It's not about survival rates.

There was an article in the Metro that Ansley pointed out to me today.  (The Metro is that silly little paper that you can get for free when you're bored out of your mind riding the subway)

Here's what it says:

Elective breast removal

Losing your breasts as a result of cancer is traumatic enough. But removing them voluntarily? Lots of women do it.

“It felt like I had a ticking bomb in my body,” recalls Jennifer Chamberlin, a 36-year-old paramedic from Pennsylvania.

“My grandmothers and several aunts had had breast cancer.”

So Chamberlin decided to surgically remove both of her breasts, along with her ovaries — even though she didn’t have cancer.

“I just didn’t want to risk getting cancer. I know I can still get other types of cancer, but this was one risk I could do something about,” she says.

Chamberlin is not unique: between 1998 and 2005, the rate of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy — removal of two healthy breasts — among U.S. women increased by 188 per cent, according to a study by physicians at the University of Minnesota School of Medicine.

“The 10-year survival rate for women with DCIS (the most common form of breast cancer) is 98 to 99 per cent,” says lead researcher Dr. Todd Tuttle.

“Removal of a normal breast will not improve the excellent survival rates. Nevertheless, many women, particularly young women, are choosing to have both breasts removed.”

Jamie Inman of California made the same choice — and deeply regrets it.

“If I had known about the sexual side effects there’s no way I’d have done this,” she says.
“Not having any nipple sensation has been devastating, both to my me and my husband.”

The part in there from the "lead researcher", Dr. Todd Tuttle, is nothing new.  I've heard that argument many times.  (not personally, but in discussions).  Let's say I did get breast cancer.  Odds are, it would be caught early (because of my kick-ass team at Princess Margaret).  And yeah, like Dr. Tuttle says, I would probably survive.


BUT WHO WANTS TO JUST SURVIVE?!?!

I want to live.

This is the quality of life argument.  I want to live, cancer-free, chemo-free, radiation-free, and worry-free.  Again, if I had cancer, I would (hopefully) survive, but I would have to go through treatment.  And I lived through Mom's treatment, and I would never wish that on anyone.  Ever.  Not to mention the rate of recurrance that us mutants are subjected to - odds are, I wouldn't just get cancer once.  It would come back.

I hope that because this article doesn't mention BRCA mutations, that this Dr. Tuttle genius wasn't talking about people with hereditary cancer - just people with "normal cancer" (if there is such a thing).

And what about the lady at the end of the article who says she regrets having a mastectomy because of the sexual side effects?  LADY, YOU'RE ALIVE.  And you don't have cancer.  Get over it. 

(okay, that was bit harsh.  I know the sexual stuff is difficult.  And yes, there will be a lot of sadness and frustration, but seriously... regretting that you ever had it done?  that's extreme)