Seriously?!

I haven't made a decision yet (want to wait until after I get more info from the new geneticist) but have been leaning toward the mastectomy.

I thought I'd do it without reconstruction. And then I joined a Facebook group for women who didn't have reconstruction and now I'm not sure I can handle that. It was so hard to read and imagine myself in that boat that I had to stop reading.

But I still thought I'd have the mastectomy. Maybe just with reconstruction instead. Heck... I hear they can use your belly fat to reconstruct. "Tummy tuck and boob job paid for by insurance." Sounds like a good thing in the middle of hell.

But I just read this article. http://www.citynews.ca/2017/03/03/gta-woman-develops-breast-cancer-despite-double-mastectomy/

I know the prophylactic double mastectomy doesn't mean you'll never develop breast cancer. But it lowers your chances dramatically. But then you don't get extra checks; just the yearly mammogram. So what if breast cancer develops quickly in the year between mammograms?

So maybe, like the woman in the article says, the mammograms and MRIs alternating every six months are better because they can keep a closer eye on you. But then what if cancer develops quickly in that six months and it's harder to treat?

I'm in a lose-lose situation. And I hate it. I wish the "right" decision were easier to determine.