Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn't have cancer

Back to the op, I believe it's her body her decision. Comparing breasts removal to liver, testicles, uterus and other party parts, where the importance of their existence is necessary for many bodily functions, is apples and oranges.

I lost my wife to brain cancer, a glioma (Glioblastoma Multiform), midbrain tumor. Her father had the same.
She didn't have the option of 'preventive maintenance' available to her had it been a location such as the breasts.

I was her care taker for four years, watching her go through the dangerous brain biopsy, gamma knife radiation (steriotactic), and that nasty...nasty chemotherapy (Temodar), slowly tortured day after day with vomiting and nausea, constipation and diarrhea to the severity many may never experience, hair loss, weight, appetite gone, immune system compromised, then pushed into the horrific nightmare of shingles all over her face and into the eye requiring hospitalization.
Seeing someone you love endure that much pain and suffering, while you are helpless to do anything to 'make it all better' is something I hope no one would have to experience.

The girl in the op is removing breasts, not a kidney or eye, or her vagina, etc.
If it reduces the chances of her having to endure what I've been through with my bride, with the risk of her death should she not survive it, or... the risk of surviving it only to have it metastasize to her bone or lungs, without affecting the function of the rest of her body, good for her.
Get some nice new ones honey, that's not an easy procedure either, but it's better than risking what I mentioned above.

Oh, and speaking of cancer.

beboldbebald.org...

Shave your head and look like a cancer victim to show "support" and/or raise money?

Let's ALL look like cancer victims!! It's COOL!!!

This is not noble. This is SICK.

www.nydailynews.com...

Want to show support for a friends with cancer? Bring healthy food. Donate a back massage. Run errands for them. Clean their house. Cook for them.

But shave your head and look like a cancer vitim too?

What the hell is wrong with people?

Originally posted by JibbyJedi

Why don't we all remove our livers, kidneys, testicles, ovaries, breasts, lungs, tongues, eyes, kidneys, prostates, and hearts to prevent cancer. Let's all be torsos and heads only.

This is an idiotic comment. Most of those mentioned above have either very important, or vital functions either for survival, or quality of life. Apart from vanity, breasts are not necessary, so if having them makes you at a decent risk of cancer due to genetic disposition towards the disease, only excessive vanity would really stop you from having them removed.

What you think is funny is actually brave, and sensible. You're being shallow and callous.

Having testicles removed is also not remotely the same thing, as testicles perform extremely important functions - think procreation.

More Women Choose Double Mastectomy, But Study Says Many Don't Need It

a study being presented later this week says more than three-quarters of women who opt for double mastectomies are not getting any benefit because their risk of cancer developing in the healthy breast is no greater than in women without cancer.

"People want absolute certainty," breast surgeon Monica Morrow of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center tells Shots. "Unfortunately, even having a double mastectomy doesn't provide certainty that breast cancer will not recur. So it's a false sense of security."

Another co-author, Sarah Hawley, of the University of Michigan, says double mastectomy "does not make sense" for about three-quarters of the women who are choosing the operation "because having a non-affected breast removed will not reduce the risk of recurrence in the affected breast."

I commend any women who has the constitution to proceed with such a radical medical/surgical procedure. But I do hope that women who are considering such a procedure are duly informed of all available information. So it seems that if the woman is at high risk, than by all means, take the appropriate action. High risk means having a genetic mutation called BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 (1.5%), or a STRONG family history, means two or more relatives have breast or ovarian cancer (8%). So basically, approximately 10% should have this procedure down, far, far less than what is being performed.

web article

As a healthcare professional I am firm believer, despite what some statistics say, about early health screenings. This includes breast, testicular, and prostate cancers.

reply to post by Lonewulph

I lost my wife to brain cancer, a glioma (Glioblastoma Multiform), midbrain tumor. Her father had the same.

Wulph, my condolences...I worked several years in our area's only neurosurgical ICU. I took care of many patients diagnosed with glio's. As you know, it's basically a death sentence because a glio will always come back. Will I ever forget these patient's and their families, never... I would never say I understand what you went through with your wife, but I am familar. You've been to hell and back my friend....

I don't mean to be crude, but she could have done more for cancer research by raising money through
posing topless in a calendar than looking like cancer's victim. If a Miss America contestant has no hope what chances do those of lesser influence have?

I am 100% certain that if the US had a Manhattan-style project for cancer screening, prevention, and treatment it would be a disease that goes the way of polio.

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
I don't mean to be crude, but she could have done more for cancer research by raising money through
posing topless in a calendar than looking like cancer's victim. If a Miss America contestant has no hope what chances do those of lesser influence have?

