I must confess, when reading the thread I was thinking the same thing (I’m a Guy) but reading some of the linked sites put my mind at rest that we’re not talking about a common practice yet.
I think I’m gonna shout what Auntbeast said again: Get a Second Opinion. The advantage of this type of medicine is that it doesn’t have the urgency that you would experience if you get cancer.
It’s only fair to mention that my view of doctors is skewed by the fact that I wouldn’t even be alive if my Mother had taken the bad advice she was given by Doctors when expecting me.
That is your choice. No one is forcing women to have this done, and the idea of prophylactic mastectomy, even for very high risk people, is controversial.
Well, for starters, not everyone’s health insurance pays for breast MRI’s but might for mastectomies so, horrible as it may be, sometimes it’s a financial factor. Some people are so terrified of cancer they are mentally more comfortable with mutilation than frequent exams. And there might be other reasons I can’t think of off hand.
I guess my point is that it is an option. It’s a rather extreme option, but there you have it.
I did some serious research on breast cancer when my sister was diagnosed. One of the most interesting things I learned was that “early detection will prevent terminal disease progression” is pretty much a myth. A myth that most people believe.
What really predicts whether one will be cured or die from the cancer depends on the genetics of that person's particular tumor. Some tumors are quite slow to progress and you would be unlikely to die from them even if you waited *years* to treat them. Other tumors are *very aggressive*. This type of tumor will probably progress and spread no matter how early it is detected. It is to prevent death from this second type of tumor that prophylactic mastectomies are sometimes recommended. Also, my sister had annual mammograms at "the best radiology practice in Boston" (she is quite a hypochondriac) to say nothing of self and doctor exams on a frequent basis. The surgeon figures her tumor had been there for 8-10 years before detection. It was missed by the mammograms and her fibrocystic breasts made manual exams unreliable. Fortunately the genetics were good and she is doing just fine several years after lumpectomy and chemo.
I hope this info makes it easier for you to understand why your friend would choose this admittedly radical option.
(I’m not a doctor.)
I suppose it’s because prostate cancer is usually a much slower growing cancer. It is so slow that doing nothing about it is sometimes a reasonable option. My father-in-law, for example, was diagnosed with prostate cancer 9 years before his death. He died of cardivascular disease, not cancer.
ETA Do I really know enough to say that? Probably not.