Women with breast cancer who are active on social media make a vital contribution to our public dialogue.
So, when I read Angelina Jolie’s New York Times opinion piece, “My Medical Choice,” about her decision to have bilateral prophylactic mastectomy after breast cancer gene testing, I turned to some of the women I follow through Twitter or blogs. Some examples and excerpts:
Lisa Bonchek Adams on Twitter: “I do pause at the ‘holistic alternatives’ to surgery Jolie mentions. This makes me nervous….My main wish (not sure can say criticism) is that she had educated on how her process VERY diff from if cancer had been detected…That is, she did great job saying what she did but some might not understand how very diff that is from friend with cancer having mastectomy….I always think it’s impt to explain what you did and how it varies from what people might be commonly familiar with…Women who’ve made same choice as Jolie will get lots of media attn now. How about those of us with metastatic disease? Not happy ending.”
Jody Schoger on Twitter: “Agree – I wouldn’t be going holistic with BRCA1 mutation….Angelina Jolie defined her decisions for double in context of the BRCA 1/2 mutation. Most BC is sporadic, no known mutation….My breast cancer recently metastasized after a 15-year interval. There’s still so much science & medicine can’t explain, prevent, or treat.”
Dr. Elaine Schattner on her Medical Lessons blog: “Don’t Judge Her! An Essay on Angelina Jolie, BRCA, Cancer Risk and Informed Decision-Making.”
This story labels common breathing habits with terms like “screen apnea” and “dysfunctional breathing.” Noting a lack of evidence to justify such language, our reviewers flagged the story for disease-mongering.
This story is about a new drug that might help destroy fat under the chin. But is that the only thing it might destroy? Without discussion of potential harms, or mention of the drug’s checkered history, readers might not even realize that’s a question they should ask.