Here is an article from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center’s Newsletter that focuses on Tina, me and the current trend in mastectomy tattoos. Yep, it is a trend. We met at her shop and photographer Robert Hood took a few shots of us together. Here is the picture of me. Click the link below to see a picture of Tina with me as the background. One of the other tattooists mentioned, Vyvyn Lazonga, runs the shop where Tina worked when we began our project.
I was on the front page of Today.com. Well, the tattoo was anyway… I’ve been interviewed for various magazines that are running the mastectomy tattoo angle this year but this is the first article that has a picture besides Tina’s old file copy. Tina and I got together and did a real photo shoot. So this one actually has my face! I am not ashamed to say it took me awhile to get with this… The last time I did any modeling was for the MSNBC documentary in ’94, ya, back before I was 50.
Anyway, writer Diane Mapes did a great job with the article, most of the comments on the story have been positive and I have gotten some beautiful emails from women. I’ve been recognized several times out and around Seattle and people have been really complimentary.
You can click the link at the bottom of this post to read it now because I am mentioned in it, and… they spelled all my names correctly!
That is the Guardian, as in Guardian, UK. Yes, the paper everyone is reading in those British murder mysteries I watch on Netflix.
I never would have heard about it except that I received an interview request from a Seattle publication because of it and she mentioned reading it.
Back in 1993-94, I never thought that this would become a trend but apparently it has. Here is a quote from the article, ‘Women who have chosen tattoos over reconstruction cite the reclaiming of their bodies as the main reason for the choice. Some women refuse reconstruction because they feel it is a denial of the impact of cancer, both positive and negative, and that a tattoo (often very carefully designed to express the personal nature of the cancer journey) is the exact opposite.’
Facebook Allows Mastectomy Photos: Tattooed Model In Controversial Picture Speaks Out
Now lest I sound ironic, people really need access to a community site for pictures like this. When I was considering the surgery, I would have loved to have been able to see pictures like you all can now.
I just honestly can’t say I ever considered I’d be the “poster girl” for prophylactic mastectomy, or nudity in the media, or tattoos in the workplace, or whatever direction this is taking this week, it is interesting. Interesting and a little scary. Anyway…
Yes. We agree that undergoing a mastectomy is a life-changing experience and that sharing photos can help raise awareness about breast cancer and support the men and women facing a diagnosis, undergoing treatment, or living with the scars of cancer. The vast majority of these kinds of photos are compliant with our policies. They go on to explain why breastfeeding photos are removed from Facebook: However, photos with fully exposed breasts, particularly if they’re unaffected by surgery, do violate Facebook’s Terms. These policies are based on the same standards which apply to television and print media, and that govern sites with a significant number of young people. I don’t take credit here because I admit I really didn’t have any opinion on whether Facebook should or should not allow pictures like mine to be broadcast all over their site. I mean, it is their site and who are FB’s real customers? The advertisers, right? Do you think they want mastectomy photos gathering shares & likes? I don’t see why they would. What IS weird though is why FB, is so nervous about breasts. OK, it isn’t weird, they are just using the same criteria that all other US media use but what on earth is wrong with breastfeeding? In my opinion, breastfeeding should be more visible, I mean, it is normal, it’s natural! Wouldn’t we all be better, calmer and happier seeing more of that? I know I would. Well anyway, now that Facebook has clarified their policy, about half the sites that are reporting on it are using, yup… my photo. Here is a sample: inquisitr posts new facebook policy
Since Angelina Jolie’s news, I’ve seen several points repeated, so I’ll address them:
“She should have waited until she actually had cancer.”
This actually reflects several misunderstandings: of Cancer itself, a confusion between systemic and localized cancer, and a lack of knowledge about mastectomy procedures. She couldn’t have had the surgery she had if she had waited until she had cancer. What she had is a “skin-sparing prophylactic mastectomy” the point of which is to remove as much breast tissue as possible while giving a result that is not obtainable with reconstruction after cancer surgery. Compare the pix below:
Pretty big difference isn’t there? The first looks natural and the second is designed to look natural in clothing. The scars from biopsies and mastectomy really can’t be hidden that easily.
The other problem with actually waiting and relying on so-called early detection is that it assumes that a mastectomy could or should be done at that point when it is not always the best option. Cancers may be local or systemic and just because a cancer is small does not necessarily mean that it was caught early or that it will be easy to treat. A small cancer could be a very aggressive cancer with tendrils reaching into other organs that would need to be treated with radiation, chemotherapy or other treatments and skin that has been scarred and irradiated is not always capable of being stretched over an implant. Essentially, once you have a malignant tumor, you are no longer having a “prophylactic mastectomy” because breast cancer may be in other parts of your body besides your breasts as author Kelli and her sister, Fran, discover in this article, MY SISTER HAD A DOUBLE MASTECTOMY TOO, BUT SHE DIED OF BREAST CANCER ANYWAY.
This is similar to what happened to my mother. For those of you who haven’t read it before, Mom had breast cancer which was treated by lumpectomy and radiation. She had the requisite followups of mammograms and biopsies and when she was diagnosed with metastasized breast cancer in her lungs, liver and spine twenty years later, her breasts were clear of cancer. So if she had a so-called “prophylactic mastectomy” at the first sign of cancer, she would have had the same thing happen.
Here is another absurd yet oft’ repeated statement…
“No ethical doctor would ever remove a perfectly healthy set of testicles from a man who has no symptoms of testicular cancer, so how could a doctor do this?”
Here we have both medical ethics and sexism rolled into one question. The quote brings to mind all the tabloid scandals since the 60s from medically unnecessary hysterectomies, (the so-called Harlem appendectomy) to DES, from C-sections to prophylactic mastectomies… never mind that this time it is the women asking for the procedure. There are a couple of things that really irk me about this statement.
1. Testicles aren’t analogous to breasts, but to ovaries, and as important as these are women do get them removed much more cavalierly than they remove breasts. Breasts actually have little function aside from breastfeeding infants and Jolie and most other women who are in the age group to be considering this procedure have probably already done that.
2. Since cancers affect lungs, pancreases, stomachs, and plenty of organs that can’t be removed preemptively, does that mean that something that can be, shouldn’t be? These women are educated, can generally afford the procedures if not covered by insurance and are making their decisions with their doctors. Is that really different than any other elective procedure?
I was engrossed in making a presentation on the Part of Fortune for class this morning and completely missed Angelina Jolie’s announcement that she had had a prophylactic mastectomy until it was brought to my attention by a friend who asked if she could use a quote from me in light of it!
Once I looked the article up, I was thrilled that she had gone ahead with the surgery since I had thought about it back when she’d lost her mother to Ovarian Cancer, a related cancer. What shocked me was reading so many negative comments from people who don’t understand the context of a decision like hers. Sharon Osbourne received the same negative feedback when she made the same decision last year and it just amazes me how cruel and shallow people can be. I guess they are just proof that some people never really make it out of middle-school.
Their situations point up some differences between 1993, when I had my surgery, and 2013. In 1993, the BRCA gene test was new and no one was quite sure what percentage of cases it would account for, so I didn’t even have the test. We mostly discussed family medical histories. I had a traditional mastectomy which removed all breast tissue, leaving large scars. Reconstruction at a later time was offered but I preferred to stick with external prostheses and to cover the scars with tattoos. Angelina chose a skin sparing, immediate reconstruction option which she says left her with only small scars. Her cancer risk is slightly higher than mine but I am sure her results are more aesthetic than mine were pre-ink. Sharon had implants removed and I don’t know if she’s replaced them or not.
I’ll discuss why prophylaxis IS a reasonable way of dealing with cancer in another post, K?