FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Angelina Jolie has ovaries and fallopian tubes removed

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She did it for the sake of her own health. Got nothing to do with her mentality

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago

OP did you actually read why she had the surgery?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"OP did you actually read why she had the surgery?"

Yes I did, hence my reference to a bus.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon

She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "

Or mentioning Michael Jackson in the same post seeing as he's irrelevant

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

Are you trained in mental health?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "

And her mother died of same thing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago


"OP did you actually read why she had the surgery?

Yes I did, hence my reference to a bus."

Good grief

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Family history of cancer, brave girl taking those decisions to potentially stop any possible suffering in the future

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issmorganWoman
over a year ago

Calderdale innit

I so admire her for what shes done ,Shes a very brave lady who i wish well.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

And her mother died of same thing"

Some people must read a different article or leave out information at times on here..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

really !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I so admire her for what shes done ,Shes a very brave lady who i wish well."

Me too x it must have been such a hard decision

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

And her mother died of same thing

Some people must read a different article or leave out information at times on here.. "

Definitely! Absolutely ridiculous

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evaquitCouple
over a year ago

Catthorpe

[Bangs head against wall].

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon


"[Bangs head against wall]. "

Don't it hurts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *sian_coupleukCouple
over a year ago

manchester

Bet original poster feels like a right plank now!

Wish her all the best, brave and hard decision made.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

And her mother died of same thing

Some people must read a different article or leave out information at times on here.. "

I think people place a different emphasis on certain information. I don't know the statistical risk of being run over by a bus compared to A.J's risk of developing cancer but I guess the op must think its about equal, Angelina Jolie obviously doesn't and I would imagine that she is in possession of much more information on the subject. Making such a drastic choice does indicate to me that she was at high risk of developing cancer because I would never choose to go through such surgery unless it was necessary.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Two people I know died of cancer at the weekend, it was slow and painful for both them and their loved ones. Still look on the bright side, they could have been run over by a bus!

Won't say what I really want to as the mods will have to act

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *isscheekychopsWoman
over a year ago

The land of grey peas and bacon


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

And her mother died of same thing

Some people must read a different article or leave out information at times on here..

I think people place a different emphasis on certain information. I don't know the statistical risk of being run over by a bus compared to A.J's risk of developing cancer but I guess the op must think its about equal, Angelina Jolie obviously doesn't and I would imagine that she is in possession of much more information on the subject. Making such a drastic choice does indicate to me that she was at high risk of developing cancer because I would never choose to go through such surgery unless it was necessary."

I doubt very much she woke up one morning and thought right today I'm just going to pop in and get my ovaries and tubes removed. I can only imagine she had top notch medical advice regarding this and made a decision based on what she was advised by a medical profession. I think it's a brave decision

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What a muppet

And I'm not talking about angelina

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

Ovarian cancer is generally not diagnosed until it has progressed so far that it can only be treated but not cured.

It's a horrible way to die.

A woman who watched her mother die slowly of this disease and who has also lost two other close family members to it, a woman who has been tested and found to be carrying BRCA1, a woman who has had further monitoring and has been told that she has become higher risk for developing ovarian cancer since she was previously screened, a woman who's removed ovaries showed the presence of a tumour (benign but one of the precursors), a woman who has children and desperately doesn't want them to watch her suffer and die from something she is in a position to prevent - how can you regard her motives or her choice?

I know of women in their twenties who have had a radical mastectomy and ovary and fallopian tube removal for the same reasons, women who have chosen life over any possibility of children, women who have put themselves into menopause at a very early age. All for the chance of life.

I have also seen young women, some of them still children, bravely looking death in the face and knowing that their stock of life is counted in weeks or months not years. Those women and their families understand Angelina Jolie's choice, they will be happy she has had the opportunity to make it. It's a choice they would have loved to have had the chance to make.

Angelina Jolie is making decisions based on strong medical advice, this will not have been done lightly. It's something few talk about from a personal point of _iew and I consider her brave to be so honest about it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oconut2Woman
over a year ago

Nether regions of the back of beyond


"She did it for the sake of her own health. Got nothing to do with her mentality"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "
yes your right .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oconut2Woman
over a year ago

Nether regions of the back of beyond


"Ovarian cancer is generally not diagnosed until it has progressed so far that it can only be treated but not cured.

It's a horrible way to die.

A woman who watched her mother die slowly of this disease and who has also lost two other close family members to it, a woman who has been tested and found to be carrying BRCA1, a woman who has had further monitoring and has been told that she has become higher risk for developing ovarian cancer since she was previously screened, a woman who's removed ovaries showed the presence of a tumour (benign but one of the precursors), a woman who has children and desperately doesn't want them to watch her suffer and die from something she is in a position to prevent - how can you regard her motives or her choice?

I know of women in their twenties who have had a radical mastectomy and ovary and fallopian tube removal for the same reasons, women who have chosen life over any possibility of children, women who have put themselves into menopause at a very early age. All for the chance of life.

I have also seen young women, some of them still children, bravely looking death in the face and knowing that their stock of life is counted in weeks or months not years. Those women and their families understand Angelina Jolie's choice, they will be happy she has had the opportunity to make it. It's a choice they would have loved to have had the chance to make.

