What about the surgeons who perform “sex-change” operations, an oxymoron as no-one can change their biological sex. This fact does not stop unscrupulous surgeons from mutilating men, women and children who have disordered minds, not disordered bodies.
Hideous surgeons! They too should be on trial for wounding with intent.
Another group of surgeons who should have joined Mr.Paterson in the dock are those who perform mastectomies on patients who do not have cancer but were told by doctors that they carry a gene which supposedly increases the risk of them developing cancer in the future.
So, some (or perhaps many) women undergo mastectomies (sometimes double mastectomies) even though they do not have cancer and may never develop cancer. They are probably more at risk of being knocked down on the road than they are at risk of having cancer in the future.
All these surgeons should be in the dock!
The Truth Shall Set You Free 
Pingback: The BRCA1 and BRCA2 Gene: Susan-Anne White Condemns Women Who Have Preemptive Surgery | The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser
Back again to make mischief Bruce. Going after Evangelical Christians whose faith you once espoused is “grist to your mill.” By the way, my title is “Mrs” not “Ms” but you do love to annoy me, and I live in Northern Ireland and am British not Irish (all these facts you know full well.) The post you are commenting on centred around disgraced surgeon Ian Paterson. You ignored him completely. You also ignored surgeons who mutilate willing victims in so-called “sex-change” operations who were also shamed in our post. You majored on one part of our post i.e surgeons who perform mastectomies on women who do not have cancer. The gene you mention in your comment (BRCA1 and BRCA2) may or may not increase the risk of developing cancer but the fact remains that mutilating and unnecessary surgery is being carried out on women who do not have cancer but who might develop it in the future. All surgery is potentially dangerous but sometimes it is necessary. but why have risky surgery when it is not necessary i.e when women do not have cancer. If you Bruce were told that you MIGHT develop cancer in your leg because you were genetically predisposed to it, would you request that surgeons amputate your leg? I think not.
“So, some (or perhaps many) women undergo mastectomies (sometimes double mastectomies) even though they do not have cancer and may never develop cancer. They are probably more at risk of being knocked down on the road than they are at risk of having cancer in the future.”…
That is probably the worst thing that I have ever read on any blog ever – Bravo!
You must feel very brave speaking out against cancer victims and people who are at high risk of developing this disease (ones who have usually lost family members, hence the risk), lower than low and warped beyond comprehension.
You have nothing to say about surgeons who mutilate willing victims (including children) in so-called “sex-change” operations Leroy. That makes you “lower than low……” Would you request to have your healthy arm or leg removed because you were told that you have a gene that increases your risk of developing cancer in the future?
Hi Susan Anne,
Doesn’t Bruce Gerencser have a point? If there is a very high risk that a woman might develop breast cancer, might she not want to have her breast removed? Women don’t undertake this option lightly, but would seek expert advice from more than one expert.
Shalom,
John Arthur
The operative word in your comment is “might.” A woman “might” develop cancer. To use that argument, one could request the amputation of a leg or arm because cancer “might” develop in those limbs. That would be an extreme and radical over-reaction to something that might never happen. A woman may request a mastectomy (or be strongly advised to have one) yet she might never develop cancer. Such a woman would have been unnecessarily mutilated. It doesn’t make sense.
Hi Susan Anne,
The operative words are “very high risk” which means a very high probability.
Shalom,
John Arthur
Would you request to have your healthy arm or leg removed because you were told that you have a gene that increases your risk of developing cancer in the future? Yes absolutely, I would of course get multiple 2nd opinions but the choice would be very easy. If I had the cancer Gene I would choose to lose an appendage before losing my life. This is something very close to my heart as I have seen this disease a lot first hand.
PS – “They are probably more at risk of being knocked down on the road than they are at risk of having cancer in the future” – nope complete utter nonsense.Usually the minimum prerequisite for a partial mastectomy is 25-50% risk, it increases to 50%+ for full mastectomy etc and even then survival is not a guarantee (I will spare all the details), but if the odds of surviving crossing a road were 50/50 I suspect you would take a different route.
I have to say your disdain for cancer victims is nothing short of bizarre, choosing to have a mastectomy is not the easy decision that you suggest it is. I work closely with many cancer charities and would be happy to give you a tour of the great work they do so you could learn the true story rather than some regurgitated fluff that has come from some suspect internet sites.
As your blog is in the public domain I have taken the liberty of passing on you opinions on cancer victims to some interested parties.
Feel free to not publish this post (I know you won’t).