In a world incompatible with life, mutilation amounts to prevention
The world exploded with praise and awe when actress Angelina
Jolie announced - via op-ed in The New
York Times – that she had undergone double-mastectomy as a preventative
measure after discovering that she possessed the mutant BRCA1 gene. A mutation
to either the BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 (both named for BReast CAncer) genes seems to
confer an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer in its carriers. As the
scourge of cancer has permeated the American landscape – one in two men and one
in three women will develop cancer in their lifetimes – diagnosis and treatment
have become the sole allowable precautionary procedures. Every day we learn
more about the myriad known and probable human carcinogens saturating our
built environment. In addition, scientists are continually revealing the
long-term, intergenerational, and epigenetic health effects of exposure to these
ubiquitous chemicals. Yet, on our insidiously poisoned planet, our insistence
to continue with business as usual has led us to a form of collective insanity.
We now choose bodily mutilation as a means of dealing with the diseases of our
global industrial culture, rather than confronting the root causes.
In a 2003 study published in the esteemed academic journal Science, researchers found that among
women carrying the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes, cancer “risks seemed to be increasing
over time.”[1] In
other words, those born before 1950 only had a 24% risk of developing breast
cancer by age 50, while those born after 1950 had a 67% risk. These statistics
indicate that the cancers are not at all caused by these genes; merely, these
genes enable certain environmental factors to affect those who carry these
genes. Moreover, these environmental triggers of cancer have become more
prevalent in recent years. And though the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene carriers do
individually possess a higher risk of cancer, they comprise less than 5% of
breast cancer cases.[2] Consequently,
inherited genetic traits cannot be deemed causal factors in the genesis of the
vast majority of cancers. Furthermore, inherited predispositions or
susceptibilities only exist in the sense that there must be an environmental
exposure to elicit the genetic response. Remove the exposure and you remove the
predisposition.
Clearly, the environment is the key piece to solving the
cancer puzzle. Yet rather than disrupting the corporate capitalist consumer
culture that incessantly disseminates its toxic pollutants throughout our land,
water, and air, we choose the path of least resistance. Instead of removing
carcinogens and other substances such as endocrine disrupting chemicals from
our environment, we irradiate, poison, or mutilate our bodies to permit global
industrial capitalism to continue unabated. And though at times these primitive
procedures allow us a productive life after they take arduous and torturous tolls,
other times they may just prolong or even hasten the inevitable.
As a victim of cancer myself, I comprehend the current need
for treatment. But as one of the innumerable many who have lost loved ones to
the disease, it is the lack of effort to truly reject this preventable illness
to which I demur. Angelina Jolie’s choice of “prevention” – one that remains
unaffordable and unavailable to most women who suffer at the hands of our
corporate health insurance and medical system – is a rather extreme measure
which has nonetheless become all too acceptable. While I do not begrudge her
personal decision, I begrudge a society that chooses to tolerate its women
undergoing amputation and excision as routine procedures. As anthropogenic
alterations to our world render it more and more inhospitable to life, will we
continue to abide increasingly insane actions to maintain our existence, or
will we ever relinquish our short-term superficial conveniences for long-term genuine
life?
Comments
Again, very thoughtful and bracing essay, which I am sharing with friends. Thank you.
This fits right in with conversations we've been covering about the 'pink ribbon'ing' of breast cancer as a feel-good cause, while orgs like Komen Foundation partner with corporations who are known polluters & planet poisoners (not to mention gun manufacturers & KFC chicken!)
I hope the points you make & questions raised will be discussed widely! But in the meantime we invite you to join us on our non-mainstream-media radio show Feminist Magazine on KPFK Pacifica to start the conversation.