putting things in focus
At Andrea Seigel’s encouragement, I signed up for the Gilda Radner BRCA study program at Cedars-Sinai.* Might as well put my freaky genes
to use. My first duty, after supplying a vial of blood, was to participate in a
focus group about Gilda’s new online family history questionnaire. They
instructed us we didn’t need to enter real data. I was a little baffled—you
don’t need a genetic mutation to beta-test a website—but whatever. They had me at
“light dinner will be provided.”
I plugged in made-up relatives and causes of death for the
characters in my YA novel. No one in the novel has cancer, but I decided that
Kate has some Ashkenazi Jewish blood on her mom’s side, and I sprinkled the
family tree with BRCA. I gave breast cancer to one of Kate’s cousins, but I let
her live. I thought that seemed like a healthy story to tell myself.
Gilda Radner and a well dressed, cancer-preventing friend. |
Not to say that the older, slightly frumpy cancer survivors
at Cedars didn’t have the intrinsic beauty of people who’ve seen things and
lived to tell about it, but if I were trying to sell issues of BRCA Monthly** I know which group I’d
put on the cover.
I got there late—because Cedars is the hardest place to get
in the whole city, and I would have been much more inconvenienced by cancer if
I’d been treated there—and when I walked in, the public health lady running the
group was asking about the usability of the page where you enter your family
members.
“Well,” said a woman with a European accent, “for so many
relatives I had to enter ‘1944’ as the year of death because of the Holocaust.
1944, 1944, 1944 across the board.”
Check the box that
says “not BRCA-tested,” I said in my head.
She went on: “In my family, everyone always said, ‘The men
live long lives, but the women don’t.’ We didn’t know yet, but we knew.”
A woman wearing so little makeup it looked, somehow, like
she had negative makeup, said, “My
mother knew breast cancer ran in her family, so she got mammograms religiously,
and then boom, she dies of ovarian cancer.” She threw her hands up.
The group leader said kindly, “Maybe when people list a date
of death before the nineties, the system can default to a ‘no test available’
option. Okay, now, what about the part where it plugs all your data into a
family tree that you can view?”
The woman next to me said, “Ach, I just look at it and see
so many estrangements. So painful.”
The European woman put her hand up. “Trust me, better that
they’re alive and estranged than killed by Hitler.”
The group leader asked if we had questions. Crunchy hair
woman spoke up. “I’m asking this for my daughter, who’s twenty-three. Have any
lives been saved by this testing yet? She just had her prophylactic mastectomy
last year, and her thoughts about all this have really changed. She wouldn’t do
it again. Not even with me getting cancer twice.”
She shook her head in the way of parents wrestling with
their children’s immortality.
I looked around the room and wondered who had fake boobs. It
was hard to tell. Which is a good thing, I guess. I noticed I was the only one
who’d helped myself to a soda and wondered if they knew something about soda
causing cancer that I didn’t.
Mostly, I was finding the evening darkly comic and
congratulating myself on my ability to stay focused. Website, people, website!
Then the one black woman in the group (who somehow still
seemed very Jewish; maybe she was) started talking about her family tree.
“When I look at it laid out, with the slashes across those
who’ve died, I can see the story that my family tree tells. The ones who were educated
and had access to good medical care got cancer and lived, and the ones in a
lower SES died.”
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. |
And although I think Hollywood should make an Armenian
Genocide movie and a Khmer Rouge movie before it makes another Holocaust movie,
of course it isn’t over. Of course
the stories of families separated and annihilated—by war or disease or
both—bubble up and tumble out of the systems designed to contain them.
Like a lot of people living at this moment in history, I’m
grateful to science and data and statistics, and also overwhelmed by them. At
work, we’re always talking about improving
data strength, and we need to—but it’s just as important to remember that
the robots work for us, not vice versa. The website exists to tell our stories
and try to find happier endings; we aren’t here to squeeze ourselves into its
boxes.
“So it can be kind of emotional,” said the group leader. “We
want this to be a tool for families, to help them have those hard
conversations. Do you think we should put some kind of disclaimer—”
She didn’t use the phrase “trigger warning,” but that was
what she was getting at. I spoke up against it. Shit sucks because it sucks,
and knowing five seconds in advance that it’s going to suck doesn’t really
help. I didn’t say it in those exact words.
She continued, “It can be really hard, when one sister is
BRCA positive and one isn’t.”
Everyone in the room murmured knowingly.
*Not because I’m so adamant about saving others from my
horrible fate, a notion that feels kind of insulting. It’s not that bad being me. Also I’m selfish.
Recently I donated money to the National Breast Cancer Coalition
because they put a deadline on breast cancer that, if successful, will save me, not women like me. When I want to do
something nice in the world, it’s usually completely unrelated to cancer, or
it’s much more one-on-one, like being the email buddy of someone newly
diagnosed.
**Not an actual magazine. Or maybe it is.
Comments