll get cancer.

Since all men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough, should we all line up to have our prostates cut out?

Would you rather live in fear, constantly running back and forth to the doctor, worrying, or would you take a step to greatly reduce or eliminate the chance of getting sick? And where did you read that most men will eventually get prostate cancer? She had information that she had an 87% chance of contracting the disease, so why sit and wait to get sick and undergo treatments that in themselves make you sick? And then you'll be worried about it returning. Having the disease in your family is a STRONG indicator.

Very quick google search turned up:

https://www.caring4cancer.com/go/prostate/prevention Wrote:Most men will get prostate cancer, if they live long enough. However, if you understand the risk factors and ensure that you get screening appropriate to your level of risk, you can be sure to get any treatment you may need to cure or manage the disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer Wrote:Autopsy studies of Chinese, German, Israeli, Jamaican, Swedish, and Ugandan men who died of other causes have found prostate cancer in thirty percent of men in their 50s, and in eighty percent of men in their 70s.

I'd rather enjoy my prostate while I can then get it removed now because I might develop cancer at some point in the future. Hell, I could get hit by a bus next week, might as well spend it bopping girls.

Post: #36

(05-14-2013 12:19 PM)w00t Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:38 AM)ghostdog Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)w00t Wrote:  Sweet Mother of God.
I thought women would do that AFTER a cancer-breakout and not as a preventive measure.

she has 87% odds of getting it. Same thing. She might as well have found it already.

Imagine the stress of waiting on an 87% chance of having cancer, with a huge family. You wouldn't be able to enjoy life at all.

I dont know man ... I wouldnt chop my balls off because some quack told me I had a 90% chance of getting cancer there.
I mean theres a 100% chance Im gonna die, doesnt mean it stresses me out so much I'd rather end it myself. Whats wrong with regular check ups and pulling the trigger when its really neccessary?

Chopping your balls off isn't even analogous to what happened with Jolie.

Post: #37

(05-14-2013 12:21 PM)MattW Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Read the NY Times article. She had a procedure that preserved the nipple, then they removed the breast tissue. She then had implants put in, and is happy with the result.

It's like no one read the article. She probably looks better now than before.

So it was just an excuse to perk up her sagging tits?

Post: #38

(05-14-2013 12:36 PM)Hobnob Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:21 PM)MattW Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 10:34 AM)Timoteo Wrote:  Read the NY Times article. She had a procedure that preserved the nipple, then they removed the breast tissue. She then had implants put in, and is happy with the result.

It's like no one read the article. She probably looks better now than before.

So it was just an excuse to perk up her sagging tits?

Post: #39

This is nothing but a PR stunt. The bitch is going to show up with a book telling about her suffering and make millions in the process. And some weeks later she's going to show off her new 34C implants. Anyway, I guess Brad Pitt should start looking around for some new fun.

Post: #40

She used the word "empowered" in that NYT statement,, so don't think for a second that her decision wasn't partially ego-driven. Her sick soul gets off on setting new trends and creating meaningful legacy for herself while cementing her position as a modern feminist icon in the process. Except larger hoopla not warranted coz w/the implants it's nothing Hollywood hasn't seen before. Much ado about nothing in the Matrix.

Post: #41

I too am annoyed by her rampant and reckless use of "empowered" in a major newspaper, but I still think that she made a good decision.

Post: #42

It's apples and oranges to compare the function of the prostate and/or testicles in men to the function of breasts in women. Also, based on what was posted above, this is something that will likely strike men MUCH later in life. Breast cancer can get women much earlier in their lives. You can't ignore that as a factor in taking early, drastic action. I could see it being a much more difficult decision if a woman hadn't had children yet, and wanted to be able to breast feed them, or was worried about fertility issues post-treatment. Angelina has had her children, so that probably was less of a factor for her. It's all about quality of life and peace of mind.

Post: #43

(05-14-2013 10:29 AM)Fitzgerald Wrote:  Yes, indeedy, she had her tits removed. Good call for her health and family, but if I do ever change my mind about getting married or making a very long term commitment to a woman, I'll make sure my woman gets screened for the breast cancer gene. No tits is kind of a deal breaker.

I dunno. Today's store-bought tits can be nicer than aging, droopy, 40-something tits. She can go bigger/better/firmer! If guys had the choice to exchange their penis for a 12-incher, can we honestly say we wouldn't consider it??

Post: #44

(05-14-2013 12:43 PM)The Patriarch Wrote:  She used the word "empowered" in that NYT statement,, so don't think for a second that her decision wasn't partially ego-driven. Her sick soul gets off on setting new trends and creating meaningful legacy for herself while cementing her position as a modern feminist icon in the process. Except larger hoopla not warranted coz w/the implants it's nothing Hollywood hasn't seen before. Much ado about nothing in the Matrix.

That's why I quoted the "empowered" statement. For most women, having a double mastectomy is more devastating than the cancer diagnosis itself. For most women, you don't get to pick and choose what to keep and what to discard. "Oh, let me see, I'll keep the nipple, and just scoop out and throw away the filling inside." For most women, they hack it off and carve away some of the pectoral muscle as well. The only thing they get to keep is a 6"-10" scar that can run from their sternum to their armpit. For most women, insurance won't cover what I imagine is a rather expensive reconstructive procedure.

I'm not sure. Maybe it was a smart thing to do. I don't know enough about cancer and genetics to make a decision. What I do know is that her experience is highly atypical when compared to that of common folk, and women would be foolish to think she's somehow a role model for doing this.