Angelina Jolie is making decisions based on strong medical advice, this will not have been done lightly. It's something few talk about from a personal point of _iew and I consider her brave to be so honest about it.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"
She don't wish her kids to have to say my mum died of cancer .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inkyfun2013Couple
over a year ago

lewisham

I had the same elective surgery 5 years ago following a diagnosis of BRCA2. I'd already had breast cancer and then mastectomy. BRCA2 and BRCA1are the faulty genes identified in causing certain hereditary types of breast and ovarian cancers.

My younger sister hasn't had cancer but is also BRCA2 and she opted for mastectomy and ovary removal.

I found it a really easy decision but my sister found it really tough, however having a 60-80% chance of developing ovarian cancer swayed her.

If you had a 60-80% chance of being hit by a bus every time you crossed the road you'd look for a bridge - this is our bridge.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Her decision to undergo the procedure was a logical one in my opinion.

The bravery is her decision to go public. An icon of the stature of Angelina Jolie who many perceive as having everything has chosen to share her predicament with other women who may be struggling to face a similar situation.

Going public is a selfless act and I admire her for it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

A sign of a very strong woman surely!?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I had the same elective surgery 5 years ago following a diagnosis of BRCA2. I'd already had breast cancer and then mastectomy. BRCA2 and BRCA1are the faulty genes identified in causing certain hereditary types of breast and ovarian cancers.

My younger sister hasn't had cancer but is also BRCA2 and she opted for mastectomy and ovary removal.

I found it a really easy decision but my sister found it really tough, however having a 60-80% chance of developing ovarian cancer swayed her.

If you had a 60-80% chance of being hit by a bus every time you crossed the road you'd look for a bridge - this is our bridge."

Hugs to you and your sister! How are you both doing now? X

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Two people I know died of cancer at the weekend, it was slow and painful for both them and their loved ones. Still look on the bright side, they could have been run over by a bus!

Won't say what I really want to as the mods will have to act"

Hugs, it must be a very difficult time for everyone involved.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Two people I know died of cancer at the weekend, it was slow and painful for both them and their loved ones. Still look on the bright side, they could have been run over by a bus!

Won't say what I really want to as the mods will have to act

Hugs, it must be a very difficult time for everyone involved. "
not difficult for me but I am a shoulder if they need it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

OMG - how obnoxious can anyone be?

I've had a partner face this problem - and loose...

Well, if you're not afraid of busses etc, please feel free to go for a walk on the motorway....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Her decision to undergo the procedure was a logical one in my opinion.

The bravery is her decision to go public. An icon of the stature of Angelina Jolie who many perceive as having everything has chosen to share her predicament with other women who may be struggling to face a similar situation.

Going public is a selfless act and I admire her for it."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *onbons_xxMan
over a year ago

Bolton

Seriously?

Too many people bury their head in the sand and then wonder 'if only'. I'm glad she's taken the choice, and I'm more pleased that others will read and awareness will grow about something where people have to take more control where they can if the known risks are higher. You wouldn't wish it on anyone.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk

It's a shame there are no tests for a behaving like an ill-informed knob gene.

Perhaps if it had been identified in the OP earlier, he could have had something surgically removed in order to prevent him making the post in the first place.

Unbelievably stupid and insensitive behaviour, OP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *omtdhMan
over a year ago

IOM

There are its called the forum. Good luck to AJ a difficult but correct decision. It is only a selfish tit that would want a child over the health and wellbeing of the lady that you love. Well done that girl OP you should be ashamed of yourself. I hope that you never have to make such a decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a shame there are no tests for a behaving like an ill-informed knob gene.

Perhaps if it had been identified in the OP earlier, he could have had something surgically removed in order to prevent him making the post in the first place.

Unbelievably stupid and insensitive behaviour, OP."

Haha I love this!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The fuckwit gene can be easily diagnosed on forums such as this

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent

If I had problems and found out I was at a very high risk Id do exactly the same. I have a young child, I fully intend to see him grow up.

Gotta say this OP is one of the most ridiculous things I've read on here for a long time. Especially when followed up by the later post..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evaquitCouple
over a year ago

Catthorpe


"[Bangs head against wall].

Don't it hurts "

Yes but it beats a donkey punch which come to think of it wouldn't be too bad an idea for one in particular.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

She was told she had an 87% chance of getting breast cancer and a 50% chance of ovarian cancer (which her mum died of after an 8 year battle) not entirely sure why you think this is a mental health issue op?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"[Bangs head against wall].

Don't it hurts "

Not if it's already numb!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *phroditeWoman
over a year ago

(She/ her) in Sensualityland


"It's a shame there are no tests for a behaving like an ill-informed knob gene.

Perhaps if it had been identified in the OP earlier, he could have had something surgically removed in order to prevent him making the post in the first place.

Unbelievably stupid and insensitive behaviour, OP."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ovarian cancer is generally not diagnosed until it has progressed so far that it can only be treated but not cured.

It's a horrible way to die.

A woman who watched her mother die slowly of this disease and who has also lost two other close family members to it, a woman who has been tested and found to be carrying BRCA1, a woman who has had further monitoring and has been told that she has become higher risk for developing ovarian cancer since she was previously screened, a woman who's removed ovaries showed the presence of a tumour (benign but one of the precursors), a woman who has children and desperately doesn't want them to watch her suffer and die from something she is in a position to prevent - how can you regard her motives or her choice?

