"I just honestly want to do what's best for my health," Borland told "Outside the Lines." "From what I've researched and what I've experienced, I don't think it's worth the risk."
"I feel largely the same, as sharp as I've ever been. For me, it's wanting to be proactive," Borland said. "I'm concerned that if you wait 'til you have symptoms, it's too late. ... There are a lot of unknowns. I can't claim that X will happen. I just want to live a long, healthy life, and I don't want to have any neurological diseases or die younger than I would otherwise."
***
TWO years ago I wrote about my choice to have a preventive double mastectomy. A simple blood test had revealed that I carried a mutation in the BRCA1 gene. It gave me an estimated 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer.
I promised to follow up with any information that could be useful, including about my next preventive surgery, the removal of my ovaries and fallopian tubes.
I had been planning this for some time. It is a less complex surgery than the mastectomy, but its effects are more severe...
Last week, I had the procedure: a laparoscopic bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.
It is not possible to remove all risk, and the fact is I remain prone to cancer. I will look for natural ways to strengthen my immune system. I feel feminine, and grounded in the choices I am making for myself and my family. I know my children will never have to say, “Mom died of ovarian cancer.”
Regardless of the hormone replacements I’m taking, I am now in menopause. I will not be able to have any more children, and I expect some physical changes. But I feel at ease with whatever will come, not because I am strong but because this is a part of life. It is nothing to be feared.
6 comments:
On account what could happen health wise, there appears to be no extreme.
Well, the only extreme from health is death. On the other side I can imagine having an immune system that is so potent that it doesn't kill you, but things around you and repairs your telomeres forever.
"And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell." Matthew 5:30
Safety is the absence of risk. There is no perfect safety, but there are ways to reduce risks.
Not getting a concussion reduces the risk of brain damage, both long and short term.
Not having ovaries reduces the risk of contracting ovarian cancer.
The trade-off that Borland and Jolie made is what they determined their individual risks are and then moved to reduce those risks.
I understand Borland's decision; it was pretty easy compared to Jolie's. Putting myself into a situation similar to hers, would I opt for removal of my testicles if I believed that there was a high risk of my dying of testicular cancer? I think she was courageous.
Pros and cons: Having money, fame, and the kind attention of supermodels probably strengthens the immune system. He probably would have made a better bargain with fate if he had stayed around for a few more years, but who knows. It's a defensible decision........Same with Angelina Jolie although one notes that she is an actress and prone to making the most dramatic gesture possible.
What we are talking about here is risk mitigation and what is involved to mitigate that risk. What is the plan, how do you execute it, and can you live with that decision? Seems on both this kids count and on Angelina's the answer is a resounding yes. Now, this is individuals making the choices and decisions to mitigate their own risks, whether they be matters of health, finance, family, etc. Now, project this to say a nanny state culture where everything must be risk mitigated by government and you can see the horror show that would and is ensuing.
Post a Comment