Hi,

I live in the UK. I am thirty-seven years old and married but will not be having children. Recently a lady at the pharmacy told me that by not having a child I was at a much higher risk of breast, ovarian and womb cancer and she handed me a leaflet about these cancers. In the leaflet it lists women at a higher risk of these cancers and women without children at a certain age was in the list but the leaflet itself did not state how high the risk was or any statistics. I am afraid of looking on the internet or asking at my doctors. Does anyone know anything about this? It isn't the first time someone has made this comment to me and when it happened again last week at the pharmacy I started to worry because of the way the woman said it to me.

Thanks.

There arev lies, damned lies and statistics.

I think it was unkind of this woman to make such statements.
it's not as if you can go out quickly and have children to try to prevent anything, is it??
I will never have children. But am I really provably any more at risk? I doubt it. Too many other factors to take into consideration.
Best to look at the family history and prevalence in your immediate loved ones. This is a far more reliable measure of likelihood.

Please be calm and rational.

Let's face it. If I was run over by a careless lorry driver today, I would be dying in perfect health! So silly to be frightened of what may never be! Relax!

Actually, I believe I've read that if you are on the BC pill, you are at a lower risk for ovarian cancer.

Anyway, having kids to try to prevent cancer in yourself (if that's even possible) would be a pretty rotten reason to have kids! (Not saying anyone here would do that, of course!) "Yes, honey, I had you to lower my risk of breast cancer." Wouldn't a kid love to know that's why they were brought into the world?

The best way to prevent cancer is to go to your yearly doctor visit on time each year. Or if you notice a lump or anything suspicious, go see your doctor right away. I know at least two women whose mothers (meaning they had kids!) died of cancer (one cervical, one breast). They had symptoms, but were scared to go to the doctor and find out what it was, so by the time they went the cancer was so advanced it couldn't be treated successfully. Very sad.

Cindy

Hi Lawren,

My Mom and sister are breast cancer survivors, and my sister (she's actually younger than me, 31) has also had several bouts with cervical cancer. It's definitely a concern of mine, especially because I have also not had children (my sister hasn't either, and she had bc at 29). But it's too late anyway, because they say the risk factor is if you haven't had a child by the age of 30. So even if I had one right now, I don't think it would help me in the risk category.

Children are permanent, and cancer, thank God, for the most part, is treatable. There is no cure for children, aside from not having them I can't see having kids, and doing something you don't want to do for 20 + years to somehow stave off cancer. I'm not saying you would do this, just thinking out loud. And I have also given this a lot of thought.

I've read statistics that parents are typically heavier than nonparents, because they eat out a lot, the stress, etc. So I would say that parents, carrying a lot of extra weight, and of questionable health, may be more susceptible to other illnesses. Weight gain, plus the daily stress of having kids could be enough to give anyone a heart attack, if you ask me.

I guess I am trying to say I wouldn't be overly concerned about this. There are risks and benefits to any choice we make in life. My Mom had breast cancer when we were all still in school. And I think the fact that she had young children while she had cancer stressed her out all the more. There was still work to be done around the house, and of course she was worried that maybe she wouldn't be around for her children. IMO, it would be a lot easier to deal with cancer if you didn't have the additional stress of children. We deal with things when they happen to us, and somehow we get through.

My Mom had bc at 38, and she will be 56 in June. She's doing fine. I hope my sister will be as successful in her recovery.

I meant to ask, is this woman a pharmacist, or doctor? Just curious. I think it was a little forward of her to give you this information. That would be like me giving a pamphlet on the risks of having children later in life to an older pregnant woman. Not much they can do about it, and I'm sure the information wouldn't be welcome.

My family was asking me about my reproductive choices this weekend, and I said something about us being too old. I'm 35, and my DH2B is going to be 40 this year. My cousin is 39 and her husband is 46, and I know they've been trying for another child. She was making comparisons to herself, and I bit my tongue. I know that she has had two miscarriages recently. I am really concerned for her and a potential baby's safety.

Hi Lawren,
I lost my dad to cancer. So my take on this is that cancer is very much about accumulated lifestyle, mental stress issues. Or...in my dad's case, random luck.

If I were you, I would not let the woman's words affect me so much. Statistics are OK for reference but they are averages and majority. We each have a special life to live. Many people have cancer despite having children. So having children is a stupid way to solve this issue...if it's a valid issue at all!

In the end, our bodies need an excuse to die. Some people even die in their sleep! So while we are healthy and living, let's live our best - eat well..take care of ourselves. The rest, we can just say "F*ck it!". No point spending your healthy times on worrying about what that woman said.

You define the quality of your life. I would choose quality of life over quantity any given day of the week.

Definitely there are plenty of other health risks that you gain by having children. What if you hemorrhage? What if you get split? What happens if your baby ends up with some weird disease?

So I wouldn't worry about it.

