IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v61y2005i5p1106-1117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': Disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy

Author

Listed:
  • Press, Nancy
  • Reynolds, Susan
  • Pinsky, Linda
  • Murthy, Vinaya
  • Leo, Michael
  • Burke, Wylie

Abstract

While data are accumulating on the efficacy of prophylactic mastectomy as a means to reduce breast cancer risk in high risk women, the effectiveness of the procedure depends on women's interest in undergoing the procedure. We report on women's responses to this surgical option as a prevention tool. Data derive from a multi-method study of women's interest in and understandings about genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility. The sample comprises 246 women of varying ethnicities and familial breast cancer risk from Seattle, USA. In this paper, quantitative data are presented on the sociodemographic and risk perception correlates of degree of interest in taking a genetic test for breast cancer if prophylactic mastectomy were the only treatment option. In addition, we report results of a content analysis of women's open-ended responses to the question of whether and why they could imagine undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. Our analysis of these data benefits from a central distinction in medical anthropology between the concepts of illness and disease. We suggest that while prophylactic mastectomy may prevent the "disease" of breast cancer, it may be of little interest to women who see this surgery as itself mimicking the "illness" of breast cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Press, Nancy & Reynolds, Susan & Pinsky, Linda & Murthy, Vinaya & Leo, Michael & Burke, Wylie, 2005. "'That's like chopping off a finger because you're afraid it might get broken': Disease and illness in women's views of prophylactic mastectomy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(5), pages 1106-1117, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:5:p:1106-1117
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(05)00047-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bouchard, Louise & Blancquaert, I. & Eisinger, F. & Foulkes, W. D. & Evans, G. & Sobol, H. & Julian-Reynier, C., 2004. "Prevention and genetic testing for breast cancer: variations in medical decisions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(6), pages 1085-1096, March.
    2. Press, Nancy & Browner, C. H., 1997. "Why women say yes to prenatal diagnosis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 979-989, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Heyman, Bob & Hundt, Gillian & Sandall, Jane & Spencer, Kevin & Williams, Clare & Grellier, Rachel & Pitson, Laura, 2006. "On being at higher risk: A qualitative study of prenatal screening for chromosomal anomalies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(10), pages 2360-2372, May.
    2. García, Elisa & Timmermans, Danielle R.M. & van Leeuwen, Evert, 2008. "The impact of ethical beliefs on decisions about prenatal screening tests: Searching for justification," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 753-764, February.
    3. Andaya, Elise & Campo-Engelstein, Lisa, 2021. "Conceptualizing Pain and Personhood in the Periviable Period: Perspectives from Reproductive Health and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Clinicians," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    4. Aarden, Erik & Van Hoyweghen, Ine & Horstman, Klasien, 2011. "Constructing access in predictive medicine. Comparing classification for hereditary breast cancer risks in England, Germany and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 72(4), pages 553-559, February.
    5. Vassy, Carine, 2006. "From a genetic innovation to mass health programmes: The diffusion of Down's Syndrome prenatal screening and diagnostic techniques in France," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(8), pages 2041-2051, October.
    6. Vassy, Carine & Rosman, Sophia & Rousseau, Bénédicte, 2014. "From policy making to service use. Down's syndrome antenatal screening in England, France and the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 67-74.
    7. Shaw, Alison, 2011. "Risk and reproductive decisions: British Pakistani couples' responses to genetic counselling," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 111-120, July.
    8. Marion Haas & Jane Hall & Richard De Abreu Lourenco, 2001. "It's what's expected: genetic testing for inherited conditions, CHERE Discussion Paper No 46," Discussion Papers 46, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    9. Williams, Clare, 2005. "Framing the fetus in medical work: rituals and practices," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 60(9), pages 2085-2095, May.
    10. Graham, Ruth H. & Robson, Stephen C. & Rankin, Judith M., 2008. "Understanding feticide: An analytic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 289-300, January.
    11. Hammer, Raphaël P. & Burton-Jeangros, Claudine, 2013. "Tensions around risks in pregnancy: A typology of women's experiences of surveillance medicine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 55-63.
    12. Williams, Clare & Sandall, Jane & Lewando-Hundt, Gillian & Heyman, Bob & Spencer, Kevin & Grellier, Rachel, 2005. "Women as moral pioneers? Experiences of first trimester antenatal screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(9), pages 1983-1992, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:61:y:2005:i:5:p:1106-1117. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.