Titless Wonder

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Ed Who
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 08:44 PM

I have been reading with great interest, all you have said and all others have written. I think that Joybell has pretty much hit the nail on the head. Doctors are human and do make mistakes, most end up being costly for somebody and I don't mean in a monetary aspect. All one can do is find a doctor whom you trust and pray you did not make a mistake. I have been operated on three times for cancer and have been very fortunate to have outstanding medical help.
You also have my vote for Queen, you'd be a great catch.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 08:09 PM

How terrible Guest. I've lived long enough to know that nothing is simple. I've known enough medical people to know that some things they do cannot be defended or forgiven. Most though ,in my experience, do the best they can. That won't be much comfort to you at the moment I'm sure. How angry you must be and how distressed. I hope you find some measure of peace in time.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Oct 03 - 07:23 PM

My Mother thought she had the best Doctors. Was 2 weeks in a coma, and they didn't know why. She died because They opted to do nothing. Autopsy said it was a massive infection in the fallopian tubes. There must have been some way to figure out what was wrong. Were they just stupid?

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 08:48 PM

Thanks Mickey. Well yes there are mistakes. Isn't it great we don't have to worry about willies though. Stay away from Oprah unless she pays you I reckon. I don't know about cancers that don't need treatment. I cleaned out a lot of bedside tables, of people who had died, that had books about curing your cancer by all sorts of unconventional methods. I reckon you do what you need to do in the way of research - checking the credentials of the persons submitting the studies, you gather your friends around you, and then you trust your instincts. The other ideal is to find a doctor you trust - I think that's harder there -- In Australia we still have a good health system that we can all afford. If you are armed with knowledge I think your chances are better.
Anyway Queens are all powerful and very wise.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 07:58 PM

Joy Dear Heart, I really don't think I have a handle on it, Wolfgang has blown my precepts out of the water. The mind boggles at cancers which need no treatment. I think if that theory was presented to a million people-every single one would say it's wrong. Do you take that same stance?

I'm proud to have your vote as Amazon Queen. Suppose I relinquish the title on Oct.31st. There are many more women deserving of the title.

Did you get the Oprah Show? Yesterday it was devoted to Medical mistakes. A few cases sited were about cancers that were not really cancers. A man's penis amputated because of error., young woman's hysterectomy-because of error. Terrible to be at the mercy of such slip shod practioners.

Thank you Joy for all your kind words. You're a Sweetheart.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 06:56 PM

Mickey, I was a nurse ( would have been a doctor if I'd been more determined, but my background made that difficult in 1960s Australia and I was impatient.) I worked with women with breast cancer and I watched my mother die from it. When I had to make the difficult decision to have mastectomies I did a lot of research into all the latest studies I could find. My doctor helped and I had plenty of time to do this. The current wisdom is as you stated it - Breast cancer is many diseases with many different treatments and many different outcomes. That's not much help is it really - What I mean is you seem to have a handle on it. My case, in a sense, was fairly straight forward and the abnormal cells found after my operation, in the ducts of both breasts, convinced me that I had made the right choice. A less rocky path than yours to be sure. Sadly over the years I cared for many women who had been too scared to seek treatment until too late and the results still haunt me. For my money science, imperfect as it is at the moment, still offers the best hope. I think you are brave and wise and you get my vote as Queen of the Amazon Women. (twice over) Joy

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 04 Oct 03 - 04:43 PM

Yes, it seems so. And if there comes along anyone who can tell under which circumstances it will be so, she rightly get the Nobel prize for medicine.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 11:16 PM

Graham thank you for the enlightening post.

Wolfgang, I'm rereading your post & have another query, if you don't mind. You wrote:

being told that there is the possibility of a false positive diagnosis, being told that for some women even with cancer the operation is unnecessary for it is confined and not life threatening at all,

Please tell me --when you say confined--Is there any cancer that will stay confined forever? This sounds so radical-not to need some kind of treatment.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 03 Oct 03 - 06:44 PM

Thank you so much Mickey. I was feeling that I had been rather flat-footed with my comments. I did feel I wanted to respond to you though, even though our situations are very different. I do hope things go better for you. This is a very special family, here at Mudcat, isn't it. I'm so grateful for having been welcomed so warmly. And thanks again to you especially. All the best. Joy

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 11:28 PM

Joybell & Art, thanks for your kind thoughts. Joybell that was surely a courageous step you took. If positions were reversed, I don't know if I would have the guts to do that. That decision is colored by many factors including age & marital status.

