Hacker News Reader

I assume a lot of women would want to wait until after they were done having children (particularly since ovaries would also be removed). It might be a harder choice between "mastectomy/oophorectomy and sterility" and "increased risk of cancer" for a 22 year old.

Also surprised the patents on BRCA didn't come up in this article, just the cost.

View on HN

On the other hand, given a genetic risk factor so potentially life threatening that it warrants having body parts preemptively removed, you might think twice before reproducing.

That would certainly be a great way to prevent genetic disorders for future generations, just disallow anyone with a pre-disposition from reproducing and/or being born.

That seems like an odd way to look at reproduction. Would you rather like 50 years and die of cancer or not have lived at all?

It's one thing to make a decision when there's medical evidence during the pregnancy that can be tested but when you're only talking about a statistical risk that something may or may not occur...

I was implying a personal decision to avoid becoming pregnant in the first place. I guess if you want to knowingly risk passing genes that cause terrible disease and suffering to all your descendants… yay freedom!? There are other options if having kids is important to you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com