Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 89–103 | Cite as

Our genes, our selves: hereditary breast cancer and biological citizenship in Norway

  • Kari Nyheim SolbrækkeEmail author
  • Håvard Søiland
  • Kirsten Lode
  • Birgitta Haga Gripsrud
Scientifc Contribution


In this paper we explore the rise of ‘the breast cancer gene’ as a field of medical, cultural and personal knowledge. We address its significance in the Norwegian public health care system in relation to so-called biological citizenship in this particular national context. One of our main findings is that, despite its claims as a measure for health and disease prevention, gaining access to medical knowledge of BRCA 1/2 breast cancer gene mutations can also produce severe instability in the individuals and families affected. That is, although gene testing provides modern subjects with an opportunity to foresee their biological destiny and thereby become patients in waiting, it undoubtedly also comes with difficult existential dilemmas and choices, with implications that resonate beyond the individual and into different family and love relations. By elaborating on this finding we address the question of whether the empowerment slogan, which continues to be advocated through various health, BRCA and breast cancer discourses, reinforces a naïve or an idealized notion of the actively responsible patient: resourceful enough to seek out medical expertise and gain sufficient knowledge, on which to base informed decisions, thereby reducing the future risk of developing disease. In contrast to this ideal, our Norwegian informants tell a different story, in which there is no apparent heroic mastery of genetic fates, but rather a pragmatic attitude to dealing with a dire situation over which they have little control, despite having complied with medical advice through national guidelines and follow-up procedures for BRCA 1/2 carriers. In conclusion we claim that the sense of safety that gene testing and its associated medical solutions allegedly promise to provide proved illusory. Although BRCA-testing offers the potential for protection from adverse DNA-heritage, administered through possibilities for self-monitoring and self-management of the body, the feeling of ‘being in good health’ has hardly been reinforced by the emergence of gene technology.


Biological citizenship Genetic testing Hereditary breast cancer Subjectivity Gender Norway 



We wish to thank the three women who contributed their illness stories to the ‘I am not the same’-study. Stavanger Breast Cancer Research Group at Stavanger University Hospital (SUS) approved use of data from the study above. Funding for this research was partly provided by Folke Hermanson Cancer Research Foundation and Inge Steensland Foundation, Stavanger, Norway. We are grateful for the assistance of senior Consultant/researcher Anne Irene Hagen at St.Olav’s Hospital in identifying the year that predictive BRCA gene testing commenced in Norway, and Hildegunn Høberg-Vetti at Haukeland University Hospital for up-to-date information about hereditary breast cancer prevalence in Norway. We also wish to thank Head of Section at the Department at Breast and Endocrine Surgery at SUS, Tone Hoel Lende, MD, for her contributions on the clinical context for BRCA councelling and treatment during an early discussion of our topic in 2015. Pål Krøger, MD, Head of the Department of Plastic Surgery at SUS, provided reflections on clinical experience with immidiate breast reconstruction.