When I found out that there was no cancer the first time 2 years after the fact, the first emotion was a sense of hurt & bewilderment. How does this happen? Then some anger-not the hot rage one hears about. With the second masectomy-my feeling was-okay this time I know I have cancer & the little gremlins are starting to run amok. There was a certain joy when it was over. We shall see how far the little creeps traveled.

We all have to die of something. I'd like it to be when I'm sound asleep on satin sheets with a few oreos & a glass of milk in my tummy. Keep your fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 09:29 PM

Sorry Mickey and Art, I didn't mean to imply that anger wasn't a natural response to the situation. Of course you have a reason to be angry. (I didn't have to deal with the American medical system -- thankfully) I was trying to say that anger is such an exhasting emotion that I'm always glad, at any point in my life, when that part's over one way or another. I think that anger is important none-the-less or else things are ever going to improve in this world. I am probably not as articulate on this subject as I am with more objective ones. Forgive me. I do wish you well.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Art Thieme
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 08:36 PM

I've described my encounters with mis-diagnosis too much in these threads. Enough for me to say that I do understand----what you went through and your anger as well!!!

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Joybell
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:32 PM

Mickey, I know that anything anyone can say will be at best only a little comfort. I felt I wanted to add my two bob's worth anyway. I had a bi-lateral mastectomy 7 years ago. I carry the gene that would have had me developing breast cancer. I know that's not the same as it was for you. I was able to choose my path. My heart goes out to you all the same. I can understand at least a little of your pain. It's a hard road but it gets a little easier as time goes on. I avoid giving advice because I don't have any answers really, but speaking for myself anger eats me up and I was much better able to cope when that stage of my healing was over. Good luck. Thinking of you. Another tit-less wonder. J

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 07:11 PM

Yes Nerd (i hate to address you with that name-but I guess you chose it) a little faith goes along way. Glad you checked in. I'm sorry your wife has problems. My feeling is that if she's getting messages from her body that something is amiss-- pay heed! Keep searching for the Dr. who will listen & investigate. Then get a second opinion & possibly a third. How about a teaching hospital? Good Luck Sir.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Nerd
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 01:44 PM

I ignored this thread for a long time because I thought it was going to be crudely insulting to somebody with small boobs. Guess I should have more faith in the Mudcat community.

Mickey, modern medicine can be so very hard to deal with. My wife has undiagnosed conditions which the docs refuse to take seriously because they can't figure out what's wrong. Your story, of course, trumps anything she has experienced. You get a whole bag of sympathy from me...

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 12:52 AM

Ah, thanks...I misremembered the Russian I heard from my brother.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Oct 03 - 12:14 AM

It does turn up in a google search. Skip that first entry, and you'll find few others that work. Here is a song (don't know a thing about it, and if you go from the google page using the "automatic translation" it leaves something to be desired--lucidity.

SRS

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 09:55 PM

"Pobrecita" could be loosely translated from non-standard Spanish as "poor little girl" or as an expression of sympathy with affection implied, as one might say "poor baby!"

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Grab
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 07:20 PM

Further to Wolfgang's post, there was some stuff in NewScientist the other week about disease treatment. One problem is that there are generally several different ways of curing a disease; as an example, you may get 40% who'll respond to treatment A, 40% who'll respond to treatment B, 10% who'll respond to either, and 10% who won't get better under either treatment. Trouble is that you don't know in advance which group you're in, so the best you can do is take one treatment with a 40% chance of a cure, then try the other one. On the C theme for instance, some respond well to chemo, some don't. When the "cure" is as radical as chemo or a mastectomy, it'd be good to know in advance which treatment to get so that it doesn't mess you up.

