Would you do it?

[GSLeloo]

This came up in a discussion with a friend...

Last year in my biology class we focused a great deal on DNA and genetic research. One key item was the breast cancer gene that has been identified. Well we watched a video where women would go to some genetist and have their DNA checked. And if they were shown they had the gene for breast cancer a lot of these women then went and had masechtomies.

Now we all know cancer doesn't just stay in one area, once you have it it can easily spread anywhere in your body and at any time they can find cancer cells somewhere else.

My question is if you could know ahead of time, would you stop it before it ever started? For the girls, would you if you knew you'd get breast cancers, have your breasts removed and spare yourself a life of cancer? And for the guys, say it was your wife whom you actually truly love, would you want her to have the operation or rather that she keep her breasts and possibly die?

[Back]

Have the operation. There are always implants and wigs.

[Ravenstorm]

I've heard of that gene before. A lot of the women it's found in have a long family history of breast cancer. Often, their mothers and grandmothers have already died of it. Given that? Hell yeah. Cut them off.

Raven

[Artha]

I'd rather have a girl with no boobs than a dead girl with boobs.

[GSLeloo]

See, my friend said that it's nuts to remove them. He said if you know you have it then catch it early and take care of it then.

[Snapp]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
See, my friend said that it's nuts to remove them. He said if you know you have it then catch it early and take care of it then.

That's crazy to go through that and take the risk. Remove them for sure.

[GSLeloo]

My grandma, long time ago, had breast cancer and had her breast removed. This was before the good treatments of today. She lived for 16 years after that until they finally found the cancer in her liver and she died.

[Nakiro]

I'm the odd man out.

The reason being is simple. My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer last month. Because she takes her yearly mamogram and knows how to administer self-examinations she was able to detect the cancer early.

Even though she had a wide array of treatment options, she chose to do nothing for the first three months. She didn't want to go into surgery and have the lump removed, even though it was very, very small.

I couldn't understand why. My mom is in the health insurance industry, and one of her biggest fields of expertise are heart disease and breat cancer - the two largest killers of women over the age of 35.

I asked her why she was waiting. She was still young, in her mind. She is 45, but divorced, and is still active in her social and romantic life. One of the reasons she didn't want to go on with treatment was because she was afraid that even if she did have the surgery, it would inevitably spread anyway. She would rather die than have a section of her breast removed.

To her though it was a decision of quality of life over quantity. The option to remove the have the surgery was a sign she was willing to commit to treatment, and if she did now she felt she'd have to later.

Ultimately though she did get the surgery, and ever since then she has been fine, and on anti-cancer meds.

But to get to the point, there are ways to better treat these types of problems than just removing the entire breast. If you are identified with the cancer causing gene, consider yourself blessed to know in advanced. Take percautions to test yourself reguarly, and don't skip up on your mamograms.

Cancer is treatable, especially breast cancer. The key is early detection, not extreme dismemberment, in my opinion.

I would answer the same way if it was prostate cancer.

[Ravenstorm]

If I recall right, those with the gene are the ones most at risk of death because they're more likely to develop an 'aggressive tumor' should they actually get cancer. I could be wrong about that however as this at least a year or two ago I heard about this. I'd want to see fatality rates compared between those with and without the gene.

Raven

Originally posted by Artha
I'd rather have a girl with no boobs than a dead girl with boobs.

Correct.

[GSLeloo]

You may be right in some sense. Having the gene means you were born with it. I would assume people only really got this test done when they had a family history of women dying from breast cancer. You can of course get breast cancer from things in your environment. So I guess maybe people that have the actual gene from heredity may have a worse form than people who were exposed to something that gave it to them.

[Toxicvixen]

I would remove them and get those wonderful squishy fake boob things that are like in a box and BAM! no back pain ever again! Never have to wear a bra when I don't wanna. Be able to ajust how big they are. Today I am feeling DD! Woo!

[Shari]

Yeah, I'd remove them if I knew that my past generations were high-risk for breast cancer.

But since I'm not I'd probably go for alternate methods, likely just have the tumor cut out and a breast reduction while I'm at it.


Did you know that one D-size breast weighs 8lbs?!?

Just knowing I could loose almost 20lbs having them removed makes me seriously consider the idea. :D

[Blazing247]

I'm a guy, so I really wouldn't have a say in the decision, but I'd be all for her removing it/them. It's pretty hard to love a corpse, and things like breasts mean about .0000002% to me when compared with something like the lifelong companionship of my loved one.

[Chyrain]

I saw this on discovery health channel or something. A woman had one breast removed completely (no nipple or anything) and she had reconstructive surgery where they put an implant in, then later went in and constructed and tattooed an actual nipple for her so it wouldn't look like "The Beautiful People" MM video. It actually didn't look bad at all.