  1. Boston Health Book Collective. 1971. Our bodies ourselves. Boston: Boston Women’s Health Book Collective.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of taste. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Cancer Registry of Norway. 2014. Cancer in Norway 2013: Cancer incidence, mortality, survival and prevalence in Norway. Oslo: Cancer Registry of Norway.Google Scholar
  4. Carel, H. 2013. Illness. Durham: ACUMEN.Google Scholar
  5. Chen, S., and G. Parmigiani. 2007. Meta-analysis of BRCA1 and BRCA2 penetrance. Journal of Clinical Oncology 25(11): 1329–1333. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2006.09.1066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke, A.E., L. Mamo, J.R. Fosket, J.R. Fishman, and J.K. Shim. 2010. Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health and illness in the U.S. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Dekeuwer, C., and S. Bateman. 2013. Much more than a gene: Hereditary breast and ovarian cancer, reproductive choices and family life. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 16(2): 231–244. doi: 10.1007/s11019-011-9361-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DeShazer, C. 2013. Mammographies: The cultural discourses of breast cancer narratives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dommerud, T., and J. Westerveld. 2014. Valgte å fjerne brystene, livmor og eggstokkene. Assessed 7 Feb 2015.
  10. Dreifus. 2015. New York Times. 2015. February 9th. A never-ending genetic quest: Mary-Claire King’s pioneering gene work, from breast cancer to human rights.Google Scholar
  11. Ehn, B., J. Fykman, and O. Löfgren. 1993. Försvenskningen av Sverige. Det nationellas förvandlingar. [The Swedification of Sweden: The transformation of national markers]. Stockholm: Natur og kultur.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, D.G., J. Wisely, T. Clancy, F. Lalloo, M. Wilson, R. Johnson, J. Duncan, L. Barr, A. Gandhi, and A. Howell. 2015. Longer term effects of the Angelina Jolie effect: Increased risk-reducing mastectomy rates in BRCA carriers and other high-risk women. Breast Cancer Research 17: 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fingeret, M.C., S.W. Nipomnick, M.A. Crosby, and G.P. Reece. 2013. Developing a theoretical framework to illustrate associations among patient satisfaction, body image and quality of life for women undergoing breast reconstruction. Cancer Treatment Reviews 39(6): 673–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flat and Fabulous. 2016. Assessed 20 June.
  15. Frank, A.W. 2013. The wounded storyteller; body, illness and ethics, Second ed. Aufl. Chicago/London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gele, A.A., and I. Harslof. 2010. Types of social capital resources and self-rated health among the Norwegian adult population. International Journal for Equity in Health. doi: 10.1186/1475-9276-9-8.Google Scholar
  17. Greco, C. 2015. Shining a light on the grey zones of gender construction: Breast surgery in France and Italy. Journal of Gender Studies 24(6): 303–317. doi: 10.1080/09589236.2014.987653.Google Scholar
  18. Gripsrud, B. 2008. The cultural history of the breast. In A cultural encyclopedia of the body, ed. V. Pitts, 31–44. Westport: Greenwood Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Gripsrud, B.H., H. Soiland, and K. Lode. 2014. Ekspressiv skriving som egenterapeutisk verktøy ett år etter brystkreftdiagnosen – resultater fra en norsk pilostudie [Expressive writing as a self-therapeutic tool one year after breast cancer diagnosis - Results from a Norwegian pilotstudie]. Nordisk Tidsskrift for Helseforskning 2: 45–61.Google Scholar
  20. Gripsrud, B.H., K.J. Brassil, B. Summers, H. Søiland, S. Kronowitz, and K. Lode, 2015. Capturing the experience: reflections of women with breast cancer engaged in an expressive writing intervention. Cancer Nurs 39(4): E51–E60. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gullestad, M. 2002. Invisible fences: Egalitarianism, nationalism and racism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 8(1): 45–63. doi: 10.1111/1467-9655.00098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hagen, A.I., S. Tretli, L. Maehle, J. Apold, N. Veda, and P. Moller. 2009. Survival in Norwegian BRCA1 mutation carriers with breast cancer. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 7(1): 7. doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-7-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heemskerk-Gerritsen, B.A., M.B. Menke-Pluijmers, A. Jager, M.M. Tilanus-Linthorst, L.B. Koppert, I.M. Obdeijn, C.H. van Deurzen, J.M. Collee, C. Seynaeve, and M.J. Hooning. 