Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had a complete hysterectomy at 38 because I had no choice. I would give anything to have my overies back. Hormone replacement therapy is not the same. And I only took estrogen for two years.

I instantly aged. I'm 47 now with osteoporosis and because of that, arthritis. My skin has aged much faster. I am anxious and often depressed. I just feel old. Every single doctor has said these changes (and many others) were directly related to early menopause.

It's not as easy as many people seem to believe.

This. I know two women who had to get hysterectomies in their 30s and they both aged 10 years instantly. Its so hard on your body to unnaturally loose all those hormones and try and find a "therapy" to replace them isn't as easy as popping some pills.

OP yet again. This is helpful to know. I had a supervisor who had it done in her 30s, but she wasn't going to tell me this sort of thing. I have several family members who had it done as soon as they reached menopause and it does seem much easier on the body then.

Anonymous wrote:I think I might be the only person who doesn't care. Why did she announce this and why so much press? I don't care. I agree with you that Great! the rich people in the US have the means to do this.

Full disclosure: my sister had a hysterectomy at 33 due to cancer.

You're not alone about not understanding the hype around this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My thought is that Angeliina needs to take her kids, her stolen husband, and her ovaries, breasts, and whatever else and take a seat. Do we need to know everytime she cuts the cheese?

OP here. I am really glad she came forward since I too am at risk. I hope she keeps us posted on the aftereffects too actually. I have asked about that blood test, but my OB doesn't recommend it at all.

The blood test isn't really all that helpful. It's done if you're high risk (my mom died of oc in her early 50's). I've had it done in the past, will probably do it again soon, but it's just not much of a tool, unfortunately.

I'm gearing up from BRCA testing right now, then I have to decide on an oophorectomy. Still not sure what I'm going to do. It's all a bit overwhelming.

Anonymous wrote:I had a complete hysterectomy at 38 because I had no choice. I would give anything to have my overies back. Hormone replacement therapy is not the same. And I only took estrogen for two years.

I instantly aged. I'm 47 now with osteoporosis and because of that, arthritis. My skin has aged much faster. I am anxious and often depressed. I just feel old. Every single doctor has said these changes (and many others) were directly related to early menopause.

It's not as easy as many people seem to believe.

This. I know two women who had to get hysterectomies in their 30s and they both aged 10 years instantly. Its so hard on your body to unnaturally loose all those hormones and try and find a "therapy" to replace them isn't as easy as popping some pills.

I had a complete hysterectomy at 38 because I had no choice. I would give anything to have my overies back. Hormone replacement therapy is not the same. And I only took estrogen for two years.

I instantly aged. I'm 47 now with osteoporosis and because of that, arthritis. My skin has aged much faster. I am anxious and often depressed. I just feel old. Every single doctor has said these changes (and many others) were directly related to early menopause.

It's not as easy as many people seem to believe.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

OP again...my heart goes out to you and I would definitely say you have it harder than Ms. Jolie. If the author had focused more on the financial maybe I would not have reacted at all to the article with anything but empathy. I wish you strength and good health!

Anonymous wrote:My thought is that Angeliina needs to take her kids, her stolen husband, and her ovaries, breasts, and whatever else and take a seat. Do we need to know everytime she cuts the cheese?

OP here. I am really glad she came forward since I too am at risk. I hope she keeps us posted on the aftereffects too actually. I have asked about that blood test, but my OB doesn't recommend it at all.

Anonymous wrote:My thought is that Angeliina needs to take her kids, her stolen husband, and her ovaries, breasts, and whatever else and take a seat. Do we need to know everytime she cuts the cheese?

LMBO!

OP again, read this a few more times and perhaps I was a little harsh. Due to her breast cancer treatment going through menopause would be even more difficult because it is not to do some of the treatments that help with symptoms. Also, I see Angelina said her decision is "simple." With her stats I do see it is more clear cut, but I just don't understand the argument about giving up kids if you had the surgery at 42. Even without the surgery it is unlikely and would she even be candidate for fertility treatment? If she were in her 20s or early to mid 30s I might understand more, but by 42? If she were trying to get pregnant now, that would be one thing, but she isn't. I understand some of her other arguments, but this one is not as clear to me.

The author is bitter and I see why - she's been dealt a crappy hand. That said, directing any anger at Angelina is unwarranted in this case.

Wanted to add: as for the author, I have no issue with what she wrote. It would absolutely be a harder decision!

My thought is that Angeliina needs to take her kids, her stolen husband, and her ovaries, breasts, and whatever else and take a seat. Do we need to know everytime she cuts the cheese?

Anonymous wrote:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?

I agree with this part. I too have tested positive for the gene and am weighing similar options. I have lost my mother and sister to breast cancer and my aunt had breast cancer, beat it, and then died of ovarian cancer. I would have to use FMLA to have these surgeries and that means no paycheck for me. I am also dealing with raising middle schoolers who really need me way more then ever before so being down and out for months at a time seems unfair...however I want to be at their weddings as well. I am also worried about post surgery therapies which are timely, expensive and for the most part trial and error which is hard when you HAVE to be at work and you HAVE to pick up your kids at 3:10 on the dot...I don't have a nanny or a cook to pad my life until I get better. Its a terrible position to be in rich or poor or somewhere in the middle but I think having more $ makes it a different story.

I think I might be the only person who doesn't care. Why did she announce this and why so much press? I don't care. I agree with you that Great! the rich people in the US have the means to do this.

Full disclosure: my sister had a hysterectomy at 33 due to cancer.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/health/wellness/angelina-jolie-says-the-decision-to-deal-with-her-cancer-was-simple-mine-is-not/ar-AA9WfBL?ocid=iehp#page=2

What do you think of this article? Maybe I am being too harsh.

I too am at risk for ovarian cancer and I have kids, which according to this author perhaps makes my decision simpler especially if I have a high level risk. There is risk any time you go under the knife and I would hardly consider Angelina Jolie's surgery an easy decision. I can understand if this woman were younger saying she doesn't want to give up her chance of having kids. The doctor advised her to remove her ovaries by 42. She is 39, single and it sounds like she only wants kids once a man is in the picture. Her chances of having kids are not high at 39 and by 42 the chances are not good. This is not judgment, this is fact. Even with intervention the chances are not that high. I completely understand not wanting to go into early menopause and I don't think it would be any easier for Angelina Jolie than it is for this woman. Also, she seems to think menopause doesn't happen until at least a decade after 42. Perimenopause starts way before the 50s for a lot of women and you can enter menopause in your 40s. It is definitely easier on your body to have the surgery post menopause so I understand that.

I agree with her on one thing-Angelina's money makes it easier to do whatever she feels needs to be done. In that sense Angelina has it easier. Otherwise I see her decision as just as difficult as the author of this piece. Your thoughts?