I am 100% certain that if the US had a Manhattan-style project for cancer screening, prevention, and treatment it would be a disease that goes the way of polio.

I don't know enough about her family medical history to pass a judgement yet, BUT, if she wasn't High-Risk, then yes, you're right, this was prob a big waste of time, and more than likely, a publicity stunt for her Miss America pageant.

Meh.

I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not, but like other members have said.


It's her choice, her body and it doesn't effect me or others, I see no problem.


SS

It is just a tactic to justify the silicone implants she wants. Next year she will be back bigger and better than before with a breast cancer awareness speech. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I want to feel them when she is done to make sure that she hasn't deceived us.

Originally posted by Spike Spiegle
Meh.

I wasn't sure if I was going to reply or not, but like other members have said.


It's her choice, her body and it doesn't effect me or others, I see no problem.


SS

I hear ya. The only reason I don't agree with this is that she is using the plight of others to get herself attention. So there's the problem. It's like stepping on the back of others to get what she wants. If she was truly high-risk then I say no problem.

If breast cancer was prevalent, then removal of them would mean there is zero chance of your dying from breast cancer, and you 'can' live without breasts.

Still seems severe but they are hers...

But of your family has a history of colon cancer what then? If the cancer is to something that you can live without then it's your body.

I can't understand what a woman would do so if this is what would make her feel comfortable then more power to her. My thinking is she is having so much fear about getting it that it affects her life.

Breast cancer is so hyped up that I'm not surprised this is happening. From the way it sounds, you'd think getting cancer in your breasts was a milestone along with puberty and menopause.

They are spreading disinfo and misinfo.

Mammograms actually cause cancer but the beast cancer lobby ignores that indisputable fact.
Why?

And people have become so brainwashed and overwhelmed in fear, they are willing to mutilate themselves as a result.

Modern medicine? What a complete sick disgusting joke.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1


I haven't read the article only your OP and I have to say that even if I could agree to some of the points you make I do not agree at all at treating genetic disposition to cancer as something not important. If your mother had breast cancer and you have the same genetic marker you should consider all options. Having a breast removed before the probabilities start to climb (age, lifestyle) will enable you to preserve not only your life but your body eclectics (implants).

reply to post by muzzleflash


Hold the phone...

Mammograms aside.

She knows that breast cancer runs in her family. The odds of her getting breast cancer are much higher than average. There is a genetic marker that is believed to be the cause and she has it.

Some people have procedures whether they need them or not all the time. Some because of vanity [ Boob jobs ] and others as preventative measures. Tonsillectomy, appendectomy etc etc etc So why would this preventative procedure be considered wrong or bad?

If she so chooses in the future to have her "Female figure" they could work out a breast reconstruction. Lord knows there are enough Plastic surgeons out there doing boob jobs etc.

Beast cancer hereditary? I have serious doubts.

Cancer is essentially a genetic defect that prevents apoptosis, or cell death. Cancer is merely your own cells failing to die and thus reproducing uncontrollably.

IF it were hereditary in nature, the child should in theory be born with those defects present.

You cant live half your life healthy, than contract a cancer, then blame your ancestors.
That cancer popped up as a result of environmental factors.

Of course the beast cancer profiteers will lie to the unthinking and tell them its all grandmas fault.
They will not admit that their own mammogram screens cause cancer formations, which is an indisputable scientific fact. Plus the other billion sources of carcinogenic activity I didnt bother to mention.

reply to post by SLAYER69


Key words
" believed to be the cause".

I dont believe that as I explained above succinctly.
I favor more likely souces of causation such as chemicals or radiation exposure from nature or industry.

Which is clearly a real issue being overlooked big time to protect the $$$ flow.

We cannot put mammograms aside because they suggest all women get one.
That increases their odds of having cancerous tumor astronomically vs not ever having one.

The cancer detection method CAUSES the cancer, of course if you get enough scans they WILL eventually find a tumor. The damn machine promoted its formation and facilitated it.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Beast cancer hereditary?

Cancer is essentially a genetic defect....

IF it were hereditary in nature, the child should in theory be born with those defects present.

I have issues with that line of reasoning.

If it's genetic then isn't it also hereditary? She received those genes from her parents. No?
Also, how do you know the child should show signs? The issue could be set genetically to activate or whatever at a certain point in the person's life for whatever reason. Obviously I'm no expert but who knows what sets off certain forms of cancer?

I'll admit I have a limited understanding of this field but from what I've read there are various types/forms of cancers and not all of them acting the same.