Take My Breasts, Please
Saturday, December 8, 2012I’ve written about the preventative mastectomy scam in the past – women chopping off breasts as a preventative measure. Read my blog and follow the money trail. Recently, Sharon Osbourne announced she had a preventative double mastectomy, and now Miss America contestant Allyn Rose will do the same.
Rose, originally of Newburgh, Md., and now living in Washington, D.C., won the title of Miss District of Columbia in June. In 2011, she placed in the top eight at the Miss USA pageant as Miss Maryland. She said that the upcoming Miss America pageant will be her last with both of her breasts.
“A lot of people are confused when I say I’m choosing life over beauty, but it’s beauty as a stereotype, the Hollywood idea of beauty, the physical attributes. I’m not going to let my desire to achieve those goals distract me from my own health,” she said.
In fact, this has nothing to do with a noble choice between life and “beauty.” Allyn, like so many other women, was frightened into this procedure by the medical establishment that has so much to gain from these costly interventions that insurance companies agree to cover. Yet, try getting your insurance company to cover $500 worth of acupuncture or non-standard physical therapy. The government’s cancer institute gently promotes this procedure, as well as the satellites of Big Cancer. No wonder Jerome Kassirer, MD, former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, has said that “The entire medical system is corrupt.” Here’s Walter Bortz, Clinical Associate Professor of Medicine at Stanford University School of Medicine.
jeannie queenie says:
December 8th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
I read a few years back that underwire bras are not safe to be worn. If I recall it had something to do with pinching lymph glands and that done on a regular basis could cause precancerous conditions. Wish I could find that pc in my archives, but for now for any gal interested in the dangers of underwire bras, here is a good article for starters. This article also points to the danger of certain spots where the wire pinches creating lymph problems.
http://www.relfe.com/underwire_bras_dangers.html
MonatanaMomma says:
December 9th, 2012 at 8:27 am
I have no love for the medical industrial complex in this country, having had my own horrifying experiences with it. However, it is my understanding that women who do carry the BRCA-1 or BRCA-2 gene mutation *do* have an exceptionally higher risk of getting breast cancer, and of getting it at a much younger age. I have a very good friend whose family genetics have been extensively studied because virtually every female in her family for several generations back has had breast cancer before age 40. She herself was treated for breast cancer at age 28. She has three children–two girls and a boy. The older girl is not a carrier for the gene. The middle child–also a girl–is a carrier, and after MUCH deliberation and agonizing, she decided to have a double mastectomy. They had a lot of trouble finding a doctor who would do a double mastectomy on a 19-year-old young woman. However, it has cut her risk of getting breast cancer by something like 85%.
I enjoy your posts and find them very thought-provoking. I do agree with you that doctors are looking for new and inventive ways to make a buck (“treating” diabetics with gastric bypass surgery is the latest one that just makes my blood boil). However, there are some instances where certain medical procedures are appropriate and necessary. I wish you had made it clearer that for some women, a preventative mastectomy is a choice made for reasons other than the medical industry trying to make a fast buck.
Karen De Coster says:
December 9th, 2012 at 9:56 am
MontanaMomma – I would never promote a choice for reasons I don’t believe in. Women always want to play the breast cancer violin with me, telling me I am cruel and horrid for wrong these posts. (I’m not saying that you did this; readers do.) These “family genetics” stories get bigger every day (they are exaggerated myths), and I spend enough time reading the literature and watching the films to make a pretty educated judgment.
Where were these “cancer genes” 100 years ago? Why they just suddenly appeared.
David says:
December 9th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
MontanaMomma,
I think Karen’s last sentence in her reply is really the crux of the issue: cancer is largely a disease of civilization. Obviously, sum are more prone than others because of genetic factors, but those genetic factors (I believe) are miniscule compared to the lifestyle factors – primarily diet. If the genes themselves told the full story, than all the hunter-gatherers would be getting these cancers, too.
The dynamism of genes – how some of them are “switches” and literally disable or enable suites of other genes – is something that many people don’t fully grasp (including myself, as it’s so darn complex!) While an individual’s genome is locked in at the moment of conception, the ability of genes to be switched on or off is as important as that genome. Much like the programs one uses on a computer and their maintenance is as important as the hardware itself.
Therefore, when the latest media report about, say, the “alcoholism gene” or the “gambling gene” or the “breast cancer gene” overwhelm you with an aura of scientific esteem, very often these are incredibly superficial interpretations of the studies (and that’s assuming these genetics studies themselves weren’t silly junk science).
The late, great Michael Crichton did a really good job of diagnosing and mocking this subversive scam by the pop science community in his final few years.
MonatanaMomma says:
December 9th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Actually, my friend’s family genetics have been extensively documented and studied at Stanford; this is not a “myth” to her. These “cancer genes” have always existed, but the ability to detect and identify them is a fairly recent development. Once upon a time, people did not know that microbes existed, because they couldn’t see them. Does that mean that because we didn’t have the technology to see them, they just “suddenly appeared” when they technology became available to see them, and the medical community suddenly began taking advantage of their existence by prescribing antibiotics?
I respect the fact that this is a choice you might not make if it were you. However, as the libertarian you claim to be, I hope you would be equally respectful of the choice my friend’s daughter chose to make and the reasons she chose to make it. I suspect that–had she been given the opportunity–my friend would have had a prophylactic mastectomy, and gladly, rather than have undergone a year of intensive chemotherapy which has put her at risk of future cancers. And from my conversations with her, I understand that she is grateful that her daughter hopefully has been spared that same experience.
All I am saying is that not everything is as black and white as we would like it to be. Some people have to live in the shades of gray.
Pam Maltzman says:
December 20th, 2012 at 6:11 am
There is a LOT of cancer on both sides of my family. When my parents split up when I was in my ‘teens, my mother and I went to live with her sister and the sister’s husband. That uncle came down with laryngeal cancer after 60+ years of smoking. He went through surgery (laryngectomy) and radiation. He had to hold one of those buzzer gizmos to his throat in order to talk. He had been a raconteur who was humiliated and disfigured by the so-called treatment.
When I got out on my own a few years later, I started reading about alternative medicine. Sure, MDs love to put down alternative medicine, believing that their approved treatments are “proven” treatments. All I can say is that some of us don’t want to submit to those “treatments.” There are other things out there to do for cancer besides the old cut-drug-and-burn. I do medical transcription for a living, but I don’t particularly like doctors and their attitudes. I also inwardly snarl every time they talk about treatment for heart disease (e.g., statins and putting the patient on a “heart-healthy” diet). They will have to cut off my frigging head before I will consent to take a frigging statin.
Pam Maltzman says:
December 20th, 2012 at 6:13 am
I would never consent to undergoing a “prophylactic” double mastectomy either. Well, since any part of the human body can get cancer, why not just cut off your head because you’re afraid of getting a brain tumor? /sarcasm off…