Jolie: A powerful message about breasts and cancer
Angelina Jolie sparked a national conversation about breasts and cancer when she revealed that she had had a preventive double mastectomy.
Angelina Jolie once played the fearless action hero of the Tomb Raider movies, said Elizabeth Weitzman in the New York Daily News. But last week, she showed “what a hero really is.” The actress revealed to the world that she had undergone preventive double mastectomy surgery, after learning she carries a gene mutation giving her an 87 percent chance of developing breast cancer. Once named “the most beautiful woman in the world,” Jolie has not only sparked a national conversation about breast cancer prevention, but directly challenged the idea that she—or any woman—is defined by her breasts. Jolie said she was happy with her breast reconstruction, and felt “empowered that I made a strong choice that in no way diminishes my femininity.”
Jolie deserves full credit for publicly explaining her decision, said Peggy Orenstein in NYTimes.com, but many doctors worry it will actually “add fuel to a culture of fear” around breast cancer. Less than 1 percent of women share Jolie’s gene mutation, and most women never need to consider such a radical procedure. Yet preventive double mastectomies among women who’ve shown some signs of cancer in one breast have shot up 188 percent in the last 15 years, even though the risk of getting cancer in the other breast is small—about 5 percent. Having had a double mastectomy and reconstruction myself, let me tell you it’s “a huge ordeal,” and it’s a step no one should take unless it’s medically necessary.
Who defines what is necessary? asked Melinda Henneberger in WashingtonPost.com. If a woman has an elevated risk of breast cancer, or has already had cancer in one breast, it’s up to her—not a doctor’s probability chart—to decide whether to remove both breasts. Jolie said she made her decision so she’d be around for her children, her partner, Brad, and other loved ones. All the women I know who’ve had double mastectomies—including me and my mother—have had the same reason. Whether you have an elevated genetic risk, or have already had breast cancer, the decision to trade your breasts for a greater chance of living into old age is “a no-brainer.”
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Perhaps it’s a no-brainer for those who can afford it, said Deborah Johnstone in Salon.com, but many women cannot. Jolie’s gene test cost $3,000, and her reconstruction tens of thousands—not to mention months away from work. Some health insurance policies do not cover these costs. The sad reality is that “many women in America simply cannot afford to be sick,” let alone spend a small fortune to prevent being sick.
But that’s hardly Angelina Jolie’s fault, said E.J. Graff in Prospect.org. In the short time since she made her announcement, we’ve discovered that her breasts “are a Rorschach test,” inspiring some women to admire her courage, and others to resent her decision, her wealth, or her celebrity. To me, the bottom line is this: “One of the world’s most famous sex symbols has effectively rolled her eyes at the idea that breasts equal femininity.” How can you not admire that, said Maureen O’Connor in NYMag.com, especially since her breasts were once considered the Hollywood ideal? In her announcement, Jolie took pains to reassure other women facing cancer or mastectomies, saying that her surgery did not make her “feel any less of a woman.” That’s a powerful—even revolutionary—message in a country that is “simultaneously breast-obsessed and among the more breast-cancer-afflicted nations in the world.”
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
AI chatbots are leading some to psychosis
The explainer The technology may be fueling delusions
-
'Self-segregation by political affiliation is spreading'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
7 places across the country to experience the best of summer drinking
The Week Recommends Stops include a Basque-inspired spot and a bar where the menu overhauls twice a year
-
The JFK files: the truth at last?
In The Spotlight More than 64,000 previously classified documents relating the 1963 assassination of John F. Kennedy have been released by the Trump administration
-
'Seriously, not literally': how should the world take Donald Trump?
Today's big question White House rhetoric and reality look likely to become increasingly blurred
-
Will Trump's 'madman' strategy pay off?
Today's Big Question Incoming US president likes to seem unpredictable but, this time round, world leaders could be wise to his playbook
-
Democrats vs. Republicans: who are the billionaires backing?
The Explainer Younger tech titans join 'boys' club throwing money and support' behind President Trump, while older plutocrats quietly rebuke new administration
-
US election: where things stand with one week to go
The Explainer Harris' lead in the polls has been narrowing in Trump's favour, but her campaign remains 'cautiously optimistic'
-
Is Trump okay?
Today's Big Question Former president's mental fitness and alleged cognitive decline firmly back in the spotlight after 'bizarre' town hall event
-
The life and times of Kamala Harris
The Explainer The vice-president is narrowly leading the race to become the next US president. How did she get to where she is now?
-
Will 'weirdly civil' VP debate move dial in US election?
Today's Big Question 'Diametrically opposed' candidates showed 'a lot of commonality' on some issues, but offered competing visions for America's future and democracy