While this may be a very controversial topic, I still cannot help myself from commenting on what it is that I am seeing and hearing in relation to a new book. The book is called Pretty Is What Changes written by a woman by the name of Jessica Queller, and it chronicles her journey through having a double mastectomy. While the subject matter is not completely horrifying, it's the reasoning behind it. This morning on the radio on my way to school I was listening to NPR and the host of that morning talk show was interviewing Jessica Queller, hence the connection of how I have heard of the book. Jessica briefly discusses how she decided to undergo a voluntary double mastectomy due to the fact that she had tested positive for the "BRCA" gene. Basically what that is is it's a hereditary gene that gives you a higher potential of developing breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The gene can be mutated, and only 1 in about 800 people have it. She talks briefly as well about how her mother had died of ovarian cancer, prompting her to have the test done.
Now, all of that I don't have a problem with per say because I would have had the test done too. What I had a problem with is how she, what seemed to me, glorified the death of her mother and her surgery. She was saying about how her "beautiful, vibrant mother" had died from a "terrible, agonizing" battle with ovarian cancer and she did not want to go through the same thing. Watching her mother battle the cancer was the most terrifying experience for her, as it should be. I would never wish upon anyone to have to watch their parents die. As a result, she wanted to eliminate the odds of battling cancer before it had become substantial in her life. But as the interview progresses, she is talking about how she had breast re-constructive surgery, a standard procedure with every mastectomy, and even though she had tested positive for being at en even higher risk of ovarian cancer she decided not to have her ovaries removed. That in my mind immediately set off a red flag. How is one person going to talk about a life changing decision and surgery without going through with the one procedure to get rid of the disease that ended up killing her mother? Her whole basis for getting tested, and her whole basis for getting genetic counseling, etc. ultimately leading her to the current lifestyle changes she has made currently is being bypassed.
The first word that came to mind was hypocrite and later being followed by vanity. At that moment I felt all she was trying to do was justify getting a boob job by making it seem as though her life was in danger and this is something she HAD to do. As the interview progresses she explains how she wants to still have biological children and since she is still single and dating, it would shut down her odds of living that dream; hence the reason for not having her ovaries removed. From what I heard, she is now 38 years old and when she hits 40 she is then going to have her ovaries removed because women who bare children in there 40's is considered "prudent". So now as my rationale is starting to kick in a bit, I still feel as though this Jessica Queller is trying to make something out of a horrible situation. I know that sounds a bit harsh and even in my mind that's not how I work, so I told myself to stop being judgmental and I put it out of my mind.
Meanwhile, as the day is progressing and later into the evening when I am cleaning my kitchen it still keeps popping up in my mind. If what she is doing is really going to make a "difference" in her health then why didn't she go through with the removal of her ovaries in the first place? If she is so concerned, can she not develop ovarian cancer within the 4 years or so after having the double mastectomy? What about the life threatening consequences of anesthesia while she is having her breasts removed? There are still ways in which to preserve those eggs, and in any case if she does want a child, what is wrong with adopting? Are the children without parents not good enough? Furthermore, if this hereditary gene is something that she is scared to death of, why would she want to possibly pass that onto her child? I have played the entire thing in my mind dozens of times today. The pros of having the surgery means no cancer. The cons is that she has fake breasts instead of real ones, and instead of having ovaries she doesn't. But the kicker is that there is still no guarantee of not getting cancer, and the question of "How is this going to make a difference?" still isn't being answered; and while she does had the BRCA gene, there is still no guarantee that she will develop cancer. Technically I should be tested for the BRCA gene as well considering that my grandmother is a breast cancer survivor, and with only have a 32A cup, I too would like bigger breasts, but how is it going to change anything genetically?
The only way that I'm going to have any kind of answers or closure would be to read the book. Hopefully it will change my mind and I can see how her decision is a positive thing for her. Perhaps that's just what she needed to heal herself... who knows?! I have dozens of questions and no place to answer them. I plan on reading that book within the next few months and I can only hope that I will have a different approach to the one I have now.
Comments? Please feel free to leave 'em. The web address for the audio interview can be found at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89266091. It is only about 7 minutes long.
No comments:
Post a Comment