An interesting debate has surfaced over Angelina Jolie’s decision to have a preventive double mastectomy to offset her increased chances of developing breast cancer later in life. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the debate has mutated into vitriol, raging over her Op-Ed in the New York Times in which she has 'the gall' to speak about her experiences as though she was a normal woman with normal issues. After finding myself in an online comments battle with very angry users on Jezebel and The Guardian it became clear that Jolie’s revelations have raised a whole new raft of issues for women – not least the issue of bodily control and celebrity illness. Most of the anger seems directed at the fact that Jolie could afford the quite expensive testing that allowed her to identify the faulty gene that exponentially raises her chances of contracting both breast and ovarian cancer, and at her decision to speak publicly about her experiences.
For many people money is the great divider – and certainly in the American health system it can make all the difference in the world – but the argument falls apart when you take into account that Jolie lost her own mother to ovarian cancer, and at the end of the day, has removed both of her breasts in order to do everything in her power to avoid leaving her own children motherless. Money might have allowed her to find this gene and recognise its influence over her future health, but money doesn’t stop it from mutating and developing into a cancer that might take her life. Cancer is, in a way, the great leveller – of course advanced healthcare can extend your life, better access to facilities and good doctors can aid recovery, and constant screening can catch the cancer before it spreads to other parts of your body, but very often none of these things make any difference. Steve Jobs is a high-profile recent example of this, as is Roger Ebert, and Jolie can be added to this list. She has not removed her chances of developing breast cancer, she has simply reduced it from the terrifyingly high probability it was. She has also intimated that she may remove her ovaries, as she also stands a very high chance of developing ovarian cancer due to the gene she carries – no doubt this will raise yet another backlash of ill-feeling.
I, of course, find all of this to be a very personal argument – hence my getting involved in comment battles that are unwinnable (as all internet wars are). Having lost my own young mother to ovarian cancer in recent times, Jolie’s experiences are issues that arise with myself and my sisters on a constant basis; worries about what our body is secretly doing – is it silently developing faulty cells, are they mutating and spreading, will we leave our children motherless, will I have children before the cancer develops, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Ovarian cancer has definite hereditary implications, and as it is a type of cancer that usually gives no signal of its advancement until it has already gone beyond recovery, it has a low survival rate. For myself and my sisters, then, our bodies are possible time-bombs – something you keep out of your head in your day to day life and try not to think of, but the fact remains that one of us may develop ovarian cancer later in life. For me, then, Jolie is doing what we have already thought of doing – taking control of our bodies before they take control of us. I haven’t had children, and still hope to do so (in the not-so-near future), so removing my ovaries is not something I can think of now. For others who have already had their children, having a hysterectomy so young will throw them into early menopause, which is not something any woman relishes. There is also the psychological factor – removing your breasts, removing your ovaries, it’s almost as if you’re removing everything that makes you a woman…what are you without these symbols of femininity? In answer I refer back to Jolie, who has long been defined by her sexuality, in her decision to make her surgery public and to speak honestly about her experiences. She is standing up, as a woman in the very critical public eye, and taking control of her body in a way few would have the courage to do – and I applaud her decision. I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that a large majority of those who do not support her are responding out of a personal/celebrity dislike of the woman rather than on a health basis.
The Irish Cancer Society has already reported an upsurge in their helpline calls, and breast checks will no doubt rise too. Perhaps women will become more aware of their bodies, and listen to them – maybe if something feels wrong they won’t do the ‘Irish Mammy’ thing and push those feelings down for fear of complaining. Maybe, just maybe, it will get a few more people out from under the umbrella of ignoring the problem and into the ring to face it. I know if my mother had the choice of losing her ovaries or losing her life I would not be without her today. If it keeps one more woman from succumbing to cancer, then what Jolie has done is nothing short of amazing, and no amount of fame or riches makes that bravery any the less.
EDIT: An excellent article on the subject from The Feminist Wire, by Bill Patrick.
No comments:
Post a Comment