Anyway, there seems to be some genetic factor that affects which group you fit in (or to be more precise, which group your lump fits in, bcos it's the lump's response to the cure that you want to know about). If the docs can work that out then they can target ppl with the cure that best suits them, and the research is happening on this. Ironically it's coming round to the Chinese medicine principle of giving the patient a treatment specific to their needs - although it's more likely to work than powdered rhino horn and other quack remedies! ;-)

Graham.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 06:02 PM

I think it's Russian and means "thank you," right?

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Mickey191
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:24 PM

Lady Jean, That was a very sweet story about the High School Reunion. Should have gone to mine. You never know what surprise is around the corner.

Amos you are correct-I've had the pleasure. Like what you said to Kendall.

Carol C. Thank you for your good wishes & Please explain pobrecita. Went to Babelfish. (Assuming it's Spanish) they turned it into English-pobrecita. I then went to Websters who said it's not an English word. My sense tells me you want a recital. Ain't gonna happen, Baby. Sorry if I'm wrong.

Wolfgang, Many Thanks for you patience & knowledge. I appreciate your thoughts and your time.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 04:36 PM

Wow, Mickey191. Pobrecita!

I hope things improve for you very soon, if not sooner.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:20 PM

I'm gonna assume you two know reach other, right?

Kendall...I hear ya. The most enduring and attractive feminine feature in the world is the spark in the eye, IMHO, and all that it entails.

A

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 03:10 PM

I had to pinch myself--The Power Of MUDCAT-- is all encompassing. Makes people post who never posted before. It's Magic ! Sure glad The Cat was open for business at 1:45.

Kendall, I've heard that line before. I'm looking for a Rich blind man with no feelings in his hands! Know one?    Slainté

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: kendall
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:39 PM

I'm a personality man myself.(Mainly, that is)

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey 191
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 02:06 PM

WOW!

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,EdisonEd
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 01:45 PM

Breast aren't everything. The human body comes in many forms but it is what is on the inside that counts. The doctor should have his nuts removed but that wouldn't return your boobs. I should have been there more for you, I'm sorry I let you down.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 01:41 PM

Dear Mickey 191,

first, my expertise is very restricted. I'm not a doctor, I'm interested (and have some knowledge) in research methodology and in decisions based on statistical data. Both interests lead me sometimes to read about medical decisions just as one of several fields of applications.

Mammography and mastectomy are long known in decision research as having a disappointingly low success rate (by the way, a quite similar discussion goes about prostate screening in men; just to worry the other half of humankind). That is, in comparison with a control group of women not undergoing any surgery or screening, the net benefit of medical procedures is low, measured in survival rates (how many women are alive or, if dead, by some other reason after 5 or 10 or whatever years). That has two main reasons: (1) women who die despite operation and (2) women surviving without any medical interference (cancer confined, for instance).

Mind you, on the average, there is a net benefit of medical intervention on survival rates, so that means at least some women who otherwise had not will survive due to medical intervention. However, the intervention has costs and not only benefits. The costs are unnecessary operations or, at a smaller scale, undue worrying after a screening.

Nobody can tell before you if you are the rare woman to be given some extra decades due to the operation or the woman with the unnecessary surgery. What I mean when saying you might have decided otherwise with more information: being told that there is the possibility of a false positive diagnosis, being told that for some women even with cancer the operation is unnecessary for it is confined and not life threatening at all, and being told that for some women even the operation will not help (and all that with the best of numbers they have) you might have decided otherwise. But that is a very personal decision. The idea with the statistical data as a basis for decision is not to tell any woman what the 'correct' decision is but to allow her to make a very personal decision. For some, the small extra risk reduction by the operation is worth the procedure, for some it isn't. None of these decisions can be called wrong by anyone from outside.

Your 'dumb questions' go into the heart of the matter concerning using statistics at all for decisions. All statistics average across very different persons and types of cancer. You always can try to get more 'personalised' statistics, closer to your indivídual case. Very often, these individualised statistics are not available. If they are available for breast cancer I do not know them (but that doesn't mean much, due to my restricted expertise). So all your specific questions do get a 'not known to me' response from me. Sorry. However, a completely personalised statistic is only the single case and that's why some researchers are against using statistics in that field (medicine) at all. I'm not, but I see the problem.