I know of women in their twenties who have had a radical mastectomy and ovary and fallopian tube removal for the same reasons, women who have chosen life over any possibility of children, women who have put themselves into menopause at a very early age. All for the chance of life.

I have also seen young women, some of them still children, bravely looking death in the face and knowing that their stock of life is counted in weeks or months not years. Those women and their families understand Angelina Jolie's choice, they will be happy she has had the opportunity to make it. It's a choice they would have loved to have had the chance to make.

Angelina Jolie is making decisions based on strong medical advice, this will not have been done lightly. It's something few talk about from a personal point of _iew and I consider her brave to be so honest about it.

"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

what an absolute ***** ****** *****!!!!

A.J is an amazingly strong and brave woman, OP, you should be bloody ashamed of yourself, what a disgusting, heartless, and thoughtless comparison to make!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ickawitchCouple
over a year ago

Away with the fairies (Liverpool to you)

This could be me and my sister in a few moths time, we are in the process of genetic testing because my mum has stage IV ovarian cancer which is aggressively recurring as we speak. I find it very upsetting right now and the OP needs a reality check. I hope no one they know goes through what my mum is going through.....it's not a good place to be and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.....

Big hugs to everyone on this thread who has been touched or cares enough to be positive about the life choices....and that's what it is - choosing life over death.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *evaquitCouple
over a year ago

Catthorpe


"[Bangs head against wall].

Don't it hurts

Not if it's already numb! "

Charming!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"[Bangs head against wall].

Don't it hurts

Not if it's already numb!

Charming! "

Not you!! lÖl

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"It's a shame there are no tests for a behaving like an ill-informed knob gene.

Perhaps if it had been identified in the OP earlier, he could have had something surgically removed in order to prevent him making the post in the first place.

Unbelievably stupid and insensitive behaviour, OP."

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Advancing technology and knowledge of our genes is progressing in such a way that we are able to make informed decisions about our health.

I only hope the cure for stupidity comes along soon enough to help you with your problem OP.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

why am i not surprised the OP is a MAN

Cancer kills FACT cancer can go undetected until its too late n then destroys lives as partners families n especially children never get over the early untimely death of a parent FACT

I will n would high 5 any woman who takes these drastic measures to try to prevent this happening to her family as i have had family n friends who have gone through hell with cancer some winning their fight n others we tragically lost to this evil illness

OP i just hope for your sake it never touches your life hun and think mabe learnin a little more about the subject before jumping on the "ohhhhhhhhhh what a looney n just like jacko" bandwaggon before posting such a ridiculous post

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's awful that any woman feels the need to have any part of her body removed, I understand why she's done it.

I think the real topic should be what is the health service doing to cure cancer, we donate millions in aid, waste money on mps expenses, but we still live in a world where our biggest killer goes untreated and un cured! Most of the research comes from charity! Just wrong!

That little boy yesterday who's cancer free now cause his mom and dad stole him from a hospital and took him abroad cause we couldn't fork up the £100k. The person who made that decision should ashamed!

As for that plank who started this thread perhaps you should have your brain removed! If they can find it!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think it's awful that any woman feels the need to have any part of her body removed, I understand why she's done it.

I think the real topic should be what is the health service doing to cure cancer, we donate millions in aid, waste money on mps expenses, but we still live in a world where our biggest killer goes untreated and un cured! Most of the research comes from charity! Just wrong!

That little boy yesterday who's cancer free now cause his mom and dad stole him from a hospital and took him abroad cause we couldn't fork up the £100k. The person who made that decision should ashamed!

As for that plank who started this thread perhaps you should have your brain removed! If they can find it!"

The independent medical opinions I've read on Ashya King was that there's no evidence that the fact he is now in remission is because of the treatment he received abroad, compared with the conventional treatment he would have received in the UK. So I'd imagine the people responsible for that decision are sleeping soundly knowing that they made a decision based on the available facts. But that's a whole other thread.

I wonder if I'm in the minority in believing we can't 'cure' cancer. I don't know enough about the science, but surely cells will continue to mutate in different ways? Learn to eliminate one form and another could develop? The entire UK budget could go on researching cancer prevention and treatments but would it ever be 'cured'? That's another thread too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

I notice that there has been a lot of condemnation from people who's relatives have had cancer, so have mine. Indeed I watch my own father goes through two bouts of chemotherapy before giving up, I wanted him to give up after the first attempt because it was doing no bloody good. Maybe I'm tougher than most or insensitive, but cancer does not have me reaching for a box of tissues every time its mentioned, just bloody bad luck.

My reference is to the fact she does not have cancer, she has had a test that cost $4000 now thanks to her making it public, that is not considered reliable by a lot of physicians a lot are furious that its led to what they consider self mutilation, one stating no one got cancer by having too many breasts.

I was referring to the fact she has well documented issues, indeed she suffers apparently from very bad breath her husbands cure was to buy her a box of mints. That's the real issue!!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer.

And her mother died of same thing"

It is a very brave thing she did, live in fear of getting the an awful disease or preventative surgery.

I had cancer I know what I would have done.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"why am i not surprised the OP is a MAN

Cancer kills FACT cancer can go undetected until its too late n then destroys lives as partners families n especially children never get over the early untimely death of a parent FACT

I will n would high 5 any woman who takes these drastic measures to try to prevent this happening to her family as i have had family n friends who have gone through hell with cancer some winning their fight n others we tragically lost to this evil illness

OP i just hope for your sake it never touches your life hun and think mabe learnin a little more about the subject before jumping on the "ohhhhhhhhhh what a looney n just like jacko" bandwaggon before posting such a ridiculous post "

Why bring the OP's sex in to it?

