I'm not sure what you mean by this comment.  Surely the best way to get the message across that prophylactic mastectomies in women who have a very high genetic disposition to get breast cancer is a possible option, is to show that someone who has had the surgery can still look fantastic.

What possible good would it be for AJ or any other woman to 'show' her body after the mastectomy but before the reconstruction?  Surely this would put off any women who might be contemplating it (scars ain't pretty!)

I am not criticising her. The opposite - a very brave thing to do.

But we often hear about women who are devastated to lose breasts or who feel disfigured or unwhole or unwomanly or whatever. The only person I know to have had one of her breasts removed due to cancer was inconsolable until the reconstruction was done  (nearly a year later because she couldn't afford to do it privately). During that time she didn't leave the house. She wouldn't let her husband near her. She became severely depressed. She was a mess. Even now (3 years after the op) she still can't accept her 'look' because of extensive scarring. 

Perhaps if someone like Jolie showed other women what she looked like, what her husband and children had to see then perhaps more women might go "She's still beautiful. She still has the most beautiful man in the world in love with her. So maybe I shouldn't feel the way I do."

I likened it somewhat to Jamie Lee Curtis because she was held up an icon to the perfect body. When she had those shots published she showed women all around the world that actually she was more like the average 50year old on the street and she was pretty happy with her body. 

Likewise AJ is held up as an icon as one of the most beautiful woman in the world. After her surgery she immediately had her breasts reconstructed. Perhaps the message that sends is - "You can only be beautiful if you have perfect breasts."?

Good for her for sharing her experience and for taking the action she took as a preventative measure.  She has young kids and plans to enjoy life with them.

Under what circumstances wouldn't it have been an option?

For many women it isn't an option. Or at least not an immediate option. The cost is fairly prohibitive if you want to do it privately.

Or you can take your chances in the public system but you then have to wait and most likely will not get the plastic surgeon you would like.

That's how I understand it anyway. Tell me if I am wrong.

fannie - I understand medicare covers the op and the reconstruction.

But if you can't have it done same day, then you have to wait. My friend waited just over a year and then she couldn't get the surgeon she wanted. She blames this doctor for her scarring altho  I suspect all reconstructions have some scarring. I dunno.

Although she was was in private fund, the gap was enormous - off the top of my head it was close to $10,000. She couldn't afford that.

BTW - that figure was for the reconstruction only.

btw you forgot my L ..ha ha ha ..  

OMG! How funny! :^O