You want to have the data for women of your age group (for better comparison), they are there (I'd guess, but I don't know). You want to have the data for a certain type of cancer, they are there (guess). You want to have the data for a certain level of estrogen, perhaps you can even get those. But when you tell your doctor you want to have the data for your age, your estrogen level and your type of cancer diagnosis, they tell you that there are no such data. For even in a very large sample, the number of women sharing all three (or four, or five) aspects will be very low. And you wouldn't trust very much a statistic based on, say, five women sharing all attributes and 80% have survived for at least five years.

Would there not be a greater percentage of "successful"
masectomies if the C. had been confined? No, if I understand you correctly. The comparison is with an untreated control. If the cancer is confined, then the untreated controls would also survive. The success rate is only measured in more survivals in the treatment than in the control group.

Just to tell you in this example why percentages are sometimes so misleading and absolute numbers are less so. Imagine a group of 200 women with a confined cancer (and assume for the moment we could be sure about the diagnosis). Half of them, 100, are treated with mastectomy, half of them, 100, are untreated. Five years later, 100 of the treated are alive and 99 of the untreated. You can sell that as a 100% success for all (that is, 1) of those who might have died otherwise are saved by the procedure. You can look at the relative risk reduction and see that the risk to die was 1% without the operation and zero with. Then you have a relative risk reduction of just 1 %. You can look at how many women have to undergo operation for 1 to benefit from it. That is 100 have to undergo operation for 1 to profit (in my example).

I have nothing at all against modern medicine in principle, I just don't think they can help much in many instances and they should give better information under which circumstances they do help much and under which they don't. Unlike others here, I don't think that in those instance where modern medicine doesn't help much, alternative methods of treatment do. But that is a very different theme.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 11:08 AM

Wolfgang Dear Heart, I had to quit school while in kindergarden & go out and earn a living. I'm not sure I understand all of what you said. So these queries will fall in the category of dumb questions. Do your satistics cover all types of cancers, whether in the ducts or not? Would there not be a greater percentage of "successful" masectomies if the C. had been confined? Where does estrogen dependency fit in? The others that died despite the procedure,did they die because their C. had already spread? Were these patients NOT having yearly mamograms? Your line--"the larger number wouldn't have died even without the masectomy." Ergo, that larger number could have had the cancer go undetected & the mortality rate doesn't increase?

Can you dumb it down for me? Or have you already dumbed it down? I take 6 medications daily & concentrating is getting harder & harder.   

Thank you Wolfgang for your interest. How do you come by your expertise? I've one last Q.-You said,"With more info. you might have made another decision." Please explain.

Spaw, my thanks to Karen for her work ethics, and seeing that I'm kinda wide in the beam, I've been considering an assectomy. If they keep hacking away at me-I may actually weigh 130 pounds by planting time. Thanks to all for your kind words.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Amos
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 11:02 AM

Spaw:

Don't be too hasty -- some of us would still like to be able to recognize you when we see you.


A

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: catspaw49
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 05:26 AM

Mick, I'm just glad you're around!!! Tits are highly overrated. I'm an ass man myself so if they start talking assectomy, let me know.

Karen recently had a situation that could have evolved into something but didn't and only because of what she does did she know what was amiss. Karen is the lead histology tech in a large hospital lab. Histology prepares the tissue for diagnosis by a pathologist who reports the findings to the case doctor. When results came back she saw them first. The doctor's explanation didn't match the facts......We have since changed Ob-gyn's.

Docs routinely do not take enough tissue in many biopsies. Then the procedure known as "Grosssing" can be poorly done by the pathologist who will also often misload the cassette that the tissue remains in through the processing procedure.   Therefore, when it's cut, stained, and mounted on a slide, what is seen is not necessarily what is there. Then the pathos bitch at the techs for screwing it up.......Karen works a little differently as when she encounters the problem, she stops the processing and writes up the pathologist instead!!!   This has led to fewer problems in diagnosis and I really admire her for standing up to the pathologists involved (M.D. stands for Major Deity).

In any case, there are so many possiblities for error all along the line that when you combine it with a bad doc to begin with...............Well, I feel for you.

