Dear Angelina:

[Chasey_Lane]

I agree with that statement, but what about the rest of us average Josephine's?

Angelina's doctor said blood tests revealed early indicators of cancer. That's not exactly elective if you are taking precautions.

 

[awpitt]

I'm not rolling my eyes at her being preemptive against cancer, I'm rolling my eyes that she's using it as a publicity stunt and encouraging other women to start having their body parts removed.

Lung cancer creeps up on you, too, many times disguised as pneumonia. Why doesn't she have her lungs removed if she's so worried about cancer?

I think that would be obvious. I one gets information that says they're at high cancer risk or in the early stages in a part of the body that can be done without, then why not go ahead and get it removed before any cancer advances and spreads.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

You realize, of course, that you can get cancer pretty much anywhere in your body, right? Perhaps you should have your lungs removed just to be safe. Or maybe your bones. I'd mention the brain, but it appears you don't have one of those.

http://news.yahoo.com/angelina-jolie-ovaries-removed-over-cancer-concern-084101779.html

Immediately followed by this.....a week later.....
https://www.yahoo.com/health/i-am-now-in-menopause-angelina-jolie-reveals-114489037442.html

 

[Lurk]

You realize, of course, that you can get cancer pretty much anywhere in your body, right? Perhaps you should have your lungs removed just to be safe. Or maybe your bones. I'd mention the brain, but it appears you don't have one of those.

http://news.yahoo.com/angelina-jolie-ovaries-removed-over-cancer-concern-084101779.html

Sounds like they confirmed she carries not only BRCA1 but BRCA2 genes as well. That's bad juju. Probably a smart move on her part. If her surgeries are done before getting cancer, she avoids ugly scars, radiation and chemo. All her surgeries so far are elective and taking way organs she doesn't need or which can be cosmetically reconstructed.

 

[Lurk]

Is this considered elective surgery and does insurance cover it?

Most likely, yes, it's covered. But do you think Jolie worries about that with her wealth?

EDIT: Sorry, Chasey. Hadn't gotten to your post before I did this one.

 

[terbear1225]

I have a relative who has been through treatment for breast cancer and is now being treated for ovarian cancer. If there was evidence that I was at a significantly higher risk, I might take the same route. I hope that Angelina's willingness to share her experiences will give some women the boost to be informed about their own risks and options.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

I don't care what Angelina does to her body - that's her business - but she influences all sorts of women who copy celebrities because they can't think for themselves. I think she's irresponsible and attention whoring by going public with something that should be between her and her doctor.

To be fair, lots of women are doing this, not just celebrities. I know of two personally and a third only tangentially who had this done. I have no idea what the genesis of this is, nor do I know if there is any medical evidence behind it. But more than celebrities are doing this. She may be among the first with a national voice who has done this, but its far from a new thing.

 

[LibertyBeacon]

Or maybe she just wanted a boob job and used this as an excuse to cover it up.

I mean she imports black African babies to keep as pets, it's probably not beyond her to create subterfuge for a pair of bolt-ons.

 

[Bann]

I read this op-ed piece she wrote this morning.

I also don't care what she does to her own body, but I do care that she feels the need to be the Earth Mother of the world. What - she doesn't have enough children to mother, so now she's Doctor Mother Earth advising women what to do in order to prevent diseases? Sheesh.

 

[Bann]

"It puts a woman into forced menopause."

Angelina, dahling - I, too, was forced into menopause. It's not something I had any choice about.

 

[vraiblonde]

Angelina is the new Gwyneth where every nitnoid detail of her oh so sanctimonious life has to be touted as the "in" thing.

I'm not sure why I dislike this woman so much, whom I don't even know. She just rubs me the wrong way. :teamjen:

 

[RoseRed]

Angelina, dahling - I, too, was forced into menopause. It's not something I had any choice about.

It happens to all of us. Regardless.

Low estrogen Barbie is not amused.

 

[Bann]

It happens to all of us. Regardless.

Low estrogen Barbie is not amused.

Exactly!!!!

You know, I really should have used that line - I have NO idea why it didn't come to me.

 

[RoseRed]

Exactly!!!!

You know, I really should have used that line - I have NO idea why it didn't come to me.

