Today Angelina Jolie told the world that she had a preventive double mastectomy. It turns out she has a certain mutation of the BRCA1 (BReast CAncer) gene that caused her doctors to say that she had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer. Hence the preventive removal of her breasts.
First, thank goodness she did not touch those incredible lips.
Second, I have good reason to believe that Pearlsky has a mutation of her BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 gene as well. Seriously. So, am I in a position to approve a preventive double mastectomy for her? If Ms. Jolie (I have utmost respect for her for her non-Hollywood work, it feels right to refer to her that way) can make this decision for herself, why can I not make it for Pearlsky? Ms. Jolie has yet to do any surgical intervention for her increased risk of ovarian cancer since that risk is lower than her breast cancer risk, and the surgery is “more complex.” But if Pearlsky has such a risk, why not do that surgery as well? It would probably help with her seemingly painful PMS. If we test for the gene, and it is mutated, then is it ok to do this surgery?
It may not be growth attenuation, but how far is the jump from performing self-mutilation for prevention of cancer that may or may not occur, and performing mutilation on your child for the same reason? And then you go from the reason being the possibility of cancer to being the possibility of not being cared for easily?
Third, I’m a tush guy, I’ll enjoy her movies just as much.
Do not get me wrong. She made a very well informed decision, decided what was best for her, and did it. Her NY Times op-ed is very well written, thought out, and makes a very strong argument. I say the more power to her.
Why the title of this post? If you know that I sort of speak Russian … let’s just say that I confuse груди and грибы so the only time I say either one is in a restaurant when I order the chicken breasts with mushrooms.