Angelina Jolie | Vital Forums

Angelina Jolie

#1
Has had her breasts removed due genetic propensity to breast cancer.

Baring in mind the fact that all operations carry a risk, including the possibility of death, and the fact that she was not actually ill, would anyone on here do the same/male equivalent (if there is one) or recommend it to a loved one? To add to the debate, consider that her career has been largely based on her looks, in particular her curvy figure, and she's not that great an actress imo, is her acting career over? Is it worth doing what she's done based purely on a risk of illness, not actual illness?

Personally I'm undecided. Generally I'm against surgery that is not necessary to correct a medical condition but in this case she was advised that she had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer. I wonder how accurate that figure really is and how I would feel should my wife be given the same information.
 

BodyButter

Vital Football Legend
#3
I'd be reluctant to criticise her for this. She knows her circumstances much better than we do. Perhaps she couldn't live with the 87% chance?

If it was me, I'd keep getting them checked and hold on to what I had.
 

Pride of Lions

Vital Football Legend
#4
It's a high risk percentage and if it's genetic, it must of still be a hard decision for her. Only she knows if it's the right one. It's not the end of the world, but it could of been if she did get it but it moved quickly.

If it had been my "other arf" for example, I'd support whatever decision she made. At the end of the day, she's got to live with the decision, and whichever way, as I say, I'd support it.
 
#5
ASPINALL - 14/5/2013 07:49

The money she's got though mate means she'll have better looking boobs than before.
Interesting that you say this, there was an interview with a woman on BBC World Service that made the same decision and she agreed that she worried that she might feel less of a woman without breasts but the surgery is so good now that they can reconstruct the breasts as part of the same procedure, meaning that they go to sleep with breests and, despite having them removed, wake up with breats, if somewhat more tender than they started with.
 
#6
I guess it also depends on plans fro childbirth and the desire to breastfeed. Shee seems content with adoption, for all I know she can't have kids anyway so.....

As for the risks, apparently the dosctor told her that she had 87% risk of breast cancer and 50% risk of ovarian cancer, which apparently killed her mother. I wonder if the mastectomy reduces the risk of developing ovarian cancer too. Not a decision I would like to have to make.
 

James06

Vital Football Legend
#7
Villan Of The North - 14/5/2013 08:54

Not a decision I would like to have to make.
Why are you fond of your moobs Ian?

Fair play to her I say, massive decision but it's less of a worry now I guess, and she can carry on enjoying her life with her family.
 
#8
She had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer apparently.

That's a complete no brainer for me. Get them lopped off!

By doing it she's reduced the risk to under 5%.

Brad is obviously more of an arse and legs man.
 
#9
DeanoVilla - 14/5/2013 10:03

She had an 87% risk of developing breast cancer apparently.

That's a complete no brainer for me. Get them lopped off!

By doing it she's reduced the risk to under 5%.

Brad is obviously more of an arse and legs man.
She also had a 50% chance of developing ovarian cancer, which killed her mother. Now not being a doctor I can't be sure of this but I expect she still has a 50% chance of developing ovarian cancer.......unless she has those removed too......in which case, good luck to her but I do wonder.....
 

The Fear

A Wise Man (once sat next to him)
#10
Total no brainer but must have been a very very hard decision. Hard for anyone, even harder when you are in the public eye.

I'm sure the reconstructive surgery will sort her in that respect, still not what she'd have wanted but a sensible and brave decision nevertheless

Ovarian wise, I'm sure they will keep checking for early signs, no idea but doubt there is any relation or reduction in risk from the mastectomy.

And I'd just like to add, bless her and anyone else having to come to those sort of decisions. :14:
 
#12
Yes a no brainer . There was someone well known over here just recently who had the same thing done the evidence that the gene is passed down is overwhelmimg apparently.
 

kefkat

Vital Football Legend
#13
Speaking as a woman I agree with her decision. VOTN they have 3 children of their own from what I have read and decided to adopt to give other children a chance of a decent life
 
#14
I would absolutely do that. Without a second thought. Both my mother and aunt had breast cancer (along with several other family members). They both that that genetic testing done and they did not have the gene or genetic mutation (they are sisters and had different types of breast cancer).

I had made up my mind before I found out they did not have the gene if they did have the gene and I did I was going to have a double mastectomy. Immediately. Without a second thought.

Good for her. I know what it is like to live with that possibility hanging over your head. I have to go in for testing every six months and every little thing they find freaks me out and I lose my mind waiting for the results. My chances of getting breast cancer are 65% and I don't have the gene, of course breastfeeding the girls will lower that a bit, but not as much as I would like.

That is my reality.
 
#16
Because my mother, aunt, grandmother, great grandmother and several other family members have had breast cancer and all, except my mother and aunt, have died from it.

I also waited until after I was 30 to have children. Just because you don't have the genetic mutations doesn't mean you will not get breast cancer.
 

holtelower

Vital Football Hero
#17
When I heard the headline on the news I thought "What the........."

But actually, when I heard the detail, and that she had an 87% chance of contracting it, and now it is 5%, then yes, I can understand it.

She deserves a lot of credit, someone in her career relies on looks and body , it must have been a very difficult choice, but I would have probably done the same.

It must have been like carrying a time bomb around with her
 
#18
SiggyBrownie -

Just because you don't have the genetic mutations doesn't mean you will not get breast cancer.
Well no, obviously but the BRC1 and BRC2 mutations are the genetic markers they look for to calculate propensity. I presume the figure you have been given is based on a statistical analysis of historic records compared to your family history. Let's hope they got it wrong or at least you are one of the 35%.
 
#19
They also have a list of other factors they took into account when they came up with the percentage they gave me. Just one of the reasons I go in for checkups every 6 months. I would rather be proactive about this than reactive. I know there is an extremely elevated risk for me so I am taking all the precautions necessary.