[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Thats because depending on the size, the operations are different. If this had turned out to be what they thought originally, she would only have needed a relatively small op and would have recovered quickly, possibly with the need for a little radiotheraphy but not as much as she ended up having.

If it had been what they thought after she had the first small op..it would have, again only needed a slightly bigger operation, but not removal of the whole breast as ended up needing to be done.

They have to let you know the size as otherwise they would be dishing out masectomies to people who shouldnt have them and could have recovered without the big operation. I guess they could just say 'oh you need another operation' but then you would get frustrated not knowing exactly why and having no explanation for being told one minute that you would be fine, and the next that you need more surgery.

In a way, if they didnt get focussed so much on size then a lot of extra stress could be avoided, as I very much doubt my mother has been the only case where it has been wrong. But at the same time a lot of women might end up with a whole breast removed when they could have had minor surgery and still had their breast.

would it really make that much of a difference - taking the full picture into consideration. ?

I am close friends with a lady who had breast cancer diagnosed - told that full removal of breast needed and she was seriously recommended full removal, including nipple: even though the chances of cancer recurring were under 5%. Surgeons tried to tell her that there was every chance it would recur, even with such low odds.

Two weeks before her 5 years remission: 3 guesses what was found - around the nipple area that she chose to ignore what was recommended to her: because she wanted to take that chance. She was wrong - and the consultants were right. thankfully: through all of this: she was covered via private health care via her husband's work: but she chose to tell the surgeon and the consultants 'what to do at her request' despite being advised otherwise.

I'm not sure what you want here Vicky: I don't think your mum was correct is asking for what she asked for. Regardless of the size of the tissue affected: it had to be removed, irrespective of the difference in operation required. would she have preferred they lied to her and pretended it was only a tiny piece of surgery, tiny piece of tissue: or would she have preferred that they were honest in stating that the size of affected tissue was much larger, and would require far more surgery than first anticipated??

I can only speak for me (and possibly my mate who so wished she'd taken the surgeons advice way back then) - if it was me: I'd far rather lose the full breast - all in - if that is what my surgeon recommended. He/She is far more qualified and far more knowledgeable - all things considered.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not sure what you want here Vicky: I don't think your mum was correct is asking for what she asked for. Regardless of the size of the tissue affected: it had to be removed, irrespective of the difference in operation required. would she have preferred they lied to her and pretended it was only a tiny piece of surgery, tiny piece of tissue: or would she have preferred that they were honest in stating that the size of affected tissue was much larger, and would require far more surgery than first anticipated??

OK I think we might have crossed wires here somewhere going on this bit. She has no problem at all with the full breast being removed. Although it does annoy her a little bit that they got it so wrong and she ended up having to have 3 ops rather than just the one, but she has accepted that they make mistakes sometimes.

But she wants her other breast removed also, although at the moment, there is no cancer in that one but she was told there was quite a risk of it returning in said healthy breast. She was told that after she had the op to remove the 'bad' breast, after recovering, she would be able to have the 'healthy' one removed also but they have gone back on their word now. This is the issue, not the mistakes they made in the original diagnosis.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

OK I think we might have crossed wires here somewhere going on this bit. She has no problem at all with the full breast being removed. Although it does annoy her a little bit that they got it so wrong and she ended up having to have 3 ops rather than just the one, but she has accepted that they make mistakes sometimes.

But she wants her other breast removed also, although at the moment, there is no cancer in that one but she was told there was quite a risk of it returning in said healthy breast. She was told that after she had the op to remove the 'bad' breast, after recovering, she would be able to have the 'healthy' one removed also but they have gone back on their word now. This is the issue, not the mistakes they made in the original diagnosis.

If true: then surely this is the very thing that she needs to impress upon GP/consultants/Surgeons?

the matter of the 'promise' to remove healthy tissue/ breast has already been addressed. No surgeon in their right mind, would remove good tissue at the bequest of the patient: because the patient simply wanted it removed, despite the recommendeations / expertise / experience of previous case studies of the surgeon involved.

sorry vicky, but I can't help get the feeling that mum isn't facing up to the brutal truth here: she is not more knowledgeable that those who are dealing with such situations day in and day out.... and she should consider their reasons for their reasons and recommendations.