That's the third most stupid post on this thread - & so far the OP is in the gold & silver positions - but there's still time for you to 'upgrade' your bronze!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Personally I think its a bit extreme, I wouldnt have body parts removed to reduce the risk, for me I'd have to wait till I had something before to took such measures but we are not all the same and she did what she felt best for her, we should respect other peoples _iews even if they are different to ours

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ust RachelTV/TS
over a year ago

Horsham


"Personally I think its a bit extreme, I wouldnt have body parts removed to reduce the risk, for me I'd have to wait till I had something before to took such measures but we are not all the same and she did what she felt best for her, we should respect other peoples _iews even if they are different to ours "

I know several women who had the gene and had the op, what they give up far outweighs the risk to them.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Personally I think its a bit extreme, I wouldnt have body parts removed to reduce the risk, for me I'd have to wait till I had something before to took such measures but we are not all the same and she did what she felt best for her, we should respect other peoples _iews even if they are different to ours

I know several women who had the gene and had the op, what they give up far outweighs the risk to them."

And that's their choice I'm just saying I wouldnt do it

We are all different and neither is right or wrong its just a case of doing what's right for you

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I was referring to the fact she has well documented issues, indeed she suffers apparently from very bad breath her husbands cure was to buy her a box of mints. That's the real issue!!!!"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

Don't abuse the OP for having a different _iew than you or you will end up not being able to post at all

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I probably find it hard to be objective on this topic having watched my Mum die from womb cancer which like Ovarian - is often not discovered until it's fairly advanced.

Angelina made a choice , some would see it as extreme. She used the information she was given on risk and decided, I guess, she didn't want the risk of developing it. A brave decision and I understand her reasoning behind it.

A bus - well that's an unknown statistic isn't it so unquantifiable and difficult to counteract the same way.

Years ago, Angelina and others would have no choice other than to wait for symptoms and take what life sent their way. I'd do the same as her, if I was brave enough to have the genetic test and it had a high risk result.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Ye i hold my hands up putting that as my opening line was on reflection not my brightest idea but the reason for it was that on occasion on post in here on issues around what are seen as womens issues SOME not ALL men have jumped on things n said things without really knowing what they were talking about or made remarks that leave SOME women scratching their heads think WTF as can be said of many threads on any subject.

I guess thats coz like they say we all have opinions and they are like arseholes we all have 1 n they can be full of shit of which i will hold my hands up i am guilty of because i have opinions

Cancer is a very emotive subject to many of us n yes i responded out of a not so good space n that is my issue but that i guess is what makes these forums interesting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

To the OP. I sort of get where you are coming from..anything can happen to us at any time so why worry?

I am not sure what I would do in her situation but I don't think she needs sectioned for making a decision that could not be an easy one.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No worries, just give me back the medal!

Of course cancer affects both sexes of which neither seem to be immune from the grossest remarks!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"To the OP. I sort of get where you are coming from..anything can happen to us at any time so why worry?

I am not sure what I would do in her situation but I don't think she needs sectioned for making a decision that could not be an easy one.

"

Fair and balanced x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

WoW!

How do you equate Whaco Jacko changing skin colour with Angelina Jolie's surgery?

Ms Jolie has a very rare genetic defect that makes her highly lightly to develop beast, ovarian and fallopian cancer, therefore preemptive surgery had to be a consideration. Unless of course you are suggesting that all preemptive and elective surgery should be classed as proof of a sectionable mental disorder.

My heart goes out to the lady, it had to be such a hard decision to make.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I notice that there has been a lot of condemnation from people who's relatives have had cancer, so have mine. Indeed I watch my own father goes through two bouts of chemotherapy before giving up, I wanted him to give up after the first attempt because it was doing no bloody good. Maybe I'm tougher than most or insensitive, but cancer does not have me reaching for a box of tissues every time its mentioned, just bloody bad luck.

My reference is to the fact she does not have cancer, she has had a test that cost $4000 now thanks to her making it public, that is not considered reliable by a lot of physicians a lot are furious that its led to what they consider self mutilation, one stating no one got cancer by having too many breasts.

I was referring to the fact she has well documented issues, indeed she suffers apparently from very bad breath her husbands cure was to buy her a box of mints. That's the real issue!!!!"

Yes, it's bloody bad luck. However, it's pretty silly not to at least seriously consider any possibility that will reduce the chance of that bad luck.

It's hardly something for which someone should be sectioned. Quite the opposite.

Tougher? No but insensitive, very definitely.

Those furious doctors, by the way, probably find it easy to be furious since it's not them that would be affected if Ms. Jolie did develop cancer.

Nobody got cancer by having too many breasts? What a stupid thing to say. Clearly having breasts won't cause cancer but having breast tissue makes developing breast cancer a possibility.

As for trying to defend what is fundamentally indefensible

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
Forum Mod
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

Because all the other uproar threads have gone

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

If that is the case maybe he should say he believes all elective surgery should be banned. As it is, it sounds (to me) as if he is objecting to women removing sexual organs to protect their health.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

If that is the case maybe he should say he believes all elective surgery should be banned. As it is, it sounds (to me) as if he is objecting to women removing sexual organs to protect their health."