I think you were searching for the homeless dude.

 

[Bann]

I think you were searching for the homeless dude.

 

[Christy]

"

Good for her! Cancer is real and scary, and any preventative measures you can take to lessen the likelihood are good IMO.

I just had all of my stuff removed and quite honestly, I think all women should have that option, even without the genetic markers or family history. I think it's kind of silly to think her decision is about self mutilation or attention. I am pretty public about what I had done and why, and its not at all about attention whoring, it's about letting my girlfriends know that they need to advocate for themselves and their health. It's actually somewhat embarrassing to discuss these types of things publicly, but I think it's beneficial.

Good for Angelina, although I am still team Jen.

 

[officeguy]

You realize, of course, that you can get cancer pretty much anywhere in your body, right? Perhaps you should have your lungs removed just to be safe. Or maybe your bones. I'd mention the brain, but it appears you don't have one of those.

http://news.yahoo.com/angelina-jolie-ovaries-removed-over-cancer-concern-084101779.html

It is a legit treatment option for someone with her genetic situation.

 

[Pushrod]

I think that would be obvious. I one gets information that says they're at high cancer risk or in the early stages in a part of the body that can be done without, then why not go ahead and get it removed before any cancer advances and spreads.

Absolutely! Cancer is an insidious and horrible disease. A very painful way to die. I've had too many friends and loved ones succumb to its many faces. If the doctor told her that indicators showed a 50% or greater chance that she was developing the disease, I don't blame her one bit for having the procedure done and letting other women know that if they are at high risk for that type of cancer they should be tested and if the indicators are there, have this done also.

 

[Bann]

Absolutely! Cancer is an insidious and horrible disease. A very painful way to die. I've had too many friends and loved ones succumb to its many faces. If the doctor told her that indicators showed a 50% or greater chance that she was developing the disease, I don't blame her one bit for having the procedure done and letting other women know that if they are at high risk for that type of cancer they should be tested and if the indicators are there, have this done also.

That's all good and well, and I think we can all agree that it should happen. For all people.

Regular, average women and certainly poor, at risk womens' health insurance may not cover the testing, much less the surgery which is more elective than not. Also, there are significant other factors to consider, not all of which Anglelina covers. However, another big one is the "forced menopause" which causes hormonal imbalance and creates the possible need (most likely) for hormone replacement therapy for a prolonged time. Those hormones are not cheap, either. There are just a lot of other things involved here than "I might get cancer, therefore, I cut out the source of that possible cancer location".

Her "I still feel every bit a woman, vital and I have a hormone patch and IUD to replace my [female sex] hormones " is annoying. There is so much more involved than just plucking out ovaries and fallopian tubes.

Long-term effects

Oophorectomy has serious long-term consequences stemming mostly from the hormonal effects of the surgery and extending well beyond menopause. The reported risks and adverse effects include premature death,[10][11] cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment or dementia,[12] parkinsonism,[13] osteoporosis and bone fractures, decline in psychological wellbeing,[14] and decline in sexual function. Hormone replacement therapy does not always reduce the adverse effects.[3]
Mortality

Oophorectomy is associated with significantly increased all-cause long-term mortality except when performed for cancer prevention in carriers of high-risk BRCA mutations. This effect is particularly pronounced for women who undergo oophorectomy before age 45.[11]

The effect is not limited to women who have oophorectomy performed before menopause; an impact on survival is expected even for surgeries performed up to the age of 65.[15] Surgery at age 50-54 reduces the probability of survival until age 80 by 8% (from 62% to 54% survival), surgery at age 55-59 by 4%. Most of this effect is due to excess cardiovascular risk and hip fractures.[15]

Removal of ovaries causes hormonal changes and symptoms similar to, but generally more severe than, menopause. Women who have had an oophorectomy are usually encouraged to take hormone replacement drugs to prevent other conditions often associated with menopause. Women younger than 45 who have had their ovaries removed face a mortality risk 170% higher than women who have retained their ovaries.[11] Retaining the ovaries when a hysterectomy is performed is associated with better long-term survival.[10] b


Menopausal effects

Women who have had bilateral oophorectomy surgeries lose most of their ability to produce the hormones estrogen and progesterone, and lose about half of their ability to produce testosterone, and subsequently enter what is known as "surgical menopause" (as opposed to normal menopause, which occurs naturally in women as part of the aging process). In natural menopause the ovaries generally continue to produce low levels of hormones, especially androgens, long after menopause, which may explain why surgical menopause is generally accompanied by a more sudden and severe onset of symptoms than natural menopause, symptoms that may continue until the natural age of menopause.[17] These symptoms are commonly addressed through hormone therapy, utilizing various forms of estrogen, testosterone, progesterone or a combination.