But this does remind me ... we saw a very conservative mini-van the other day. It had all kinds of crazy bumper stickers and stuff. The one I couldn't believe I saw was a pink ribbon with the following written on it:

The Pill = Breast Cancer

When I had a mammogram, I asked the Dr. about the higher risk for breast cancer when not having kids. She said there is a higher risk, but it is very small and not to worry about it. Just get your regular mammograms and stay healthy.

We are much more likely get in auto accident from driving. Think about it. That is the most dangerous thing we do everyday.

I question whether the info in that pamphlet is even conclusive, especially if it is being handed to you as a scare tactic. Even if there is some truth to the stats, I wonder why she zeroed in on that instead of handing you literature about stress, smoking, drinking, sun exposure, and salted cured meats?! If you don't have kids and/or don't intend to have them, how is that "info" helpful in any way? As Ingilbert sez, there are tons of medical problems you can get by having kids.

My brother and my FIL are both cancer survivors, and I know several women who have had biological kids who have had cancer. I am with MettaMaid, knowledge is power. If you can learn more about the risk factors in context, this will be a lot less scary. There is an article on bellaonline that might give a little perspective: BellaOnline ALERT: Raw URLs are not allowed in these forums for security reasons. Please use UBB code. If you don't know how to do UBB code just post here for help - we will help out!

I actually heard a similar version of statistics relating kids and breast cancer. But not only that, the stats I heard included Jewish women who have kids before the age of 23, 25, 30, and after 35. With each successive age category the risk of developing breast cancer supposedly increases drastically (although I do not remember the numbers).

Frightening!

Another thing to remember about those sorts of statistics is that they're very relative. Say, completely hypothetically, the risk of breast cancer is 0.01% for a woman who's had a child and 0.02% for a woman who hasn't. The press is able to report "Women without kids have twice the risk of breast cancer!" and get everyone freaked out, but really, is that percentage anything to worry much about?

I don't believe there's any merit at all to 'womb' / cervical cancer and not giving birth. The cause of cervical cancer has been linked strongly to the HPV virus. It's transmitted sexually (like children!), but isn't prevented by having them. Regular paps normally detect it in time to take care of it quickly and easily.

I've also read that the pill is a great preventative for ovarian cancer in the same way pregnancy is -- one doesn't ovulate as frequently or at all.

Either way, I've got to agree -- cancer is curable, kids aren't.

Hi,

Thank you to everyone who took the time to answer my question.
I have read everything you have said carefully and found your answers really reassuring and I feel more informed and not as frightened about what was said to me. I also read the article on bellaonline.
The woman who spoke to me at the pharmacy was not a doctor but a pharmacist. She actually began by asking my age and then asked if I had any children, this was while I was picking up a prescription from her. Then when I answered she said did I know I was in the high risk factor for all three cancers, breast, ovarian and womb cancer. She told me she thought having children at a young age would have been a good way to reduce these risks without knowing anything about me but basic facts, then asked if I could not have a child or if it was a choice. At that point I walked out. In the UK the pharmacies have changed and take more of an interest in the health of their customers. They actually ask me and my husband to join their health club many times which we have declined. These information booklets and questions are a new initiative by them, this is something that never happened in the past at the pharmacy.
Since I turned thirty-five years old I have had many negative comments from people about the fact I have not had a child including my own doctor. He told me twelve months ago that if I didn't have a child I would be stigmatized in society and would find myself an outcast.
I probably would have handled the situation at the pharmacy better if I had known she was going to spring these questions on me. I have an illness called fibromyalgia which causes me pain and tiredness and I think because of this I am not the greatest at handling stressful situations although I do try.
Thanks again to everyone.

You have fibro, and people think that having a child will cure whatever ails you? Ye gods, welcome to the dark ages!

Some people really do need a slap upside the head...

This is harassment. I would have been so mad if someone quizzed me like that. NONE of her business, period! What were you supposed to do, go into your entire dating history with her... Well, you see, I was dating someone in my 20s, but he really wasn't Dad material. There are any number of reasons why a woman wouldn't have children. My sister would LOVE to have children, but hasn't met anyone decent. These are the same people that would judge us if we married a loser and had children with them, or if we weren't good parents. I would rather be judged for not having kids. Sigh. At least I can retain my life as I know it.

I cannot believe your doctor said that either! You must live in a really conservative community? But my gyn made some negative comments to me recently, too. I really like her in general, and she's pretty hip. I can't imagine I am the only person she sees that doesn't want kids. People are so stuck in the past. Good for you for sticking your ground and not giving in to the pressure. I'm sure you will be much happier living your life the way you want. I'm glad we were able to help in some way.

Wow lawren, that is really awful that he said that. I'm so sorry. I just can't believe people say things like that, but then they say it to me too, so I understand how you feel.

I also have some chronic health issues that become more of an issue if I'm under stress. It's part of the reason I have not had children.

It's irresponsible of people to pressure women to have children. If the mother is not in good health, life will be hard for her kids, bottom line. If people love children so much, why would they want to condemn them to a life with a mother who has health problems, and especially one who doesn't want to be rearing children that much in the first place. We know how it would be beforehand, and people have the gall to question that? That is so wrong.