Maybe ask him if he thinks men should do it too?

I am not offended by his post and I am female so I am not sure why you seem to be.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She had 85% of getting breast cancer and 50% of getting ovarian cancer.

I would do the same

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Because he was rude uncaring and insensitive

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"Because he was rude uncaring and insensitive "

Is that why you were offended or Will?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

There are two issues here, women and cancer. I am not sure why people think it is offensive to talk about cancer or womens cancers.

I think he might have been better wording it better but the jist is all there.

Yes, I know cancer is an emotive subject and lots of people know of or have personal knowledge of it, but it doesn't mean it cant be talked about

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *issHottieBottieWoman
over a year ago

Kent


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

I can understand that people wouldn't do what she did but implying she's got some sort of mental health problem for trying to prevent something that she's got a huge chance of getting when she's got 6 young kids is just odd

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *itzWoman
over a year ago

south wales

To me, Angelina saved herself from having to worry about developing these cancers. A person in remission, for example, never escapes the worry that the cancer will come back. After having the positive genetic test, the worry would have always been in the back of her mind if she had not acted.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iewMan
Forum Mod
over a year ago

Angus & Findhorn

good to luck to her and all facing similar decisions and/or treatments for cancer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"good to luck to her and all facing similar decisions and/or treatments for cancer.

"

What View said.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston


"Because he was rude uncaring and insensitive

Is that why you were offended or Will?"

I'm with Mysteriousguy.

Many here would say I was a hard arsed uncaring twat. But I find comparing Ms Jolie's choice (which is the same as a guy deciding to have his testicles and prostrate removed) for medical reasons with Jako getting bleached quite offensive. It just lacks any empathy.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

Of course he can think that, he can also think she deserves to be sectioned, but can't people also think he's ill-informed for thinking that, or making spurious comparisons about being hit by a bus?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"good to luck to her and all facing similar decisions and/or treatments for cancer.

What View said."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

I can understand that people wouldn't do what she did but implying she's got some sort of mental health problem for trying to prevent something that she's got a huge chance of getting when she's got 6 young kids is just odd "

To be fair not many people touched on that , they just seem annoyed that the OP thinks it isn't a decision she /he would/should have made.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Of course he can think that, he can also think she deserves to be sectioned, but can't people also think he's ill-informed for thinking that, or making spurious comparisons about being hit by a bus?

"

Of course....but the OP didn't abuse anyone while doing it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Of course he can think that, he can also think she deserves to be sectioned, but can't people also think he's ill-informed for thinking that, or making spurious comparisons about being hit by a bus?

Of course....but the OP didn't abuse anyone while doing it."

Fair enough being abusive is never ok, but I can understand 'outrage', that's all.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Of course he can think that, he can also think she deserves to be sectioned, but can't people also think he's ill-informed for thinking that, or making spurious comparisons about being hit by a bus?

Of course....but the OP didn't abuse anyone while doing it."

no, just a very brave lady, by comparing her to a guy who bleached himself.

I found his post very offensive to make such a comparison.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *carineMan
over a year ago

Armthorpe, Doncaster

As she continues her piece-by-piece sex change, i`m becoming more and more impressed by Brad`s powers of persuasion...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ee VianteWoman
over a year ago

Somewhere in North Norfolk


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

I can understand that people wouldn't do what she did but implying she's got some sort of mental health problem for trying to prevent something that she's got a huge chance of getting when she's got 6 young kids is just odd

To be fair not many people touched on that , they just seem annoyed that the OP thinks it isn't a decision she /he would/should have made."

My outrage is purely to do with the mental health comment.

Apart from anything else, it demonstrates the stigma attached to mental health issues, and the lack of respect for anyone who genuinely has such problems.

Somebody doing something the OP doesn't understand or agree with? OMG, they must be insane. Quick, lock them in the loony bin!

I think the OP actually was very offensive to those with mental health problems, (estimated to be 25% of people).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

I can understand that people wouldn't do what she did but implying she's got some sort of mental health problem for trying to prevent something that she's got a huge chance of getting when she's got 6 young kids is just odd

To be fair not many people touched on that , they just seem annoyed that the OP thinks it isn't a decision she /he would/should have made.

My outrage is purely to do with the mental health comment.

Apart from anything else, it demonstrates the stigma attached to mental health issues, and the lack of respect for anyone who genuinely has such problems.

Somebody doing something the OP doesn't understand or agree with? OMG, they must be insane. Quick, lock them in the loony bin!

I think the OP actually was very offensive to those with mental health problems, (estimated to be 25% of people)."

totally agree

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

"

Bizarre. Are you genetically predisposed to getting hit by a bus? She is reducing her risk of dying young by taking this drastic surgery. Brave woman!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/03/15 08:32:59]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"As she continues her piece-by-piece sex change, i`m becoming more and more impressed by Brad`s powers of persuasion..."
Sex change? How do you figure this. She had implants to replace to breast tissue and women all over the planet have tubes cut/removed everyday.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atelotmanMan
over a year ago

Chatham

She is one very brave young beautiful woman.She wants to have a life with her children an so made the choice, some are to thick an dumb to see.Dont put her down with such foolish statements just support her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"She is one very brave young beautiful woman.She wants to have a life with her children an so made the choice, some are to thick an dumb to see.Dont put her down with such foolish statements just support her."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Is it time to section her for her own good, a bit like Michael Jackson with his plastic surgery.

