Philadelphia Nesties
NewQueen
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Anyone want to talk about Angie's boobs?
A couple days old on the news list but still an interesting topic.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/showbiz/angelina-jolie-double-mastectomy/index.html
Re: Anyone want to talk about Angie's boobs?
I am not a fan of hers in general but I think that this was a really brave thing of her to do personally and professionally. It could not have been an easy decision and from what I hear she is doing the same with her ovaries which could lead to early menopause. Both of these could be career suicide if they did not go well but she put her health and being there long term for her children first. I respect that.
I also think that being open about it with the press was brave. There are women battling this every day and she chose to share. Hopefully it will give them strength if they need it.
now would I do it? I think so. My grandmother had breast cancer. I'm not sure I'd be brave enough to get tested for the gene but if they found out somehow I think I'd have to get it done. 87% is too high to ignore.. but then again there are risks with the surgery too. They say she has a 10% risk of still getting cancer but that is such a big difference that I think I'd have to do it if my odds were the same.
the things I have seen are supportive... what are they saying??
I had read 5% chance.
I want to not like her but she keeps doing things that are kind of amazing. I think it's great that she's using her celebrity to promote awareness of health and foreign aid issues rather than weight loss pills or something else that is equality ridiculous. That being said, I'm sure she's got the best of the best doctors and her body and career will be just fine. I'm more interested to know what the process would be for the average woman that wanted to get tested and ended up needing these procedures. I hear the test alone is $3000.00 and there is only one company that can preform it because they have a patent on the gene.
http://theworldbreakseveryone.com/angelina-jolie-privilege-tits-and-being-dumb/
heres one I found. Basically people are upset because she has the money to pay for it preemptively, rather than waiting to get breast cancer. Seriously, that's what people are bitching about.
oh my goodness! there are women that do this every day and are not famous. It isn't common but come on! maybe this will make it something that more people inquire into and it could become more common, doubtful but still. people will always find something to b!tch about
Doing this is not new. Lots of women are counselled, screened, counselled again, and have this procedure.
Most women are not covered for it -- the counselling, the screening, the surgery. None of it.
Women ask their doctor's all the time about "the breast cancer gene". Awareness really isn't the issue here.
She doesn't really scream "pro-woman" to most people, for better or worse. So its not necessarily the fact she had it done, but the huge speaking out that rubs people the wrong way.
Plus, "I underwent this radical surgery and you can too" sort of rings hollow from a woman who sleeps with Brad Pitt. It just does.
I have a hard time with this statement (I know you are paraphrasing) and agree that it sounds SO out of touch: "I underwent this radical surgery and you can too"
Um, no. It's not possible for that many women. I don't fault her for coming out about it, but her ability to have her double mastectomy and implantation comes from her financial privilege. What about the women who are seeing their mothers/aunts/sisters go through breast cancer treatment and are thinking in the back of their minds, "what if I carry this gene?" If they do pay for the testing and find out they carry the gene, they then have to make a financial decision to pay out of pocket for a double mastectomy and implantation, in addition to costs of time out of work and recovery.
Completely separate from Angie, the part I find most disgusting about this topic is the importance of $$ over life and well being. There is a patent on the BRCA genetic testing, so it is limited in availability and is not covered by insurance. It comes at a cost of $3,000 -- which is pocket change for a celebrity of her income level. Secondly, the mastectomy is not covered by insurance if you are not yet diagnosed with breast cancer.
A male FB friend posted this and I identified with his sentiments:
Ok, one of the defining moments in the history of breast cancer occurred in 1974 when the first lady, Betty Ford, spoke openly about her mastectomy, lifting a veil of secrecy from the disease and ushering in a new era of breast cancer awareness. Now with the recent awareness with Angelina Jolie... Now I know that's a private loss and I'm now knocking her but thousands of women are diagnosed with this terrible fate every year and aren't already beautiful and have 500 mil in the bank. I think she will be ok with her new 20,000 dollar replacements. my real concern has to do with the monopoly that one company has to charge $3000+ for the test she had because they have the patent. Most women aren't as privileged as a superstar to have this simple test done. Why isn't that as shocking as one of ur beloved fake superstars getting a real diseases and being able to cope. Another example why money is more important than life.
Kudos to her for putting her family & her personal health before her career. Even with statistics as blatant as 85% vs. 5%, I'm sure the decision was a hard one to make.
That test is currently $4,000....hopefully that cost will go down in the near future so that it is more affordable for at least those who have a family history of breast / ovarian cancer to take it if they see fit.
I guess I am looking at it another way. What about the women who can afford it or are debating having the procedure but are scared that it will make them less feminine, less desirable, etc and now they see her and men still think she is beautiful? and yes she has the money to get great implants and the best surgeons but she is also in the public eye and scrutinized closely. I wouldn't need $20k implants if I had this done because the only one seeing them would be my husband. for her it is a different story. I'm not saying image is everything but in Hollywood it kind of is. we live in a different world.
I get that not everyone can get this but I am sure there are women out there that can get it that don't for reasons like this. Or any number of procedures for reasons like this.
Again, I'm not a fan of hers in general but I could certainly see her starting a campaign to lower the costs of this. it seems like something she would do.
I, along with several members of my family, have had the BRCA testing free of charge. There are many teaching hospitals that want to learn more about these families (women and men! Men have an increased risk of prostate cancer). Family members of mine who tested positive were then able to have more sophisticated diagnostic testing. In addition to mammograms, they received a breast mri. The breast mri is actually what picked up the tumor at a very early stage for one person. She was fortunate that the breast cancer was caught so early. My family members with breast cancer were all young, fairly fit, didn't smoke or heavily drink.
