Skip to comments.Double mastectomy ‘doesn’t boost chance of surviving cancer’: Women who have less drastic surgery…
Posted on 09/03/2014 1:15:41 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Women with breast cancer do not increase their survival chances by having a double mastectomy, researchers claim.
They found women who only had lumps taken out followed by radiotherapy lived just as long as those who had both breasts removed.
Researchers also point out that double mastectomies are major operations that take two months to recover from.
By comparison, women who have lumpectomieswhere only the tumor and nearby tissue are removedusually get back to their daily routines within a few days.
Earlier this year surgeons reported a surge in British women opting to have double mastectomies after Angelina Jolie decided to have the procedure to prevent the illness.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Looks like Angelina may have done it for nothing. Her fear took over, probably because of her not having any faith.
Double mastectomy doesnt boost chance of surviving cancer: Women who have less drastic surgery live just as long
They’re comparing apples to oranges, to save money. Women whose breast cancer was detected early enough to benefit from a lumpectomy had the same survival rate as women whose cancer was detected later and had to get a mastectomy.
If you’re diagnosed with cancer, you can either fight it or surrender to it. It makes no sense to tease it with a half assed approach to treatment.
When I was diagnosed with lung cancer, it took me no time at all to agree to have the lung removed. It would take me even less time to agree to part with my breasts. But that’s from the patient’s perspective. The insurance company would be thrilled if I had opted for a cheaper course.
As we descend deeper and deeper into socialized medicine, I see more and more studies claiming that early detection and aggressive treatment are a waste of money.
Angelina Jolie’s situation isn’t relevant to these results or to treatment plans for breast cancer. She didn’t have breast cancer.
That’s the whole point. Her actions were driven by irrational fear due to the cancer her mother suffered from; although Marcheline Bertrand did have breast cancer, she died from the ovarian cancer.
So says another fargin “study” paid for by who? NOBODY does these studies for free.
Who is willing to bet their life on a “researcher” like the ones who told us that butter was bad and margarine was good? I can continue to name a long list of “bonafide studies” that have all turned out to be jut more junk science paid for by some company or group to give the edge to their product. Dupont and Dow are notoriously famous for this.
My wife doesn’t have enough fingers to count the women she knows who opted for the lumpectomy only to have another one show up. It took her about five minutes to make the decision to go double and she has never regretted that decision.
What about people that go for the radical double mastectomy despite nothing being detected?
More Horse Hillary Health Care Rationing Propaganda. Brought to you by? The Corporate Board of HMO’s most likely. A couple months ago it was Propaganda on Prostate Cancer discouraging early detection and treatment. Just Die Already Damnit/sarcasm
In cases where it has shown up for two consecutive generations it might be a wise move in the third one.
The patient and doctor need to be the ones to decide such options and not some stinking Penny Counting Boards cough cough I mean BIASED Life Rationing Panels.
It always sounded like an insane thing to do. I heard about this double breast chop before AJ got it done
Professor Kefah Mokbel, who is based at St Georges Hospital, South London, said in May that over the past ten years there have been increasing requests for double mastectomies and reconstruction from young women diagnosed with cancer in one breast.
He said: They want to minimise the risk, but the study shows women who do not have a genetic predisposition or family history are being over-treated.
The entire cancer industry is a racket.
No, it isn’t. I’ve been lung cancer free since November 2007. One of my sisters has beat cancer twice. There are new advances every day. Countless lives have been saved, and it’s getting better all the time. Our lives are not a waste of money.
Good for you and your sister!
May you and your sister both continue to enjoy good health!
They’re just breasts. They’re not worth dying for. This “study” is about as trustworthy as the one that says early detection of cancer doesn’t improve survival rates. Early detection and aggressive treatment are the keys to survival. Somebody wants to get out of paying for that, at the expense of the patients.
True, she’s really only relevant as a symbol of a woman placing a high value on her life, and a low value on her sex appeal to pubescent males.
Is she not taking her usual film roles any longer? I haven't been paying that much attention.
Thank you. The good health is a thing of the past, but you’d be surprised what you can adjust to, and still be happy. I’m actually a happier person than I was when I had good health. I’m more aware of the good things now.
May you enjoy good health, and take joy in the world God made.
I wouldn’t know. I never did pay attention to that. I was referring to her choice to get a double mastectomy, and to the pubescent reaction by the men and boys who think she should have valued their ogling more than her life. They don’t seem to grasp the fact that they were just breasts. They weren’t lungs or hearts.
Wait, all the “preventative” medicine that the libs forced “big healthcare” to pay for which led to increasing costs for everyone isn’t worth it?
Doubtful. The actual study has not been posted but the press articles suggest that is not the case. You are correct that early intervention is being downplayed, but early intervention has downsides, mainly surgical trauma. Some people do well (you appararently are one) and some do not after such trauma.
As one example I have seen many cases where "weight loss surgery" results heart failure down the road. Rearranging how the body functions has a major impact on the body. Breasts might appear optional but that's not what the body works.
As for the early versus late cancer, that is a whole nother debate and I don't think it applies to this study.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.