2013. Substantial breast cancer risk reduction and potential survival benefit after bilateral mastectomy when compared with surveillance in healthy BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers: A prospective analysis. Annals of Oncology 24(8): 2029–2035. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Henderson, L., and J. Kitzinger. 1999. The human drama of genetics: “Hard” and “soft” media representations of inherited breast cancer. Sociology of Health & Illness 21: 560–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hoberg-Vetti, H., C. Bjorvatn, B.E. Fiane, T. Aas, K. Woie, H. Espelid, T. Rusken, et al. 2016. BRCA1/2 testing in newly diagnosed breast and ovarian cancer patients without prior genetic counselling: The DNA-BONus study. European Journal of Human Genetics 24(6): 881–888. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2015.196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Høberg-Vetti, H. 2015. Gentesting for arvelig brystkreft. Accessed 4 Aug.
  27. Jain, S.L. 2013. How cancer becomes us. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  28. Jakobsen, S. E. 2014. Angelina Jolie har fått norske kvinner til å genteste seg: Etter at Jolie fortalte at hun hadde fjernet begge brystene i 2013, strømmer fortsatt norske kvinner til sykehusene for å bli testet for arvelig brystkreft. [Angelina Jolie has made Norwegian women undergo genetic testing: After Jolie said she had removed both breasts in 2013, Norwegian women are still pouring into hospitals to be tested for inherited breast cancer]. Assessed 26 Aug.
  29. Jolie Pitt, A. 2015. March 24th Angelina Jolie Pitt: Diary of a surgery. New York Times. Assessed 24 May.
  30. Jolie Pitt, A. 2013. My medical choice. New York Times. Accessed 14 May.
  31. Juvet, L.K., and I.N. Norderhaug. 2008. Gentester for brystkreft og eggstokkreft. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services.Google Scholar
  32. Kitzinger, J. 2007. Framing and frame analysis. In Media studies key issues and debates, ed. E. Deveorux. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Klawiter, M. 2004. Breast cancer in two regimes: The impact of social movements on illness experience. Sociology of Health & Illness 26(6): 845–874. doi: 10.1111/j.0141-9889.2004.00421.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kleinman, A. 1988. The illness narratives. Suffering, healing & the human condition. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  35. Kristvik, E. 2012. The significance of presence. Personal experience and research among incurable cancer patients. Medische Antropologie 24(1): 149.Google Scholar
  36. Lagnado, L. 2015. The double mastectomy rebellionDefying doctors, more women with breast cancer choose double mastectomies. Retrieved from
  37. Larsen, M.J., M. Thomassen, A.M. Gerdes, and T.A. Kruse. 2014. Hereditary breast cancer: Clinical, pathological and molecular characteristics. Breast Cancer (Auckl) 8: 145–155. doi: 10.4137/BCBCR.S18715.Google Scholar
  38. Lindelöf, K.S. 2015. Lady Långdistans, Ladylufsen and Kvinnor Kan: Ethnological perspectives on the rise of women-only sports races in Sweden. Ethnologia Scandinavica 45: 140–157.Google Scholar
  39. Locock, L., S. Nettleton, S. Kirkpatrick, S. Ryan, and S. Ziebland. 2016. ‘I knew before I was told’: Breaches, cues and clues in the diagnostic assemblage. Social Science and Medicine 154: 85–92. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lostumbo, L., N.E. Carbine, and J. Wallace. 2010. Prophylactic mastectomy for the prevention of breast cancer. Cochrane Database Systematic Review. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002748.pub3.Google Scholar
  41. Lynch, H.T., E. Silva, C. Snyder, and J.F. Lynch. 2008. Hereditary breast cancer: Part I. Diagnosing hereditary breast cancer syndromes. Breast Journal 14(1): 3–13. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2007.00515.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Missinne, S., K. Neels, and P. Bracke. 2014. Reconsidering inequalities in preventive health care: An application of cultural health capital theory and the life-course perspective to the take-up of mammography screening. Sociology of Health & Illness 36(8): 1259–1275. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mukherjee, S. 2010. The emperor of all maladies: A biography of cancer. New York, NY: Scribner.Google Scholar
