Following two years of preventative screenings every three months — all of which came back negative — my stepfather was diagnosed with lung cancer in April 2009. He passed away 17 months later. Upon his diagnosis — stage IV metastatic lung carcinoma, non-small cell — he was considered terminally ill. Preventative measures did not catch his cancer until its last opportunity, and even then, he did not have the option to seek further measures that could have potentially inhibited his disease and prolonged his life.

Nevertheless, he remained — as I found predictable of him — proactive, optimistic and valiant. He spoke to local high schools, created a YouTube channel and shared his experiences with local newspapers. He emphasized the significance of engaging in healthy lifestyles and proactive behaviors that could decrease an individual’s risk of developing preventable diseases. Stopping smoking before individuals contemplate the desire, let alone before you learn you’re fighting the last stages of a disease to blame for it. He was promoting preventative care — to those already at risk for and even those who weren’t but could eventually — without having the entirety of the opportunity himself.

My grandmother’s story was moderately different: She was diagnosed with cancer in one breast but elected to have a double mastectomy regardless. Before she knew if there was any danger of developing cancer in her noncancerous breast, she knew she wouldn’t take the chance, and proactively and preventatively reacted to her situation. Whether the results indicated that both breasts contained cancerous cells, my grandmother’s chance on having a double mastectomy cured her entirely of breast cancer. Her cancer was fortunately caught early enough where she had preventative treatment options — one that saved her life. 

So when Angelina Jolie wrote a New York Times op-ed revealing she had undergone a voluntary double mastectomy, I commended her. A faulty BRCA1 gene succumbed Jolie to an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and she took preventative measures. She made the decision my stepfather didn’t have the chance to make and the decision my grandmother made to save her life.

My applause reached its forte following the backlash Jolie’s op-ed received within the past week: Bravery and heroism do not lie within an esteemed actress publicizing her “minor” and “unnecessary” procedure, the “luxury” in affording a $3,000 test somehow devalues her experience and her message could be “misinterpreted” as too preventative of a decision. 

That somehow Jolie’s prestige compensates for the anxiety in making the choice to be tested for a disease your familial history suggests you’re already susceptible to, for the possibility of discomfort and complications from double mastectomy and reconstructive surgeries, and for making a decision that retrospectively may have been unnecessary.

What does it take to look beyond Jolie’s fame and advantages and instead look at her message?

Jolie never insists that other women with faulty BRCA1 genes or who are at high risk for breast cancer undergo mastectomies, she doesn’t even demand that these women take action. What she does explain is that testing and subsequent action are possibilities for today’s women, that she hopes the least women get out of her thoughts is that they have options and most importantly, “to make your own informed choices.”

Ultimately, this is the testimony of a widely respected and unconventional woman — one that people will give attention to — who took a procedure of chance based off a test that indicated a chance. She saw the opportunity to take preventative measures and took action. She is a woman empowering other women to be proactive and to explore options while acknowledging the barriers women face in testing and treatment expenses. Barriers acknowledged by the Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act of 1998 which requires group health plans, insurance companies and health maintenance organizations to offer coverage for all stages of breast reconstruction if mastectomy coverage was also provided. Barriers acknowledged by an Affordable Care Act guideline which requires insurance policies to cover 22 preventative health services, including the BRCA test if recommended by a doctor. She may not have to live with the social stigmas of not having breasts following her reconstruction surgery, but she will have to come to terms with a decision that will be evident throughout her life.

Jolie challenges stereotypical femininity — one often associated with actresses and elitists. One that she emphasizes can be achievable even with her scars and without her natural breasts. The same actress who played the role of Lara Croft — the gorgeous aristocratic adventuress who saves the world only in skin-tight suits — in “Tomb Raider” and the role of Jane Smith — simultaneous Stepford Housewife and successful assassin-seductress — in “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” Jolie’s double mastectomy is a challenge to the femininity portrayed in her previous roles and is a direct reflection of her disregard toward the assumption that women need breasts to be considered beautiful. That health and well-being should not be compromised for aesthetics. And rather that the true beauty of women who undergo mastectomy procedures is in their valor and ambition, their actions and endeavors rather than their features.

Jolie’s intentions are for exposure — for the disease and the procedure — not for herself. She’s exposing the decision many women keep taboo: to have voluntary, preventative procedures. She is encouraging women to take charge of their bodies and to not be afraid in taking measures — mundane or extreme — to secure their futures. She is creating a dialogue amongst women who are considering options and even those who haven’t started. She is selfless in publicizing her personal experience as an example and a point of discussion.

Jolie had an 86 percent chance of developing breast cancer; she had a 13 percent chance of not. I can’t help but wonder, if the odds became fact, would we continue criticizing Jolie or would we praise her for being proactive?

Proactivity is what should have saved my stepfather’s life and what did save my grandmother’s. Proactivity is the measure Jolie took to secure her and her family’s future. Proactivity is the message Jolie promoted to millions of other women who seek the same security and assurance. But that’s just it, that’s all Jolie meant it to be — a tangible possibility, option and choice.

Adam is a senior in ACES. He can be reached at [email protected].