So... the private company wants to make its money for developing this test? Absolutely. I would have figured out a way to pay for it if I had to. There is a point where everything can't be free. If I can take a vacation, have a cell phone, save for retirement then I can budget to pay for something that's vital to me.
Yeah -- except lots of people CAN'T pay for these things or the test. That is sort of the point.
African American woman are one of the highest carrier groups for the mutation. You can't possible think that there is no sort of socioeconomic barriers for many of the women most in need of these services.
Unfortunately, if the insurance companies have a say, it will be quite some time for the tests to either be a) covered regularly--like a mammogram or b) less expensive.
Within the 6 people in my family, we were tested at 3 different local medical centers. No one was charged $3,000 for the test or for the follow up studies. It's not just "boom, you're positive, deal with it on your own." I had to agree to counseling regarding my testing results (positive or negative) over a course of several months. They are all about hand holding.
If you meet the criteria where medical professionals believe you may carry the mutation, there are many resources available. To have a preventative surgery and reconstruction, I don't know. But at the least it's a valuable tool to screen earlier (and maybe not need surgery and reconstruction, etc.). Even if it was only available for the rich, which I argue it is not, does that mean that they shouldn't take advantage of the technology available? Is their life less valuable?
FTR, I fall firmly in the middle class category. Very middle.
My bestie from work was tested for this and did not have to pay one cent.I asked her if she had to pay 3 or 4K and she was like, "WHAAAAAAT?! No!"
With that said, her mother is a breast cancer survivor and while going through all of that, her mom was tested for the gene. Her mother had it and so my friend was able to get tested for free because of the direct bloodline to her mom. So no, you don't always have to pay for it but you probably need the direct bloodline connection for insurance to cover it.
Having been somewhat familiar with this at one point in time, that is generally the case. You need to be part of a higher risk group. And in many cases it was not insurance covering it, rather you were part of a funded research study.
Really, if you have no familial history and just show up and ask for the test, no one is paying for it, up to and including your insurance. Maybe if you have high enough risk factors there could be other options, but in many cases there still are not.
it is amazing but that idea scares me. I could see that being horribly abused. I think the materniT21 is even worrisome in the sense that you can find out the sex of the baby before 12 weeks... I hate to admit it but I know people that would use that as a reason to terminate in some cases. I know someone who has been trying for a girl (she admits she would have stopped at one kid if it was a girl) and has three boys. She is talking about having a fourth and I could see her doing this. It makes me sick.
You really have an odd number of opinions on what other people do with their bodies.
Yes, let's stop all science and advancement and have children born with horrible diseases that aren't compatible with life because you happen to know one possibly twaty person and are making assumptions about what she may or may not do.
I take a lot of issue with Angie's boobs for a different reason. First, breast cancer has become an industry. There's an entire self perpetuating industrial complex around raising awareness and money. I think it's worthwhile to a certain extent, certainly, but there is a cost to raising awareness and increasing rates of screening.
One of which is that women are butchering their bodies the minute they find a lump which could possibly be managed by mere watching and waiting. Many in the medical and cancer fields believe that we are overtreating women by cutting off their breasts and subjecting them to major surgery risks/complications, as well as chemo and radiation when their cancer might not be the kind that would be fatal.
The problem at this point is that it's hard to distinguish which type of lump/tumor is one that will kill and one that won't. Clearly more research should be invested into figuring this out.
Further, as far as the BRCA gene is concerned, women who have it have a huge risk of getting cancer. I'd probably do the same thing Angie did if I had it. The issue to me is that most women who have cancer don't have the gene. They make up a small minority of women. The makers of this test right now have a case in front of the Supreme Court because someone challenged their right to patent their test (and charge exorbitantly for it). If anyone is interested in it the decision should be handed down sometime in June.
To me, though, this goes along with the major problem with our current health care system. Those who have get the tests and treatment, those who have not are more likely to die. This is especially apparent when you look at racial differences in occurence vs treatment vs death rate. These are not accounted for in genetics. White women are more likely to carry the BRCA 1 gene and they have slightly lower rates then black women with the BRCA 2 gene. More white women get breast cancer. However, black women are more likely to die from it. The differences aren't typically due to genetics, they're due to disparities that arise from being uninsured and unable to afford testing/treatment.
Like a few other posters have said, I don't know how brave it is of Angelina to discuss her choice. She's incredibly privileged and I'm sure she wasn't chasing around after her own children or worried about how she would pay for all this mere hours after she came out of surgery. I think we have a great level of awareness about breast cancer, what we need is the ability to 1. determine which breast cancer will ultimately be harmful and 2. fund treatment so women who have the types of bc that will kill them can be treated.
Also, genetic testing can be abused, certainly but it is the future of medicine. Personalized medicine based on genetic makeup is growing and there are already cancer treatments that are based on genetic characteristics of tumors. For hard to treat and deadly cancers like melanoma this is giving more time to those who suffer from it.
I don't usually buy the argument that people terminate pregnancies based on sex determined by genetic testing but the Maternit 21 test isn't the only screening tool that gives gender evidence. A CVS can be done as early as 10 weeks and can show what sex the baby is . So can an amnio and an ultra sound as early as 17 weeks or so. Doesn't mean we shouldn't use those tools.
And anyone who terminates based on the Maternit-21 test alone is an idiot because it's not even a diagnostic test. It's a screening test that isn't even FDA approved yet and can't even stand on it's own legs without back up screening testing that includes the quad screen and an ultrasound.
If anyone is interested in what I was talking about above re overscreening/treatment this is a great op/ed piece in the NYT. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/our-feel-good-war-on-breast-cancer.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
haha. Thanks friend. I worked my assss off for those grades. One year left...