If I had the test and it came up positive, i'd have them removed, then have reconstructive breast surgery. I'm really not that attached to my boobies. Mostly, they just get in the way. They got huge after my twins.


although...i guess the bad thing would be is lack of sensation on the nipple, eh? And the fact I wouldn't be able to breast feed any new babies that may or may not come into my life, but I'd rather bottle feed then leave my children motherless.

[Chadj]

Originally posted by Artha
I'd rather have a girl with no boobs than a dead girl with boobs.


Well.. there is the argument...

[Faent]

If I was a single girl who wanted a guy, I wouldn't do anything. If a girl I was in love with decided to have her breasts chopped off, I wouldn't mind a bit. Could I fall in love with a girl without breasts? Possibly, but I suspect that's highly unlikely.

-Scott

[SpunGirl]

The whole genetic history thing is scary. I have cancer all over in my family - my grandma died of ovarian cancer, my aunt died of breast cancer and two other aunts have been diagnosed and are being treated for breast cancer. This is on both sides of my family.

I think Nakiro makes a good point about early detection and all that stuff. It can make a huge difference. But I might be scared enough just to lop 'em both off and get a set of normal-sized (large B, small C) implants.

-K

[Ben]

Originally posted by GSLeloo
say it was your wife whom you actually truly love


you answered your own question

[Bobmuhthol]

<<Did you know that one D-size breast weighs 8lbs?!?>>

That's interesting, because I remember reading that Lolo Ferrari had the largest/heaviest breasts in the world at 6 pounds each.

[Toxicvixen]

But I might be scared enough just to lop 'em both off and get a set of normal-sized (large B, small C) implants.


But just think! You could get Gyhugeic sized ones and go on Jerry Springer or Ricki Lake! Think of the possibilities!

[Miss X]

If I found out I was at high risk of getting it I'd have them off like a shot then have implants. Any guy who had a problem with that wouldn't be a guy I'd want to be with anyway. I'd worry a bit about not being able to breast feed my though, must be a tough decision to make, I pray I never have to make it.

[CrystalTears]

My poor boobies! I'm so proud of them! :cry:

But I'd have them removed, although I don't think I'd have implants done. I don't trust them even if they can make them look natural. I know they won't be and I'd rather be flatter than Florida than to have implants.

I'd probably be able to finally sleep on my stomach. :D

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I'd want to see fatality rates compared between those with and without the gene.This, Nakiro's, and Artha's argument pretty much sum it up for me. One more thing:
Originally posted by Leloo
Having the gene means you were born with it.If you think about it for a bit, you'll see why that's not necessarily true.

[GSLeloo]

Sorry I'm not seeing it, why isn't it necessarily true?

[Latrinsorm]

If genes never changed, we'd all be microscopic organisms of some kind, right? Therefore, genes not present in either parent can appear in children.

[GSLeloo]

You mean a mutation, which is quite possible. But this gene is not a new gene or some random mutation. It's a gene they track through families that have breast cancer, that was the whole reason they could find it because so many families have it.

[Jolena]

I have cancer actually, most people don't know but it's not something I mind talking about, mainly because it's a very rare and unusual cancer type. When I was pregnant with my youngest and third child, I had a wonderful pregnancy until the very end (last 6 weeks) where I then developed severe weight gain that could not be explained. Several blood tests, ultrasounds and tears later we found out that my son had a enlarged heart and too much ambiotic fluid and I eventually had him by emergency c-section due to his failing a stress test and me gaining 28 pounds in 7 days with water gain.

I ended up having choreo carcinoma which is cancer of the placenta and there are only 13 case in the world now. (at the time it was 12 including me, since then 1 more case popped up) Luckily the cancer didn't transfer to my child but it did stay in my system and I had to go through chemotherapy while my baby spent 3 months in the NICU unit at the Children's Hospital here. I am thankfully in remission but I run a severely high chance of other cancers now.

In short, due to the personal knowledge I have of cancer in my own life I would without a doubt have the removal immediately. While I spent time in the chemo unit of the hospital, watching the other ladies there go through horrific treatments and lose their hair, their weight, their dignity and their hope, I realized that many others are worse off then I am and I was the lucky one. I wouldn't chance that to be honest again.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh and also my stepmom has breast cancer which almost killed her. She had her breasts removed partially then fully one at a time and the cancer is still quite possibly there. She had reconstructive surgery done as well and is still the midst of that long process.

[Betheny]

Without reading this thread AT ALL, I can tell you, I probably would do it.

Now, with that said, I shall go read this thread and see what an ass I've made of myself.

Man, it's fun to be me.

Edited:

Fuckin' A, I'd lop them off, they're annoying anyway; always getting in my way, making my back hurt...

[Edited on 9-2-2004 by Maimara]