Cardiovascular risk

When the ovaries are removed, a woman is at a seven times greater risk of cardiovascular disease,[18][19][20][21][22] but the mechanisms are not precisely known. The hormone production of the ovaries currently cannot be sufficiently mimicked by drug therapy. The ovaries produce hormones a woman needs throughout her entire life, in the quantity they are needed, at the time they are needed in response to and as part of the complex endocrine system.


Osteoporosis

Oophorectomy is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures.[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] A potential risk for oophorectomy performed after menopause is not fully elucidated.[28][29] Reduced levels of testosterone in women is predictive of height loss, which may occur as a result of reduced bone density.[30] In women under the age of 50 who have undergone oophorectomy, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is often used to offset the negative effects of sudden hormonal loss (for example early-onset osteoporosis) as well as menopausal problems like hot flushes (also called "hot flashes") that are usually more severe than those experienced by women undergoing natural menopause.


Adverse effect on sexuality

Oophorectomy substantially impairs sexuality.[31] Substantially more women who had both an oophorectomy and a hysterectomy reported libido loss, difficulty with sexual arousal, and vaginal dryness than those who had a less invasive procedure (either hysterectomy alone or an alternative procedure), and hormone replacement therapy was not found to improve these symptoms.[32] In addition, testosterone levels in women are associated with a greater sense of sexual desire, and oophorectomy greatly reduces testosterone levels.[33] However, at least one study has shown that psychological factors, such as relationship satisfaction, are still the best predictor of sexual activity following oophorectomy.[34]
Managing side effects of prophylactic oophorectomy

Non-hormonal treatments

The side effects of oophorectomy may be alleviated by medicines other than hormonal replacement. Non-hormonal biphosphonates (such as Fosamax and Actonel) increase bone strength and are available as once-a-week pills. Low-dose selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (such as Paxil and Prozac) alleviate vasomotor menopausal symptoms, i.e. "hot flashes".[35]
Hormonal treatments

In general, hormone replacement therapy is somewhat controversial due to the known carcinogenic and thrombogenic properties of estrogen; however, many physicians and patients feel the benefits outweigh the risks in women who may face serious health and quality of life issues as a consequence of early surgical menopause. The ovarian hormones estrogen, progesterone, and testosterone are involved in the regulation of hundreds of bodily functions; it is believed by some doctors that hormone therapy programs mitigate surgical menopause side effects such as increased risk of cardiovascular disease,[36] and female sexual dysfunction.[37]

Short-term hormone replacement with estrogen has negligible effect on overall mortality for high-risk BRCA mutation carriers. Based on computer simulations, overall mortality appears to be marginally higher for short-term HRT after oophorectomy or marginally lower for short-term HRT after oophorectomy in combination with mastectomy.[38] This result can probably be generalized to other women at high risk in whom short-term (i.e., one- or two-year) treatment with estrogen for hot flashes may be acceptable.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oophorectomy

So - yes - it's good that people are talking about this because knowledge is power.

 

[awpitt]

Absolutely! Cancer is an insidious and horrible disease. A very painful way to die. I've had too many friends and loved ones succumb to its many faces. If the doctor told her that indicators showed a 50% or greater chance that she was developing the disease, I don't blame her one bit for having the procedure done and letting other women know that if they are at high risk for that type of cancer they should be tested and if the indicators are there, have this done also.

I remember when First Lady Betty Ford was very public about her breast cancer which was something that wasn't talked about very much in those days. Her openness resulted in more women going for screening and learning about self exams and that they didn't have to be ashamed about it. If celebrity can help people become aware of something, then so be it.