Good luck dealing with the jerks. Just think�they don't have to wait around till they're old to become social outcasts�they already are! I wouldn't want to hang around people who say that, and I certainly wouldn't want to do business with them.

There's more and more of us making this choice all the time, and they can just get over it.

At my most recent physical my pcp asked if my husband and I were planning on starting a family. I said that we weren't, and she didn't ask why or anything, she simply accepted my answer and I wasn't forced to defend myself. I really appreciated that. I appreciated it enough to not tell her that my husband and I are a family and she should be careful not to imply that one must have kids in order to be a family!

I had an appointment today with a surgeon about a breat lump. (Just a cyst - no surgery - yay!) Anyway, she did say that I had some risk factors for breast cancer, and one of them was that I hadn't had a pregnancy. She said that the chances go up if a woman hasn't had a "complete" pregnancy before the age of 30. (It did occur to me afterward that I should have asked her what that increased risk was, percentage wise, compared to normal risk.) I know many women in their 20s have kids, but so many women seem to wait until their 30s that it would appear that many, many women, not just those who are CF, would also have this risk factor.

That's cool. The "why" question bugs me, too. It's not bad enough to get the "are you having kids" question. But then to follow up with why? The next time someone asks me that, I am going to ask them how many hours they have. Because, for me, it has literally been like a 20 year process, figuring out the many reasons I don't want to be a parent. I know they tell us to prepare an elevator speech, and it's a good idea, but it's not something you can boil down. Most of us have put tons of thought into our decision.

We have a really great massage therapist, and one night it came up that she doesn't want kids, and I always thought she did. So we bonded over that. The next time we met, it came up again, and she said something about "not being able to have kids." And I said, really? And she said she thought she told us previously that she has cystic fibrosis, and can't have kids. We were totally blown away. She said she genuinely doesn't want them either. You just never know why someone might not have kids, and it's so uncool for people to ask us about it constantly.

I talked about this on another post. I too have been told this by a nurse in the past. It is just statistics. Just because something is shown to be statistically related, doesn't mean it is causal. It is like saying that more people with red cars die in crashes...is it the red car that is causing the death or are red car owners more likely to speed and drive recklessly? See the difference? It is not direct causation. Anyway, I don't think this is any good reason to have a child...as a health preventative, statistics or not.

I mean, does your family have any history of these cancers? That is truly significant and can be directly linked via genetics. I personally have a family history of ovarian cancer. I already had my uterus and ovaries removed and I'm awaiting the results of my genetic BRAC test. I would never have considered pregnancy based on those statistical scare tactics...only on real tangible family history and genetic assessment.

If you do have a family history, talk to a doctor...get a referral to an ob/gyn oncologist. Don't fret over the pamphlet.

Oh, they have also shown that using the Pill for like 5 or more years helps prevent such cancers. So, put that in the hopper too.

Get a new doctor if you can. How awful. Rude comments aren't just an American thing!

I was diagnosed with arthritis recently and have been told that I have fibromyalgia too. It does help to deflect some of the comments if you say you have a chronic condition which makes it "difficult" to have children. But you shouldn't have to make any excuse at all. We have the right to live our lives how we want and everyone else can sod off. Ha ha!

Take care!

Excellent point. The latest example of this to anger me is the whole thing about how kids that have gone to preschool are less prone to drop out of high school, turn to crime, etc, so they're trying to get more people to send their kids to preschool.

Now I agree with this in principle (I think preschool is a good thing), but nowhere does this *correlation* suggest *causation*. I suspect that families with more stability, income, access to different childcare choices, etc being more likely to *send* their kids to preschool. So it might be more about those other socioeconomic factors than preschool itself!

Sorry, ran off on a tangent there, but you see what I mean about statistics?

Hi all -- my first post here. As a doctor (though still in training I'm appalled at that pharmacist's advice. It is true that a lot of those gynecological cancers are fed by estrogen, which is produced by the ovaries. When a woman is menstruating regularly and has never been pregnant, she is exposed to a continuous level of hormones that women who are pregnant do not have. And the ovaries work overtime, making them more at risk for cancerous mutations. So we who do not spend our teens, twenties and early thirties pregnant are at higher risk of ovarian cancer and *some* kinds of breast cancer. Using oral contraceptives simulate the hormonal state of pregnancy as well as suppressing ovulation, so they do lower the risk of ovarian cancer if taken over a number of years. There is *no* association between uterine cancer and never having been pregnant -- the strongest lifestyle association with uterine cancer is obesity, and with cervical cancer it is the HPV virus and multiple sexual partners, etc.

Should a woman decide to get pregnant to make her 1% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer decrease to .75%? I think that overall, the risks of being pregnant and bearing children, as well as the stresses of childrearing must at least equal the increased risk of ovarian cancer, which is quite low in prevalence.

Sorry to get on a soapbox -- I couldn't resist! Nice to meet everyone and to have this board.

Julie