Keep me informed on the assectomy........

Spaw

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: LadyJean
Date: 01 Oct 03 - 12:33 AM

My father was an attorney for the Medical Protective Association. I heard a lot of medical horror stories from him, but few that sucked as much as yours.
Now it occurs to me, I should mention Mrs. Anderson, a very silly lady, who was a friend of my mother's. She also had both breasts removed. I don't think she thought much about it, because she was a widow. Well, she went to her high school reunion ten years ago. She met a man there. They're still together. He doesn't seem to mind that she's a titless wonder.
Your doctor's mistake still sucks. He was seriously despicable. They do make very comfortable breast prosthesises these days. I'd suggest getting a set to act as bumpers.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: katlaughing
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 06:10 PM

Wolfgang, thank you for the information and explaining the numbers figuring. It is much appreciated. I feel fortunate that the doctors I've gone to have continued to tell me the longer I can keep from having to have heart surgery the better as the techniques, etc. keep improving.

Mickeydarlin'...if you're NUTS, so are the rest of us, well, speaking for myselves only.**bg** Thanks for your kind words, too!

kat

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 05:35 PM

Hi Mickey 191,

there's a fairly readable chapter about mammography etc. in G. Gigerenzer's Calculated risks: How to know when numbers deceive you.

A very sobering account is from M. Roberts (shortly before her dying from breast cancer), Breast screening: Time for a rethink, in: Brit. Medical Journal, 1989, 299, pp1153-1155.

Even if the false positive rate (I have no number at hand) is fairly low (per single woman), in a large scale screening (in which the base rate of true positives is low compared to negatives) the total number of false positive can be irritatingly high.

Hamm et al., Prophylactic mastectomy in women with a high risk of breast cancer, New England Journal of Medicine, 1999, 340, pp 1837-1838, give fairly high values for relative risk reduction for mastectomy. But still, if you calculate their relative numbers into absolute numbers you get that roughly 40 women must undergo mastectomy for 1 to be saved by this procedure. 1 in 40 only! (the others either died despite the procedure, a small number, or, the larger number, wouldn't have died even without mastectomy; they could tell that for they had a control group not undergoing mastectomy despite being in a risk group)

As a kind of weak consolation, your risk was estimated at that time and your then estimated risk has been reduced by mastectomy, though not as much as you would have liked. With more information you might have made another decision then. I'm not against mastectomy, but I'm for better patient information.

Just a story about quite different ways of informing a patient: My wife and I went to a childbirth clinic information evening. When asked, can it happen that your clinic is full when I come, one doctor said you shouldn't worry about that that normally does never happen. The other doctor said, I'm here since three years, we have about 500 births a year and that has happened once in these three years. "Normally never" or "1 in 1500", you may guess by which doctor I felt better informed. That way it went on all evening. One doctor tried to be reassuring with fuzzy words without exact meaning, the other answered whenever possible (and apologised if he had not the information) with hard numbers in an understandable way this way allowing us to make our own evaluation.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:12 PM

Hi Wolfgang,
Percentage wise, what constitutes a quite a large number? At the time, I had no idea that a biopsy could give false info. I still have not heard or read that, but obviously it's true. ACS doesn't tell that info. over the phone. I made many calls to help with my decision. The only positive thing is this: if you haven't got a breast-you AIN"T getting B.C. Of course there is a very dark,dark thought in my mind. Maybe I had a Dr. who just likes to operate.

Anyone ever read "Kings Row?" "Where's the rest of me?" One of the most famous lines in movie history. (The Dr. had amputated Ron Reagan's legs in an effort to break up Ron & his daughter.)

Or am I just NUTS??

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Wolfgang
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 05:33 AM

Biopsy is known (in the research literature) for a quite large number of false positive diagnoses. For this and other reasons the net benefit of masectomy is dismally low.

I sometimes wish doctors would understand a bit more about statistics and conditioned porbabilities and would care to tell their patients truthfully about risks involved and about the real amount of false positives. Sad thing, they often can't tell because they don't know. A German colleague sent a student to twenty doctors for a test. The "patient" asked each doctor after the (negative) test a few questions about what the result really meant (are there false negatives, how many, etc) . As far as I remember only one of the doctors showed an understanding of conditioned probabilities. All others gave wrong responses which could have misled a naive patient.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Jeanie
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 04:19 AM

So sorry to hear of all that you've been through, Mickey.
Sending love and every good wish from over this side of the "pond".

