Social Question

Aster's avatar

Should women take chemo drugs to prevent breast cancer even when they're healthy?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

12 Answers

Nullo's avatar

Unnecessary medication rarely ends well. :\

AmWiser's avatar

Personally I wouldn’t even if there were numerous studies that say women should.

crisw's avatar

Just in case anyone wants to read the real article that the linked hysteria above is aimed at, here it is. Note that, as is usual in such cases, what the fearmongers are saying is very different from what the article itself reports.

Aster's avatar

“So why, given the fear so many women feel about this particular disease, aren’t people flocking to the drugs?”
I wonder if SIDE EFFECTS might be part of their reasons? Yeah; let’s have women on drugs to POSSIBLY prevent bc. Insanity.
A close friend of mine was having “chemo” and the nurse got some on her arm. She screamed and ran to the sink. Then returned to inject it into my friend’s vein.
No, tragically, she left two fine sons.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Tamoxifen and Raloxifene are not chemo drugs so that’s one strike against that article because it’s kind of a big deal to call hormonal meds chemo meds. Anyway, the article has an agenda but who doesn’t these days? To answer your question, women do not need to take these drugs if they’re healthy, in my opinion. From what I know of tamoxifen, it increases the risk of other cancers while decreasing the risk of recurrence of breast cancer (that’s for women who already had to deal with breast cancer) so many patients are hesitant to take it. And raloxifene is targeted for women who have a very high risk of invasive breast cancer and I think should be considered for those patients because if you know what invasive breast cancer is, you’ll know why you’d do anything to decrease your chance of getting it (what people usually get is non-invasive breast cancer).

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Not a chance in hell. Doctors presribe dangerous drugs to patients WAY too much these days.

YoBob's avatar

You’re joking, right?

Why would any healthy person want to take a drug designed to attack a disease they do not have?

I can, of course, understand the concept of a vaccine. However, I am unclear if this is actually a vaccine.

crisw's avatar

“Why would any healthy person want to take a drug designed to attack a disease they do not have?”

Try reading the real article from the LA Times- it explains it well.

As for your question- people who visit countries where malaria is endemic typically take antimalarial drugs. These drugs can have some bad side effects, and the people taking them do not have malaria. But can you understand why they take them?

People who are about to undergo surgery are often given antibiotics, even though they do not have an infection. But can you understand why they take them?

Those are two examples.

Aster's avatar

@crisw, I am frankly shocked that you would so casually compare anti-cancer drugs to antibiotics.
Who talks about antib. causing cancer? What is the comparison? You are not even addressing the length of time they would be taken. Am I to believe that the LA Times was speaking of a week’s course of Tamoxifen?
Someone needs to go back to the drawing board. LOL !

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

I would not do that.

crisw's avatar


Did you actually read the LA Times article? All of it?

Aster's avatar

It was a shocker. I can’t believe these people!

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther