Did she really need a mastectomy???

Yea, I know it's too late now, but the discussion is worth having because I think a lot of people make decisions too quickly that may not be based on good reason.

Here are some quotes from the CNN article back in Oct 2008: "... the cancer was only in her left breast, and thankfully, they caught it at an early stage."

"Within a week, Christina had her first lumpectomy. Doctors also did a biopsy of her lymph nodes to make sure the cancer hadn't spread. Since the cancer was caught early on, Christina was told she'd need six weeks of radiation instead of chemotherapy."

"A test for the BRCA gene -- also known as the "breast cancer gene" -- came back positive."

"Christina was given two options... go forward with the radiation treatments and continue testing for the rest of her life or have both breasts removed."

The cancer had been caught early and the radiation was to be sure the doctors had gotten it all. What appears to have changed the game here was the discovery of the BRCA gene. Is this really a good reason to get a double mastectomy??

Consider this: Christina had just gone through a divorce. Her chances of having children within a solid marriage with a man were slim and she had stated that was the only way she would have kids because she was raised by a single parent and didn't want her kids to go through that. Was this double mastectomy decision a kind of penance for a failed marriage? Was this a way to give up on having kids and a family?

I love Christina and think she is gorgeous but I hate to think that she made an impulsive decision. If this is the case, I would put most of the blame on the doctor. I doubt that having a gene which makes one more susceptible to breast cancer is a good reason for having a mastectomy, especially someone as young as Christina.

That said, I'd still marry her in a second. Write to me, baby.