UNTIL recently, Angelina Jolie was known mostly for her global humanitarian work, her adoption of several children, the odd film, and her relationship with Brad Pitt.

Now she is, above all, the woman who had a double mastectomy and told the world about it through The New York Times. Over the past week, commentators have fallen over themselves to describe her as "incredibly brave", "selfless", "extraordinary", and "heroic" (actually, that last one was from Brad Pitt).

She is not the only woman ever to have had this procedure. In recent times, Liberty X star Michelle Heaton and Sharon Osbourne did so for the same reason – they carried a mutated gene which meant they stood a high probability of being afflicted with breast or ovarian cancer. But Jolie is the most famous person yet to have weighed up her chances and decided on mastectomy and reconstruction.

Of course, Jolie is brave: making any kind of choice in these matters requires courage. By increasing awareness, she is also doing a favour to the small proportion of women who might not realise they are carriers of the same mutated genes. "I choose not to keep my story private because there are many women who do not know that they might be living under the shadow of cancer," she writes. "It's my hope that they, too, will be able to get gene-tested, and that if they have a high risk they, too, will know they have strong options."

She could even be said, in her New York Times article, to be having a dig at the US health system for not making such testing accessible to all (in the UK it is available on the NHS). All this suggests a certain sense of public service. We can also feel sympathy: it's clear that her three-month ordeal of surgery was a physically and emotionally draining experience that was not without risk.

But the volume of praise being heaped on her suggests more is going on here than an actress raising awareness about a disease. We have a cultural fascination with breast cancer; much as we have a fascination with breasts. The disease, which afflicts around 12.5% of women, receives far more media attention and fundraising than do many bigger killers, like heart disease. This is not to deny that it is a horrible disease, which causes around 1000 deaths per year in Scotland. But, consider the news that emerged last Thursday that Jolie was also planning to have her ovaries removed. Had that been the prime story last week, I doubt the world would have gone so Jolie-crazed. That it was breasts made all the difference.

Meanwhile, among the few who have done anything other than praise Jolie, is Brendan O'Neill, writing in The Huffington Post, who pointed out that the public airing of one's medical complaints was "de rigeur" for the modern celebrity. "Flick through Hello! magazine or browse the Daily Mail website and you'll see article after article about celebs' cancer scares or battles with bipolar." A day later, the Daily Mail was denouncing him alongside the "trolls" who posted unkind messages about the star.

Some commentators have also suggested Jolie was risking her career by revealing she'd had the surgery. But given her industry doesn't really care whether someone's looks are natural or constructed, the risk seems small. We have become used to the cut-up, augmented or reconstructed breast. Few care how you came by your boobs, so long as they're the right size and shape.

We are told too about what a blow she has made against the clichés of femininity. But is it really doing women a huge favour, making them feel better about their own imperfect breasts, to see the ever-beautiful Jolie taking this in her stride? Her surgeon blogged that four days after surgery Jolie was "not only in good spirits with bountiful energy, but with two walls in her house covered with freshly assembled storyboards for the next project she is directing". And, according to one Daily Mail journalist, Jolie may be "contemplating doing a topless photoshoot showing her implants for charity, in order to proclaim her femininity all the louder".

The real question is: what has actually been achieved through Jolie's announcement? Without a doubt, most women in the media-connected world must now know about the BRCA1 gene. That is mostly a good thing – although, in fact, only 3-5% of diagnosed cancers are in those with the mutated BRCA genes. For anyone with several relatives who have had breast cancer under the age of 50, it is worth considering the test. Even then, surgery is not the only solution. Many healthcare professionals have been keen to emphasise that there are other options, including regular screening.

As well as raising awareness, coverage about Jolie's situation also stokes fear of the disease. What lies beneath the skin starts to seem dangerous. And we get more and more used to the notion that breasts, whether for cosmetic or health reasons, are designed to go under the knife.

The concern too is that seeing such a big star as Jolie successfully breeze through a double mastectomy might make others with lower risk, without these abnormal genes, think this is an option: those, for instance, who have a diagnosis of low-grade breast cancer. One American oncologist, Todd Tuttle, has expressed concern about the trend towards preventative mastectomies, adding that he believes there is "over-awareness" about breast cancer.

Indeed, surgery is not something to be engaged in lightly. Scottish actress Isobel Rutter, interviewed last week in the Evening Times, described the "mutilation" which resulted after she had reconstructive surgery following breast cancer and mastectomy, leaving her with no breasts at all. "If you're living with the BRCA1 gene, it's understandable that you might feel that it's a time bomb and you'll want to protect yourself so that your children are not left motherless," she said. "People reading about Angelina Jolie need to seek further information so that they're completely informed as to the pitfalls of reconstruction."

Back in 1987, when Nancy Reagan had a mastectomy, there was a trend towards women having such treatment rather than breast-conserving surgery. Will Jolie's story have a similar effect?

Perhaps, and for those with the troublesome gene, that may be a good thing. But seeing a celebrity make such a choice doesn't mean it is the answer for everyone. Only, perhaps, the answer for her.