Post: #45

(05-14-2013 02:00 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 12:43 PM)The Patriarch Wrote:  She used the word "empowered" in that NYT statement,, so don't think for a second that her decision wasn't partially ego-driven. Her sick soul gets off on setting new trends and creating meaningful legacy for herself while cementing her position as a modern feminist icon in the process. Except larger hoopla not warranted coz w/the implants it's nothing Hollywood hasn't seen before. Much ado about nothing in the Matrix.

That's why I quoted the "empowered" statement. For most women, having a double mastectomy is more devastating than the cancer diagnosis itself. For most women, you don't get to pick and choose what to keep and what to discard. "Oh, let me see, I'll keep the nipple, and just scoop out and throw away the filling inside." For most women, they hack it off and carve away some of the pectoral muscle as well. The only thing they get to keep is a 6"-10" scar that can run from their sternum to their armpit. For most women, insurance won't cover what I imagine is a rather expensive reconstructive procedure.

I'm not sure. Maybe it was a smart thing to do. I don't know enough about cancer and genetics to make a decision. What I do know is that her experience is highly atypical when compared to that of common folk, and women would be foolish to think she's somehow a role model for doing this.

According to WebMD...

"If you are seeking breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, federal law requires health insurance plans to cover reconstruction associated with a mastectomy. Insurance coverage for re-operation procedures or follow-up visits to your doctor may not be covered, however."

Post: #46

If she was really going to attention-whore, she could have done an exclusive cover story for People, or any number of women's magazines BEFORE she did this. She could have kept us updated on a blog, or Twitter no less. She wrote an op ed in the NY Times, well after the fact. And maybe she was empowered by the fact that she made the decision, instead of letting the disease and doctors make it for her. Sure, she's got resources that other women don't, but should she have waited and gambled with her health just to prove that somehow she's like less fortunate women?

Post: #47

CNN's Zoraida Sambolin is getting double mastectomy
May 14, 2013, 11:09 AM EST

ATLANTA (AP) -- CNN anchor Zoraida Sambolin says she has breast cancer and is getting a double mastectomy.

Sambolin, who anchors CNN's "Early Start" morning show, talked about her condition on the show Tuesday while discussing the recent double mastectomy of actress Angelina Jolie.

Sambolin said wanting to be there for her children helped her make the decision.

As I stated before, even women that already have cancer are reluctant to get mastectomies. It isn't just about Angie supposedly influencing women to get them BEFORE they get cancer. Maybe she'll influence women to get them AFTER they're diagnosed to help prevent it from returning.

Post: #48

Angelina really isn't trying to be a trend-setter, or influence others. She's actually FOLLOWING a building trend by having a preventive double mastectomy:

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/...ey-be?lite

The preventive mastectomy numbers have been rising steadily...

Post: #49

(05-14-2013 02:06 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  According to WebMD...

"If you are seeking breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, federal law requires health insurance plans to cover reconstruction associated with a mastectomy. Insurance coverage for re-operation procedures or follow-up visits to your doctor may not be covered, however."

But also according to WebMD...

Quote:Breast reconstruction can be done right after a mastectomy while you are still under anesthesia, or at a later time. Sometimes women wait because they are not emotionally or medically able to undergo additional surgery, or because they need radiation therapy following their breast cancer and mastectomy. Reconstruction is major surgery that may require more than one procedure. Women should be fully informed about what is involved.

So insurance may be required to pay if reconstruction is done at the time of the mastectomy. You got me on that one. But at the same time, you can read in the bold above, you'll note that many women are unable to have reconstruction done at that time due to shit like needing to undergo cancer and/or radiation treatments.

So I stand by my previous claim that as a result of her financial status, she can have things that most regular people aren't privy to.

Post: #50

(05-14-2013 06:24 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(05-14-2013 02:06 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  According to WebMD...

"If you are seeking breast reconstruction after a mastectomy, federal law requires health insurance plans to cover reconstruction associated with a mastectomy. Insurance coverage for re-operation procedures or follow-up visits to your doctor may not be covered, however."

But also according to WebMD...

Quote:Breast reconstruction can be done right after a mastectomy while you are still under anesthesia, or at a later time. Sometimes women wait because they are not emotionally or medically able to undergo additional surgery, or because they need radiation therapy following their breast cancer and mastectomy. Reconstruction is major surgery that may require more than one procedure. Women should be fully informed about what is involved.

So insurance may be required to pay if reconstruction is done at the time of the mastectomy. You got me on that one. But at the same time, you can read in the bold above, you'll note that many women are unable to have reconstruction done at that time due to shit like needing to undergo cancer and/or radiation treatments.

So I stand by my previous claim that as a result of her financial status, she can have things that most regular people aren't privy to.

I didn't post that to "get" you. You actually posed a question, so I looked for the answer. And if you read up a few posts, I didn't dispute that Angelina has resources that other women don't. But should she NOT use those resources in order to prove she's just like other women? I also didn't neglect to notice that some women can't do reconstruction IMMEDIATELY after the mastectomy, but insurance will still cover it because it's as a result of a mastectomy. Angelina stated in her Times piece that she had to undergo several procedures over the course of a few months, so her money/resources didn't change that fact either. The friend that I mentioned in another post that had the double mastectomy had to undergo radiation and chemo post-surgery, and plans to have the reconstruction at a later date. You need time to recover, and get follow-up checks. It states that insurance covers reconstruction ASSOCIATED WITH mastectomy. It says nothing about a time-frame within which you must get it to be covered. Insurance may not cover surgeries that may be needed if they rupture, or for other reasons that you might want them replaced. It probably depends on your carrier if subsequent treatments/procedures are covered.