First her breasts now this, I could be run over by a bus so I won't go out.

You, sir, are an idiot. Sorry to insult but your comments demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the issues.

She has not done this for cosmetic reasons so your comparison to Michael Jackson is invalid.

She has a genetic predisposition to these cancers and is reducing her overall risk by taking this action.

Perhaps it would be better if you did go outside. . ."

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better"

It's the crass suggestion that she's addicted to surgery and has mental health issues which irked me. It demeans both those who have mental health isdies and those who have treatment prophylactically when told they are high risk.

There is a conversation to be had about this type of surgery and the varying medical advice about it. Beginning by suggesting someone should be sectioned is not the way to go about it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

And again, if people are going to post their _iews do it without attacking the poster please.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better"

I can understand why people may not like what or even how something is written, I just cant understand the way it has been answered.

We have all probably been touched or know someone who has had some or all of the issues raised but I cant understand the need to get so wound up about it.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *remiumChocolate_milkMan
over a year ago

Milton Keynes

I was considering posting this yesterday but then changed my mind. However, I've now reconsidered my decision and am looking for _iews.

I've noticed several males commending Angelina for going through with this. Of course, it's obviously her choice, but would these males consider having their testicles removed if they were told they had a 50% chance of developing testicular cancer?

I'm aware testicular cancer is neccesarily as deadly as other forms of cancer and Angelina's chance of developing it were higher than 50%, but I was just wondering at what point would you consider having your testicles removed?

Personally, I think it would have to be about 75% for me.

Not trying to trivialise this issue, just looking for _iews.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/03/15 11:56:39]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So you're saying Angelina Jolie is a hypochondriac because she didn't want to have the same cancer that killed her mother and she had an 85% chance of getting it? Ok then

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

"

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better

I can understand why people may not like what or even how something is written, I just cant understand the way it has been answered.

We have all probably been touched or know someone who has had some or all of the issues raised but I cant understand the need to get so wound up about it. "

Nor can I , we all have our own _iews and I challenge anyone to say they don't do anything that may cause cancer .

I mean , just breathing the air we breathe , drinking the water , and just our very existence are risks !

But smoking , alcohol , sweet food , fatty food , stress , sex , not enough exercise , too much exercise , the list goes on.......

The point is that if we try to eradicate every possible risk factor , including genes , we wouldn't leave our oxygen tent would we ?

And what kind of life would that be ?

So whilst accepting that we all make our lifestyle choices , no one is wrong , and no one is right on this issue .

I certainly wouldn't have parts removed , no matter what . What will be will be and I would sooner enjoy what time I have with what I was born with .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"As she continues her piece-by-piece sex change, i`m becoming more and more impressed by Brad`s powers of persuasion..."

I was really thinking about whether it was worth the 24/48/96 hr ban I would get if I if i told you what i really think of this post was worth it... and i was really.... really tempted....

it wouldn't have stayed up for long... but I'd have felt great....

but thought about it... and realised it wouldn't truely give the amount of distain and contempt that i think the post deserves......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

[Removed by poster at 25/03/15 13:03:39]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

I certainly wouldn't have parts removed , no matter what . What will be will be and I would sooner enjoy what time I have with what I was born with ."

see.. its really easy the say that... but lets say you were to need a heart/liver/kidney transplant.... or what about a hip replacememt.... oooh how about blood transfusion???

where does it end?

oooh... apendixs!!!... oh an tosills....

I know... gall bladder!!! if i hadn't had mine removed when i did it would have killed me... and i needed a blood transfusion afterwards......

i'm being a bif flippant now.... but we remove/replace a lot more than you realise......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better

It's the crass suggestion that she's addicted to surgery and has mental health issues which irked me. It demeans both those who have mental health isdies and those who have treatment prophylactically when told they are high risk.

There is a conversation to be had about this type of surgery and the varying medical advice about it. Beginning by suggesting someone should be sectioned is not the way to go about it."

Having survived cancer myself & being in the high risk percentage I totally agree with her choice...... If my genetic testing had come back with a high risk of breast cancer I would of been more than happy to have a mastectomy to cut the risk

I had my ovaries removed once I had finished my chemo etc as I had a 84% chance of ovarian cancer so I'm in the pro active group

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I certainly wouldn't have parts removed , no matter what . What will be will be and I would sooner enjoy what time I have with what I was born with .

see.. its really easy the say that... but lets say you were to need a heart/liver/kidney transplant.... or what about a hip replacememt.... oooh how about blood transfusion???

where does it end?

oooh... apendixs!!!... oh an tosills....

I know... gall bladder!!! if i hadn't had mine removed when i did it would have killed me... and i needed a blood transfusion afterwards......

i'm being a bif flippant now.... but we remove/replace a lot more than you realise......"

There is a big difference between having a gall bladder or appendix removed when it's causing a life or death situation , and removing parts just in case they may cause cancer .

I wonder what the chances are of having appendicitis or a gall bladder issue ?

How many of us would have them removed just in case they go wrong ?

It's now nowhere near as common to remove tonsils as it's clear they have a function and removal is now a last resort .

Blood transfusions and organ replacements are irrelevant to this subject , and many of us choose not to have these procedures by carrying a card saying so .