  44. Murphy, J.A., T.D. Milner, and J.M. O’Donoghue. 2013. Contralateral risk-reducing mastectomy in sporadic breast cancer. Lancet Oncology 14(7): e262–e269. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70047-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Møller, P., A.I. Hagen, J. Apold, L. Maehle, N. Clark, B. Fiane, K. Lovslett, E. Hovig, and A. Vabo. 2007. Genetic epidemiology of BRCA mutations—family history detects less than 50 % of the mutation carriers. European Journal of Cancer 43(11): 1713–1717. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2007.04.023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Møller, P., L. Maehle, L.F. Engebretsen, T. Ludvigsen, C. Jonsrud, J. Apold, A. Vabo, and N. Clark. 2010. High penetrances of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confirmed in a prospective series. Hereditary Cancer in Clinical Practice 8(1): 2. doi: 10.1186/1897-4287-8-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Møller, P., A. Stormorken, C. Jonsrud, M.M. Holmen, A.I. Hagen, N. Clark, A. Vabo, P. Sun, S.A. Narod, and L. Maehle. 2013. Survival of patients with BRCA1-associated breast cancer diagnosed in an MRI-based surveillance program. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 139(1): 155–161. doi: 10.1007/s10549-013-2540-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. National Breast Cancer Group. 2016. Nasjonalt handlingsprogram med retningslinjer for diagnostikk, behandling og oppfølging av pasienter med brystkreft. Oslo: Helsedirektoratet.Google Scholar
  49. National Cancer Institute. 2015. BRCA1 and BRCA2: cancer risks and genetic testing. Retrieved from
  50. Normannsvik, E. 2016. Brystkreft: Cancer mammae. Retrieved from Assessed 20 June.
  51. Norwegian Directorate of Health. 2008. Gentesting ved påvist bryst-eller eggstokkreft og ved vurdering av forebyggende fjerning av eggstokene. Oslo: Rapport fra en arbeidsgruppe nedsatt av Helsedirektoratet.Google Scholar
  52. Rose, N. 2001. The politics of life itself. Theory, Culture & Society 18(6): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rose, N. 2007. The politics of life itself: Biomedicine, power, and subjectivity in the twenty-first century. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sekse, R.J., M. Raheim, G. Blaka, and E. Gjengedal. 2012. Living through gynaecological cancer: Three typologies. Journal of Clinical Nursing 21(17–18): 2626–2635. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04028.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Skytte, A.B., D. Cruger, M. Gerster, A.V. Laenkholm, C. Lang, K. Brondum-Nielsen, M.K. Andersen, L. Sunde, S. Kolvraa, and A.M. Gerdes. 2011. Breast cancer after bilateral risk-reducing mastectomy. Clinical Genetics 79(5): 431–437. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-0004.2010.01604.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Slagstad, R. 1998. De nasjonale strateger. [National strategists]. Oslo: Pax Forlag AS.Google Scholar
  57. Solbrække, K.N., and G. Lorem. 2016. Breast-cancer-isation explored: social experiences of gynaecological cancer in a Norwegian context. Sociology of Health & Illness. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.12459.Google Scholar
  58. Solheim, J. 1998. Den åpne kroppen; om kjønnssymbolikk i moderne kultur. [The open body: On gender symbolisation in modern culture]. Oslo: Pax Forlag.Google Scholar
  59. Sontag, S. 1977. Illness as metaphor. New York: Review of Books.Google Scholar
  60. Svenaeus, F. 2013. Homo patologicus: Medicinska diagnoser i vår tid. Stockholm: Tankekraft.Google Scholar
  61. Theissen, S. 2015. The Angelina Jolie effect. On medicine. Retrieved from Assessed 25 Nov.
  62. Thue, K. 2015. Angelina Jolie-effekten påvirker norske kvinner. [The Angelina Jolie-effect influences Norwegian women]. Retrieved from Assessed 26 Aug.
  63. Timmermans, S., and M. Buchbinder. 2010. Patients-in-waiting. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 51(4): 408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Woodward, K. 2015. Psychosocial studies: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Yalom, M. 1998. A history of the breast. London: Pandura.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kari Nyheim Solbrække
    • 1
    Email author
  • Håvard Søiland
    • 2
    • 3
  • Kirsten Lode
    • 4
  • Birgitta Haga Gripsrud
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Health Sciences, Institute of Health and SocietyUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Breast and Endocrine SurgeryStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  3. 3.Department of Clinical ScienceUniversity of BergenBergenNorway
  4. 4.Department of ResearchStavanger University HospitalStavangerNorway
  5. 5.Department of Health StudiesUniversity of StavangerStavangerNorway

Personalised recommendations