Could you make this decision?

No - I think this is too radical. I think there are so many lifestyle choices that you can make to prevent cancer and disease. Why would you be so extreme even if you knew you have a higher chance than normal to develop this disease in the future. You should be taking care of your body, eating right, exercising, taking vitamins, drinking water.

Any others wish to comment?

Hmmm, to have healthy parts removed out of fear that they might someday become diseased. Don't doctors have enough to keep them busy without taking an otherwise healthy body and mutilating it? Last I checked "above all, do no harm" was still the basis of medical ethics.

I do understand the fear of cancer, most of us have watched that incidious disease slowly and painfully take over a loved ones' body. However, we turn to doctors to help us through our fears, not to give into them.

~~~~~

Talk about "cutting off your nose to spite your face to spite your face."!!! ;~D

Not many stepping up to offer opinions on this topic. A bit disappointing so far, but there's still time for some more here if anyone else wants to speak up.


In the interim - my own opinions here...

This is a topic I find very tough to deal with. If I were in the situation, it's very tough for me to say how I'd react and what decision I would make. To some extent, I guess I'm in this situation now, as I'm overweight, middle-aged, and getting further and further along towards a time when it will be harder and harder for me to get back into shape. If I don't lose weight, then family history of heart disease (grandfathers), diabetes (maternal grandfather, and maternal great grandfather) could kick in. The family doctor continues to give me grief when I see him about my weight, and of course I continue to eat what I want, much as my maternal grandfather did.

Given a choice between eating bland foods that are good for me so that I'll live an extra 2 years (during which time I only get to eat more of that same crappy bland food) and eating what I want and perhaps living a few years less, I'm going to choose taste every time.

Life is short, it should be enjoyed for what it is.

But if I faced a decision where I had a strong indication that my life would be gone much sooner if I didn't take an action, then what would I do? Choose radical surgery that would certainly alter my life and lifestyle, or just live that much more on the edge knowing my life was that much more likely to end shortly?

I guess for me it would really depend on what type of surgery, what impact, and what the ramifications would be. If I could be guaranteed that preventative medicine -- even if it's radical surgery -- would prevent the problem, then I would probably go for it, but if the surgery would only improve my odds, and not provide any sort of guarantee, then I'd probably want to take my chances and try to enjoy life that much more.

Given a choice between eating bland foods that are good for me so that I'll live an extra 2 years (during which time I only get to eat more of that same crappy bland food) and eating what I want and perhaps living a few years less, I'm going to choose taste every time.

Hey terp how about eating less of the good tasting foods. You can still eat them just not as big of portions. I had a little wake up call when I did a magazine questionaire and realized that I have a super high risk of getting diabetes. My dad had diabetes. I had gestational diabetes. I am latina. I had a 10 pound baby. So I got my butt moving. I am exercising. All you have to do to decrease your chances is 30 minutes walking a day. I want to drop some poundage but that doesn't seem to be coming as easily.

Link

Hey and check out this link. It's called real age. You basically fill out a survey and it tells you what your real age is compared to your actual age and what changes you can make to change it. It's interesting and you will probably find out that you aren't as unhealthy as you think. I think smoking is a big thing.

Another interesting topic would be whether people should have the gastric by-passes that seem to be so popular now. Do the benefits of that outweigh the risks or is obesity something that should only be controlled through diet and exercise not a surgical answer?

Personally, I think someone who chooses to have their body so radically altered out of fear of some possible/maybe illness at some point in the future needs a shrink not a surgeon.

Mason brings me to the first twist/monkey wrench I can toss into the questioning and discussion here -- at what point does such a radical decision easily become defendable by just about all?

For example, if the odds are only 15% that someone would get cancer or some other dread disease (including Alzheimers, Lou Gehrig's disease, whatever) which would stand a strong chance of being prevented via radical surgery, then most people might say getting the surgery is too radical (as Mason seems to do). But if the odds are 50% or higher, or say 85% or higher that unless the radical surgery is performed the dread disease will strike, do we not then say that someone would be foolish for not getting the radical surgery performed?

Where does the line get drawn -- right at the 50% mark, or only 40%, or some other number that makes us feel more comfortable with the decision?

Hey terp how about eating less of the good tasting foods. You can still eat them just not as big of portions.

Eating less is one of the choices I try to make, though there are still times when I choose to indulge...

I do have a treadmill gathering dust in my home because of space issues in the home. I need to clean up more and get back into the habit of using that equipment. It does help a lot.

Could you make such a decision? If so which way would you decide and why? Do you think your decision would have been different at different points in your life (early 20s versus 30s, 40s, or much later)?

Well, I'm missing body parts and have had a cancer scare already so I guess it's slightly easier for me to answer.

I had a hysterectomy when I was 27. When they removed my cervix and uterus, they found a pre-cancerous lesion on the back of my cervix that nobody would have found had I not had the hysterectomy.

I also had a 4cm lump removed from my breast last year. I had talked with my doc prior to the op, and we had decided that if it were cancerous, I'd have a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. I was adopted as an infant and have no family medical history so when it comes to cancer we have to act in a 'worst scenario' manner and be aggressive. I decided that I'd rather have my breast removed and have a reconstruction than spend the rest of my life worrying myself silly over every little lump I found.

So, to answer your question - yes, I would have parts removed so that I wouldn't get cancer. Being adopted I know that there's no difference between the love a parent feels for a biological child and an adopted one, so yes, I'd have the surgeries done before I reached the typical age for developing the kind of cancers I was predisposed to and I'd move on with my life, knowing that I would more than likely live a longer and healthier life than if I had not done anything at all.

For me, I think the difference would be that between "possibly" and "highly likely". If were highly likely that a person would develop a life threatening illness without the surgery, then yes, it would seem like a reasonable course of action. If it were only "likely" that a person "might" develop such an illness, then I think such a procedure would be based more on an irrational fear than sound judgement.

But then again, I'm sure much anecdotal evidence could be found to support both sides of the fence here. It's such a personal issue I doubt there's a right or wrong answer really.

Dharma, thank you for putting a much more personal aspect to the abstract question. However, in both cases there was medical indications for surgery. You weren't going to a doctor and demanding he or she remove a healthy organ, you had indications of unhealthy organs and made your choices accordingly.

Which is kind of why I look at the medical community more than the patient in questions like this. Physicians are trained to make decisions based on the medical need of the patient. They are also licensed professionals. While I wouldn't tell you (or anyone else) what you can and can't do with your body, I do know enough about medicine to know that Physicians are under protocols, standards and ethics. I am for holding physicians to them.