I clearly said no one is right or wrong on this one , just that her choice is not the only one . I hope she has made the right one , just like everyone who chooses what steps to take in their life .

The fact that I wouldn't have parts removed just in case is my choice , and I don't profess to suggest that it's the right choice for everyone , but it certainly is for me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 25/03/15 14:08:25]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

When it happens to you watch your opinions change.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"When it happens to you watch your opinions change. "

That is also my opinion x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her. "

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

"

She wasn't obsessed with surgery, she was trying to prolong her life so she could see her kids grow up!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

She wasn't obsessed with surgery, she was trying to prolong her life so she could see her kids grow up!! "

She's obsessed with cancer and she can still get it. Hey I might get it, that would be poetic justice.

I suggest she stop giving inter_iews, flying round the world and spend time with her kids, she in the very privileged position of being able to afford never having to work again and get a check up every week if she wants, and also stop rowing with Brad and stop smoking, Brad too!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

"

Could you give us the names, or sources of some of the expert doctors you're referring to? I still hugely disagree that this decision was a result of obsession and I'd be interested to read the _iews of professionals rather than some slightly muddled bloke on a swinging site (no offence).

I'd imagine that 'spurious' reasons for testing wouldn't get past the front door of the GP in our system. I (thankfully) don't have a medical history in my close family of ovarian cancer, so if I turned up saying I wanted testing for it and potentially surgery, they'd rightly tell me to bugger off. And if I did have a family history of ovarian cancer then frankly screening would seem an excellent idea. On a purely cost/benefit basis, screening and potentially pre-emptive surgery would be less costly than prolonged cancer treatments later and all the costs to the health service and the wider public services that entails.

I don't know why the test is so expensive, but I'd argue that medical costs are often massively overinflated in the US due to the interplay between insurance companies and for-profit healthcare services and it's not a relevant cost to keep quoting.

I understood the 85% statistic to have come from proportions of women who have actually developed ovarian cancer who had that faulty gene - not anything to do with number of women who have been pre-emptively tested (which as you said is quite low).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You know nothing about science and you see this 4,000 charge if celebrities didn't pay out quests what the the less fortunate would never ever have the honour of even having these tests pfft.... Yes they have the money and they will pay out for the health care where it is not free this helps the science projects do more !!!

Genetics is getting no help via public funding throughout the world it is privately sourced... Don't judge a celebrities with so harshness when they are the testing bunts for it to go further !!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

She wasn't obsessed with surgery, she was trying to prolong her life so she could see her kids grow up!!

She's obsessed with cancer and she can still get it. Hey I might get it, that would be poetic justice.

I suggest she stop giving inter_iews, flying round the world and spend time with her kids, she in the very privileged position of being able to afford never having to work again and get a check up every week if she wants, and also stop rowing with Brad and stop smoking, Brad too!!!"

She isn't obsessed with cancer at all! She's trying to reduce the risks of her getting it.

Who said she's been rowing with brad? The tabloids? They don't know what happens behind closed doors and neither do you.

As for spending time with her kids, they fly around the world with her.

She can smoke if she wants to, doesn't mean she's gonna get cancer from it.

Every single person has cancer cells, but some mutate faster than others

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"My last words on the subject, damn me if you will.

I take it my rather direct comment might be a little strong for most people.

She does Have a well documented issues with mental health, long before this, she also a smoker on and off, but that's her business.

Mental health problems is not something to laugh at or necessarily feared either as a person who's effected but don't consider myself a sufferer, but that's another thread.

I have the privilege of knowing people who are experts in this chosen field and to a man say, whilst they congratulate her in encouraging people to be be screened, although the test she had is for an extremely rare genetic disorder (not cancer) and expensive as the company has patented the gene, say her decision to amputate parts her body as ridiculous once she knew she was at risk rather then monitor it and is causing them no end of problem with people already traumatised with fear wanting to do the same, believe me they treat a lot of hypochondriacs, that not what a cancer clinic is for.

So....why didn't you say that in your first post? I agree there's probably a debate about potentially encouraging people to undergo surgery which is not necessary. I actually don't think her mental health history has anything to do with the decision in this case; I can fully imagine myself doing exactly the same thing were I in her position. Also confused about whether your point is more about the cost of the testing and the surgery, (again which could be a debate but that's not what you said to start), your concern for her welfare or your concern for the business all these highly esteemed experts you're pals with.

On balance I think she did the right thing for her.

I am concerned that these people time are being taken up by ailments that do not concern them. Not saying don't get screened, fine. If it requires further attention, that is another story.

The comparison to Michael Jackson was directed with obsession, and how these people have the ability to take these obsessions to the most extreme (unnecessary surgery was the link, not vanity, I'll give her that) and there is no one to say no or will say no, often for their own selfish reasons. The sad thing is people look up to these people as role models, when apart from their chosen careers there is not much look up to.

Ask yourself a question why this test so expensive $4000 (how you can even patent a gene is beyond me), they could license it out at a £50 a time and screen everyone. How can they get a the amazing figure of 85% and indeed is it so rare anyway, when relatively so few have been tested.

Could you give us the names, or sources of some of the expert doctors you're referring to? I still hugely disagree that this decision was a result of obsession and I'd be interested to read the _iews of professionals rather than some slightly muddled bloke on a swinging site (no offence).

