Preserving choice in breast cancer treatment: A different perspective on contralateral prophylactic mastectomy.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is the removal of both breasts when only one is affected by cancer. Rates of this controversial cancer treatment have been increasing since the late 1990s, even among women who do not have the kind of family history or known genetic mutation that would put them at high-risk for another breast cancer. Citing contralateral prophylactic mastectomy's lack of oncologic benefit and increased risk of surgical complications, the American Society of Breast Surgeons discourages contralateral prophylactic mastectomy for average-risk women with unilateral cancer, as does most of the medical literature on this topic. Within this literature, desire for contralateral prophylactic mastectomy is often painted as the product of an emotional overreaction to a cancer diagnosis and misunderstanding of breast cancer risk. Drawing on the personal experience of a breast cancer survivor, as well as relevant medical literature on breast cancer screening and surgery, this article offers a different perspective on the ongoing popularity of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, one that focuses on practical experiences and logical deliberations about those experiences. Specifically, it calls attention to two features of the contralateral prophylactic mastectomy decision-making situation that have been inadequately covered in the medical literature: (1) the way that breast cancer screening after a breast cancer diagnosis can become a kind of radiological overtreatment, even for "average-risk" women; and (2) how desire for bodily symmetry after breast cancer, which can best be achieved through bilateral reconstruction or no reconstruction, drives interest in contralateral prophylactic mastectomy. The goal of this article is not to suggest that all women who want contralateral prophylactic mastectomy should have the surgery. In some cases, it is not advisable. But many "average-risk" women with unilateral cancer have good reasons for wanting contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, and we believe their right to choose it should be protected.

Cracking open the eristic rhetoric of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy research or why surgeons should not be so certain about this controversial breast cancer treatment.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) is a controversial breast cancer treatment in which both breasts are removed when only one is affected by cancer. Rates of CPM have been rising since the late 1990s, despite surgeons' strong agreement that the procedure should not be performed for average-risk women. This essay analyses that agreement as it is demonstrated in the surgical literature on CPM, arguing that it forms a 'rhetoric of certainty' built on the stark epistemological divide between objective and subjective forms of knowledge that operates in some areas of medicine. Further, the essay argues that this rhetoric of certainty has the potential to function as a kind of eristic rhetoric in which the right conclusion is known prior to any rhetorical exchange. As a way to 'crack open' this certainty, the essay compares the rhetoric of the surgical literature on CPM to the rhetoric of uncertainty in the radiological literature on breast cancer screening for women with a personal history of the disease. The goal of this comparison is not to suggest surgeons should support all choices for CPM. Rather, the aim is to demonstrate that choices against the procedure are not as straightforward as the surgical literature indicates and that the uncertainty affecting women's preferences for CPM is not solely the result of patient misunderstanding and/or emotional instability.

How Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy Does the Body, or Why Epistemology Alone Cannot Explain this Controversial Breast Cancer Treatment.

Since the late 1990s, the use of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) to treat unilateral breast cancer has been on the rise. Over the past two decades, dozens of studies have been conducted in order to understand this trend, which has puzzled and frustrated physicians who find it at odds with efforts to curb the surgical overtreatment of breast cancer, as well as with evidence-based medicine, which has established that the procedure has little oncologic benefit for most patients. Based on the work of Annemarie Mol and John Law, this paper argues that these efforts to understand increased CPM use are limited by the "epistemology problem" in medicine, or, in other words, the tendency to view healthcare controversies and decision making exclusively through the lenses of objective and subjective forms of knowledge. Drawing on public discourse about rationales for choosing CPM, we argue that this surgical trend cannot adequately be understood in terms of what doctors and patients know about breast cancer risk and how CPM affects that risk. In addition, it must be recognized as the outcome of how specific practices of screening, detection, and treatment do or enact the bodies of patients, producing tensions in their lives that cannot be remedied with better or better communicated information. Recognizing the embodied realities of these enactments and their effects on patient decision making, we maintain, is essential for physicians who want to avoid the paternalism that haunts breast cancer treatment in the US.

Somatic individuality in context, a comparative case study.

Scholars have challenged the totalizing nature of the "geneticization thesis," arguing that its brushstrokes are too broad to capture the complicated nature of the new genetics. One such challenge has come from Nikolas Rose's argument that genetic medicine is governed by a new biopolitics in which patients understand themselves as "somatic individuals" who treat their bodies as an "ethical substance" to be worked on in order to secure a healthier future. I argue that Rose's argument, while compelling, paints the new genetics in equally broad brushstrokes and that in order for a concept like somatic individuality to become useful, we must study its manifestation across different communities of at-risk individuals. I undertake such a study by analyzing discourse use in two online biosocial communities, showing how the decision-making situations specific to each affect representations of somatic individuality, often creating opportunities for the rhetorical repurposing of older discourses of genetic determinism.