For several days I've been trying to, also simultaneously trying not to, write about Angelina Jolie.
In one attempt to post about it, I went on and on about the "middle room" of the body, the heart, lungs, ribs, shoulder blades and breasts, about scar tissue and intercostal muscles, the after effects of surgery, the dangers of anesthesia. Blah blah blah.
I tried coming at it from another direction. I wrote about the soul and its home in the heart chakra, the placement of breasts in humans on either side of the heart and the disruption of the energy of that chakra from mastectomy which is sometimes necessary when people actually have cancer. I wrote about ways to help ensoul the heart after mastectomy, something I've been a part of with clients who had breast cancer.
I also wrote about genetic medicine - a very young science that is anything but tried and true. People keep talking about Angelina's disease, but she has no disease, none. What she has is a probability based on a gene marker and family history. Otherwise as far as we know, she is in perfect health.
All attempts were boring and way too long. I abandoned every draft, after which I tried to write more about the class I'll be offering in July. I've made some adjustments to the outline, decided on a date and am now trying to figure out how much to charge - that's always the hardest part, how to ask for a sum that's fair compensation for the work I'll put into it, without asking for more than people can afford. I want to donate a part of what I make to something or another, too. It's a dilemma, but I'll figure it out.
However, until I write something about Angelina, it seems I will be unable to address anything else. So, here goes.
People say it's her decision and none of our business, but she made it our business by publishing her story in the New York Times.
I'm glad people are talking about this surgery.
I worry that women who might have considered alternatives to this drastic, ghastly approach might be swayed because Angelina did it, and especially because she's being touted as a hero for doing it. This worry does not mean I think women are stupid. It's instinctual to look to our heroes and leaders for guidance. She is a big celebrity - even I know who she is - and she plays glamorous super heroes in her movies. We in America worship celebrity. We confuse artists with their art. It's not stupid to do so, it's human. I think my worry is well founded.
Is it heroic to mutilate your body for no reason other than a probability based on a gene marker? I think it's horrible! I think it's tragic, and crazy and it makes me very sad. There - I've said it.
Maybe now I can move on, let go, and refocus on the class.
Thank you for listening. Shalom.
6 comments:
I think it is so drastic! But I am 64 and at this point in my life, it wouldn't be something I would consider, much less could I afford such a thing. Perhaps if I were in my 30's and had money, power, fame, young children to raise, and the "gene," I might consider it. It is hard for me to say.
She could have a harmless MRI twice a year, catch anything at its onset. She tends to go overboard on everything. Remember Billy Ray Thornton (is that the right name) - they wore vials of each other's blood around their necks when they were together.
When she decided to have kids, she acquired SIX.
I'm sure she took a lot of hormones before giving birth to the twins. Maybe that's what scared her, I'm not sure.
Just about ready to stop going on about this. Really I am. I promise.
During my time in the biotech company in Rockville, I signed off on thousands of gene patents, including BRCA1 & BRCA2. My best work buddy in those days left for a job in Utah with Myriad, and one of my other friends was the researcher who actually identified these genes. Everyone involved hoped and intended that these discoveries would lead to insights into cancer's mechanisms, and better treatment. Scaring women into having their breasts and ovaries removed wasn't what we thought we were doing.
It really disturbs me that doctors are using these tests to terrify people to cut off healthy body parts. How did someone decide that she had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, but only 5% after surgery? What sort of evidence and analysis can tell you that? Physicians are notoriously bad at math, and often don't know how to interpret probability, much less explain it to a worried patient.
Sheesh.
Oh Rebecca. Thank you!
My friend Nancy Urhammer is an old blog friend and a breast cancer geneticist working in France. They don't do the mastectomy there. It's a trend here that has nothing to do with the geneticists.
Sheesh is right! Or something stronger.
Oh Rebecca. Thank you!
My friend Nancy Urhammer is an old blog friend and a breast cancer geneticist working in France. They don't do the mastectomy there. It's a trend here that has nothing to do with the geneticists.
Sheesh is right! Or something stronger.
I have to say I agree with you. there's a screw loose in there somewhere.
Post a Comment