If a person had a tumor in their left arm, and wanted the surgeon recommended removal only of left arm and not also the right arm: but patient 'felt' that removal of right arm at same time of initial operation would recifty to their satisfactino: I would say the surgeon was right and the patient was wrong.l

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

If true: then surely this is the very thing that she needs to impress upon GP/consultants/Surgeons?

the matter of the 'promise' to remove healthy tissue/ breast has already been addressed. No surgeon in their right mind, would remove good tissue at the bequest of the patient: because the patient simply wanted it removed, despite the recommendeations / expertise / experience of previous case studies of the surgeon involved.

sorry vicky, but I can't help get the feeling that mum isn't facing up to the brutal truth here: she is not more knowledgeable that those who are dealing with such situations day in and day out.... and she should consider their reasons for their reasons and recommendations.

If a person had a tumor in their left arm, and wanted the surgeon recommended removal only of left arm and not also the right arm: but patient 'felt' that removal of right arm at same time of initial operation would recifty to their satisfactino: I would say the surgeon was right and the patient was wrong.l

Oddly enough this is quite similar to what the consultant said to try and explain their position. He said that if she had an op to remove one of her legs, would she want the other leg removed too.

This analogy doesnt make sense to me really, as you have use for your legs, and it would make a huge difference if you had no legs. The breast (once past childbearing age) is just a useless flap of skin basically.


She knows shes not more knowledgeable than people qualified in that area. But it still doesnt make sense that they refuse to remove her breast...and the reason given is that it is 'unneccesary surgery'. However they would be more than happy to perform other 'unneccesary surgery' to rebuild the breast that has already been removed. Her view is that if she went ahead with this reconstruction that they are pushing her to have, come next year her other breast may need removed (as she HAS been told this is a risk)...she might have to go through all of this again, and then she would be stuck with one plastic boob...and then eventually have to have another reconstruction again. And that even if it doesnt come back in the other one, having a reconstruction, with all the grafts involved, is still a massive operation compared to a simple removal. Surely if the removal is unnecessary, then rebuilding is also unnecessary...

Anyway, the point of this thread was about me trying to understand the consultants reason for lying, and wanting to know if anyone could see their point of view, so thanks for your input as I do understand it a little bit more now I still do disagree with them lying in the first place though.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Oddly enough this is quite similar to what the consultant said to try and explain their position. He said that if she had an op to remove one of her legs, would she want the other leg removed too.

This analogy doesnt make sense to me really, as you have use for your legs, and it would make a huge difference if you had no legs. The breast (once past childbearing age) is just a useless flap of skin basically.


She knows shes not more knowledgeable than people qualified in that area. But it still doesnt make sense that they refuse to remove her breast...and the reason given is that it is 'unneccesary surgery'. However they would be more than happy to perform other 'unneccesary surgery' to rebuild the breast that has already been removed. Her view is that if she went ahead with this reconstruction that they are pushing her to have, come next year her other breast may need removed (as she HAS been told this is a risk)...she might have to go through all of this again, and then she would be stuck with one plastic boob...and then eventually have to have another reconstruction again. And that even if it doesnt come back in the other one, having a reconstruction, with all the grafts involved, is still a massive operation compared to a simple removal. Surely if the removal is unnecessary, then rebuilding is also unnecessary...

Anyway, the point of this thread was about me trying to understand the consultants reason for lying, and wanting to know if anyone could see their point of view, so thanks for your input as I do understand it a little bit more now I still do disagree with them lying in the first place though.

It makes perfect sense to me why a surgeon would not remove a healthy part of body tissue: given that there is no real need, and that it further complicates and lengthens operation time / procedure / recovery time as well as any possibly psychological effects on the patient etc.

I guess there really isn't a 'one anwer' fits all to this.

I think the most important thing is that mum moves on and in a positive frame of mind - regardless of the hurdles she (and you all) have had to endure.