wow, that is amazing. She is really a brave, awesome woman
I see. My apologies.
Gotta be a tough decision when one’s mastomorphy* is, in no small part, the source of one’s income…
- That means “when you’ve got nice tits”, y’all.
Meanwhile, the breast research organization Mr. Skin has assembled a career retrospective:
Thanks for bringing this up! I thought the article was very nice, but the question it immediately raised was how many women who do not have Jolie’s income have reasonable access to the screening and, if recommended, surgery. I honestly do not know. Is this typically covered by insurance?
BRCA and BRCA2 are tested for in the private DNA screening provided by 23andme.com. It’s $99.
Classy :rolleyes:
Of course… taking the opportunity to have one’s breasts completely rebuilt and customized at an age when tucks and tweaks won’t help any more probably has little to do with it.
Despite the fact that Angelina Jolie is a celebrity, posting a link to pictures of her breasts in this discussion of a serious medical issue is inappropriate. So is drooling about her “nice tits.”
Serious medical issue. Not a thread for talking about breasts in a sexual context. If anyone must see her breasts, I’m certain you can find your way to Google.com.
Also I am moving this to MPSIMS since it’s not about entertainment.
Yes and thank you for mentioning this. I do not think Angelina deserves any special praise for having the money and power to buy herself a new set of tits.
That is an odds calculator, not the genetic test. The only genetic test available is produced by Myriad Genetics who holds the patent on the BRCA 1 &2 mutations. Which is why the cost of the test is so high (~$3,300). SCOTUS just heard arguments on gene patenting in April, over this very case.
Under the Preventive Care Provisions of the ACA (pdf warning - scroll to last page to view chart of mandated coverage of preventive procedures) the BRCA genetic testing is mandated coverage for women who are high risk.
I think she would have very much liked to have kept her own tits, but underwent a preventive double mastectomy to decrease her chances(87%) of developing breast cancer. Rather, than spending ten years fighting the disease with radiation and chemo (likely having to undergo a double mastectomy anyway) and dying like her mother. She only has a ~5% risk of that happening now.
No matter how much money she has, a double mastectomy (especially for somebody in a career that is defined by vanity and snark-about-appearance) has to be traumatic. True, it’s better than having a double mastectomy and being broke and many women have been through that, but I doubt most healthy women would go through it even if offered a life changing amount of money.
I think you’re missing the point, which Sampiro has done a good job of explaining.
If the insurance doesn’t cover the testing, what are the odds it’ll cover the surgery?
This is such a disgusting thing to say, seriously. Re-constructive surgery after a double mastectomy is NOT “buying a new set of tits”. There are people in this thread who have lost someone they love to breast cancer, I guarantee it. There are probably people here who’ve undergone mastectomies and have their own complicated and painful relationship with their bodies now. You are making light of their pain, and their courage, at the same time you mock what Ms. Jolie endured.
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about, and you’ve revealed your nature with this post. That’s all I can say in this forum.
I don’t think so. (Missing the point, that is.) I mean, all due kudos to AJ for being so public about it (after all, breast cancer is a topic we hardly ever hear about), and brass balls to her for doing it pre-emptively (because she could afford the testing, the surgery and the reconstruction), but if it had meant remaining scarred and misshapen… do you really think she would have done it in advance of any diagnosis?
And that being able to have her entire frontal region rebuilt to 24-year-old shape and bounce had nothing to do with it? By absolutely the best reconstructive surgeons, facilities and techniques available to a wealthy Hollywood star - not those available to most women who are even eligible for lifelike reconstruction?
And that, no matter how traumatic such surgery might be, she did not have to do it “under the gun” and followed by chemo or months of terror about metastases?
Small applause is all this really deserves. Small, sincere applause with a firm grasp of how truly self-serving it all was for AJ.
Having her breasts removed was self-serving for Angelina - I don’t know of a psychologically normal woman alive who would agree with that statement.
Are people maybe mistaking a double mastectomy for the same thing as having implants done? That might explain the strange attitudes.
Ninja’d. Never Mind.
J.
Yeah, I can’t imagine lopping off large parts of yourself is an easy decision to make by far, no matter what the circumstances.