I'd imagine that 'spurious' reasons for testing wouldn't get past the front door of the GP in our system. I (thankfully) don't have a medical history in my close family of ovarian cancer, so if I turned up saying I wanted testing for it and potentially surgery, they'd rightly tell me to bugger off. And if I did have a family history of ovarian cancer then frankly screening would seem an excellent idea. On a purely cost/benefit basis, screening and potentially pre-emptive surgery would be less costly than prolonged cancer treatments later and all the costs to the health service and the wider public services that entails.

I don't know why the test is so expensive, but I'd argue that medical costs are often massively overinflated in the US due to the interplay between insurance companies and for-profit healthcare services and it's not a relevant cost to keep quoting.

I understood the 85% statistic to have come from proportions of women who have actually developed ovarian cancer who had that faulty gene - not anything to do with number of women who have been pre-emptively tested (which as you said is quite low). "

As for the people I know, I can't, anything else just look on the web, not the celebrity pages.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

As for the people I know, I can't, anything else just look on the web, not the celebrity pages."

Of course you can't, quelle surprise. I was actually trying to engage with the points you've made, there's no need to dismiss me with a patronising wave of your oh-so-knowledgable hand.

I'll get back to my Heat magazine, shall I?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

Yes, there is an argument for opting not to have prophylactic surgery. However, choosing to have surgery is often influenced by the psychological implications as much as the physical.

It would take an incredibly strong and resilient psyche to cope with the fear that comes with the diagnosis of being a carrier of faulty BRCA1. Especially after watching her mother fight cancer for ten years before succumbing.

I'm sure she was made fully aware of the future implications of her surgeries, but weighed them up against peace of mind and freedom from that fear.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"She had her breast removed because she tested positive for a gene which meant she was likely to get breast cancer. She also had a high risk of developing ovarian cancer. She has done something brave it's no time to be mocking her on a decision that could protensionally save her life and reduce the risk of her getting cancer. "

Where does it stop though? Is she going to test all her body parts? What if she's at risk from stomach, heart or lung cancer?

I think she's an obsessive nut because someone should tell her we're all going to die from something...so live while you can!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Blimey, at the rate she's going there'll be nothing left of the woman, lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"It's a shame there are no tests for a behaving like an ill-informed knob gene.

Perhaps if it had been identified in the OP earlier, he could have had something surgically removed in order to prevent him making the post in the first place.

Unbelievably stupid and insensitive behaviour, OP."

On a forum there will be differing _iews. I wouldn't have worded it the way the op has, but I read the story and similar ones and a favourite saying of my dad always springs to mind: you can't tell God his business!

We can remove, improve and do whatever we like to try and stave off death, but we can't beat it and removing the threat of one type of cancer doesn't mean you're immune to the hundred others.

I repeat...where does it stop?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"Personally I think its a bit extreme, I wouldnt have body parts removed to reduce the risk, for me I'd have to wait till I had something before to took such measures but we are not all the same and she did what she felt best for her, we should respect other peoples _iews even if they are different to ours "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?"

Don't get it either.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"I cant understand why the uproar, if the man doesn't think people should do what she did, why cant he think that?

Its the crass comment regarding the bus further up I guess that have inflamed people. Yes he has the right to have a difference of opinion as opposed to others but could have said it a whole lot better

I can understand why people may not like what or even how something is written, I just cant understand the way it has been answered.

We have all probably been touched or know someone who has had some or all of the issues raised but I cant understand the need to get so wound up about it.

Nor can I , we all have our own _iews and I challenge anyone to say they don't do anything that may cause cancer .

I mean , just breathing the air we breathe , drinking the water , and just our very existence are risks !

But smoking , alcohol , sweet food , fatty food , stress , sex , not enough exercise , too much exercise , the list goes on.......

The point is that if we try to eradicate every possible risk factor , including genes , we wouldn't leave our oxygen tent would we ?

And what kind of life would that be ?

So whilst accepting that we all make our lifestyle choices , no one is wrong , and no one is right on this issue .

I certainly wouldn't have parts removed , no matter what . What will be will be and I would sooner enjoy what time I have with what I was born with ."

My _iews too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *iss_tressWoman
over a year ago

London


"

I certainly wouldn't have parts removed , no matter what . What will be will be and I would sooner enjoy what time I have with what I was born with .

see.. its really easy the say that... but lets say you were to need a heart/liver/kidney transplant.... or what about a hip replacememt.... oooh how about blood transfusion???

where does it end?

oooh... apendixs!!!... oh an tosills....

I know... gall bladder!!! if i hadn't had mine removed when i did it would have killed me... and i needed a blood transfusion afterwards......

i'm being a bif flippant now.... but we remove/replace a lot more than you realise......

There is a big difference between having a gall bladder or appendix removed when it's causing a life or death situation , and removing parts just in case they may cause cancer .

I wonder what the chances are of having appendicitis or a gall bladder issue ?

How many of us would have them removed just in case they go wrong ?

It's now nowhere near as common to remove tonsils as it's clear they have a function and removal is now a last resort .

Blood transfusions and organ replacements are irrelevant to this subject , and many of us choose not to have these procedures by carrying a card saying so .

I clearly said no one is right or wrong on this one , just that her choice is not the only one . I hope she has made the right one , just like everyone who chooses what steps to take in their life .

The fact that I wouldn't have parts removed just in case is my choice , and I don't profess to suggest that it's the right choice for everyone , but it certainly is for me "

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top