- jeanie x

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Sorcha
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 01:05 AM

It sure does. Mickey, if it's any help, you have my vote. Another voice from Good Ole Wyoming.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 30 Sep 03 - 12:53 AM

In N.Y. there is supposed to be a way to look up on line the reputation & possible law suits pending against Drs. To foil us on our quest for knowledge the Dr. need only return his questionaire with a few omissions. So we are told - "File pending"

THEY are out to get, us, the victims. We can't check Before surgery, We can't collect what's rightfully ours after a botched job. If we need meds to help with the pain.we are going to be paying top dollar because the drug companies have bought the votes we needed to allow us alternative sources for meds.

It all stinks to high heaven.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:54 PM

I think there is a new law in Texas about how surgery is approached as they prep you. I had my bunion fixed in July and before they'd given any medications the nurse handed me a ballpoint pen and said I was to circle the bunion on my foot and place an "x" in the middle of it. They have you draw on the surgical spot to help avoid at least one kind of mistake.

In a recent election voters here may have gone from the frying pan into the fire. In an attempt to "save the family doctor" they gave more power to the insurance companies (via the legislature) to limit the extent of punitive damages in malpractice lawsuits. It was the insurance companies against the personal injury lawyers--a real ugly battle. Neither side suggested that the agency that regulates doctors do a better job of getting rid of the bad ones so the cost of malpractice insurance could level off or drop.

SRS

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 11:03 PM

Thanks folks for your kind words & cheer. My frame of mind is good & I'm so glad to be back here. Kat, Knew I'd hear something special from you. You never disappoint! The pictures & thoughts are lovely.I am strong-was painting my nails 3 hours after surgery.

Linn, your first paragraph is mind boggling-hope all is well now. Kendall-Never got to tell all those dumb creeps that they misdiagnosed me. I went to other Drs.& and a different state. I've been advised as to what a great law suit this would be--but I do not want that in my life. I just seem to have a canny ability to find crappy Drs. That's why I'll never have plastic surgery, I can hear "HIM"now:"Scalpel Nurse..... OOPS" Thanks again folks

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: TIA
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:42 PM

Plenty of guys I know have tits and they don't do a thing for me. Sure do get the hots for some women 'thout em though.

Tits ain't always beauty, and beauty ain't always tits.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: katlaughing
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:27 PM

I am very glad to see you back here, Mickey! Sorry that you've had such a horrible time with the medical establishment, though.

A dear Mudcatter sent me a book of art photographs of older women, done by Joyce Tenneson, called Wise Women. These women have become my role models in many ways. You can see the prints on this page.

The specific ones I thought of when reading your message, were the following, with the women's words which are printed in the book opposite of their photos:

2nd photo from left, top row: Krista Gottlieb, 70 When I look at my body I see a survivor. I am one breasted - but I am more. I am more compassionate and open than I was before.

And, oh darn it, she doesn't have a print of the other one, so I'll describe it. The subject is Maezie Murphy, 83. She has soft white hair gathered on top of her head. Her big, beautiful eyes stare directly at the camera, full of intelligence, irony, humour, and love, as well as determination...she has a towel draped around her, with her arms across her chest, hands resting one on top of the other between where her breasts were. She says, I had a radical mastectomy years ago and I like to tell people, "Yes, I had cancer and no, I didn't die." If you have faith in God, you always have someone you can count on."

And, one more for which she doesn't have a print online, sorry, but since it's folk, I thought I'd include it. It is of Odetta, eyes closed, guitar held vertically close to her body. She has a close-fitting cap of curls or knitted material (it's sort of etherial so it's hard to tell) with sparkles and a few beads hang down in a thin line on her forehead. I don't do these photos justice. Anyway, here is what Odetta said at 69: The beads on my forehead are symbols of my third eye - the eye of vision. All of my schooling has been through music. It was through folk music that my spine was straightened. I cut my hair and let it be natural - nappy. I let my own personality out. Thinking for yourself is something we must bring to education. We women need to pass that belief on to younger generations!

