Elle Macpherson had cancer and refused chemo even though 32 doctors recommended it: pseudoscience, celebrities and patient autonomy

In February 2024, Elle Macpherson turned 60 and, taking advantage of the occasion, has just published his memoirsIn one of the episodes, the legendary Australian model tells in great detail the shock she suffered seven years ago when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.

A “shock” that has quickly spread through public opinion. First, because of the harshness of the story and, second, because of how it has become a very dangerous defense of pseudoscience.

What happened? In a recent promotional interview, Macpherson has explained which was “unexpected, confusing and discouraging.” However, the story quickly begins to get complicated as confess After visiting 32 specialists and seeing that they all unanimously recommended the same treatment (mastectomy with radiotherapy, chemotherapy, hormone therapy and breast reconstruction), she “opted for an intuitive, holistic and heart-guided approach.”

To do so, she did listen to “a naturopathic doctor, a holistic dentist, an osteopath, a chiropractor and two therapists.” She retreated for eight months to a house in Arizona and followed their advice, despite the disapproval of one of her children and her current partner. Currently, according to the model, the cancer “is in remission” and she feels well.

His words, as is normal, have sparked enormous controversy.

First of all, because their advice is dangerous. Cancer has accompanied living beings since almost the beginning. The first malignant cancer in a hominid is a 1.7 million year old osteosarcomaHowever, its social relevance has increased in recent centuries because, while we were learning to cure many other diseases, cancer eluded us.

But less and less. As explained by the European Medicines Agencywith current therapeutic technology, the survival rate for many types of tumors already exceeds 90%. In the last decade, mortality per 1,000 diagnoses has dropped by 14%.

That is to say, contemporary treatments work, they are the best therapeutic strategy we have and promoting pseudoscience is dangerous.

That doesn’t mean that everyone has to undergo the treatment.. Another of the medical ‘innovations’ of recent decades is the recognition of the patient autonomyThat is, the recognition that the patient has the right to decide what he wants to do with his body and his illness.

As Dr. Amira Alkourdi recalleddeputy director of the Virgen de las Nieves Maternity and Children’s Hospital in Granada, in Macpherson’s case there are many things we do not know: from the type of cancer to the treatments that were offered to him; we also know nothing about his social and personal reality at the time. On a bioethical level, of course he had the right to refuse treatment.

The problem, in reality, has never been that. The problem is that what he has done has consequences for others.

The “truth” of the survivors (and the famous ones). There is nothing essentially new in what has happened to Elle Macpherson. There is a very long “tradition” of survivors who have used the empathy they arouse to present themselves as “living proof” with which to attack modern oncology. Since Michael Gearin-Toshprofessor at Oxford University until Dr. Odile Fernandez passing through figures like Paul Donés.

In the case of “celebrities” like Donés or Macpherson herself, the problems are even greater because they have an enormous impact on public opinion and the social perception of health. It is not only that the opinion of George Clooney or Emma Watson has more impact than that of specialists in the field; it is that the decisions that celebrities make about their own lives have a very clear effect on decisions that people take about their own health problems.

When Angelina Jolie announced in an article in the New York Times who had undergone a double mastectomy to prevent cancer because they had a certain genetic mutation (BRCA1 and BRCA2) that was associated with cancer, the number of tests increased by 64%. And we are talking about many millions of dollars spent without any medical advice to advise it.

We don’t need any more deniers. What is clear is that we do not need to revive the anti-vaccine polemics about cancer. We need critical attitudes, stricter procedures, more innovative approaches: but we do not need ideological and narrow-minded denialism.

Image | And Music

At Xataka | Celebrities are not good for your health