Seems to be you've just done that with your sharing with us, today, Mickey. Thank you!

Bat Goddess, I had insurance and the doc in WY didn't give me any choices, at 26 yrs old. Later, when we went to New England, I had to have the scar tissue cauterised (lot of fun that!) and the docs told me I could have had a much less radical treatment. Oh well...*sigh*

Good health to you, Mickey, from here on out.

luvyakat

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: AliUK
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 10:11 PM

* shudder* my heart goes out to you.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Amos
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 09:53 PM

From the sound of it, darlin', you're STILL a wonder, boobs or no. God, what an awful encounter!!

A

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: wysiwyg
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 09:25 PM

SHITFIRE! Here, lemme carry some of that mad for ya....

~S~

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: kendall
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:45 PM

Oh my god. Those bumbling halfwits. The most beautiful form (and function) in all of nature sacrificed to the god of stupidity. I bet he would have been more careful had it been his wife!

Try to look at it this way; you are still alive, and, if you have a love in your life it shouldn't make a difference. If it does, he doesn't really love you.

Finally, now the bastards will HAVE to look you in the eye.
My deepest sympathy to you.

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:44 PM

Hmmmm . . . back in 1976, after a bad pap smear, I got referred to a female oncologist who was supposed to be the bee's knees. She suggested a hysterectomy. I patiently explained that I had no money and no insurance. She said (without blinking an eye), "Well, in that case, there's a $40 office procedure." (Cryocautery)

There's a little bit of difference there, between major surgery and an office procedure. I felt like she had suggested a small nuclear device on a flyswatter -- and then she backed off when I didn't have the moola.

I had the cryo. It didn't work. (And I don't even want to go into the complications.) I ended up having a "cone biopsy" where they remove part of the cervix. Didn't cost me anything, because it was on a sliding scale, and Maine Medical Center in Portland, ME gave me incredibly good care and attention.

But the whole deal made me exceptionally cynical about the modern American medical establishment. And women doctors in particular.

Linn

Subject: RE: Titless Wonder
From: smallpiper
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:16 PM

Bugger!

Subject: BS Titless Wonder
From: GUEST,Mickey191
Date: 29 Sep 03 - 07:09 PM

The main reason for this post is to warn all the women who may read this- about misdiagnosis of breast cancer.  

Couple of years ago, when I was a frequent poster here, I was diagnosed with B.C. After 3 biopsies & assorted bad experiences, I opted for a total masectomy.
Well kids, I just found out I didn't have C. Isn't that special? I'm still trying to deal with the blunder & the attitude of my new Dr.s. It's as if I lost a fingernail.   A mere nothing! I guess I'll get over it.

Went for my annual mam. & they said I was fine. Two weeks later I get notice to come back & get rechecked. This time I did have C. I decided to go for another masectomy--so now I'm officially titless. For those of you who never saw my boobs---- They were THE best boobs in the contiguous United States!!! Heard tell that There is one lil' ole Eskimo gal that had nicer boobs then mine. (But she doesn't count) She used to rub them with whale oil, made them very soft!! But her husband used to gag alot. Poor guy.

I've had a RUN of bad days since I got home, all of which make the masectomy look like a day in the park. The Run refers to a case of the runs induced, no doubt, by a little buggie given to me, gratis, from the hospital. The worst case known to civilized man or woman.

Topped off by a fall in my livingroom which I hope didn't break my lovely nose. I was too sick to go out to the ER. I did learn one thing from the fall, as my nose hit the floor first, and I heard it crunch, I realized the prime reason for boobs. They are our bumpers. Because, if I had boobs-THEY would have hit the floor first. Ergo, no crunched nose.

I figure if this keeps up there will be a headline in the Local Paper:   WOMAN RUN OVER BY TRACTOR While picking daisys. Things must get better! So please- get everything double checked & don't be fooled into thinking because your Dr. is THE head of oncology of a large hospital, that he Must know whereof he speaks.
This guy even lied about his fee! Mickey191