I would get tested. I would want to know. With BRCA prophylactic bilateral mastectomy and oophorectomy significantly reduces risk, and having lost a good friend to ovarian cancer (who incidentally was BRCA positive), compared to that, so long as you've had any children that you might want to have, the prophylactic surgery seems like a pretty good trade-off. I also have a friend who has Lynch syndrome which puts her at abnormally high risk for endometrial, breast, and colorectal cancer. She elected to have prophylactic hysterectomy/oophorectomy and bilateral mastectomy, and has said that if she could remove her intestinal tract she'd do that too (she lost her mom to an aggressive form of endometrial cancer and her father is being treated for colorectal cancer - and if you watch someone have to go through that, again, the prophylactic surgeries don't seem so bad).
So I agree that the choices are: get tested, be positive, decide how best to manage the risk. Get tested, be negative, not have to worry, and avoid unnecessary medical testing. Or don't get tested, worry a lot anyway, and maybe not manage risk in the same way that you would if you knew (and I mean *knew*) that you were at risk.
But I also know that people cope differently with things, so no-one has a right to have an opinion about how you cope with your stuff.
So I agree that the choices are: get tested, be positive, decide how best to manage the risk. Get tested, be negative, not have to worry, and avoid unnecessary medical testing. Or don't get tested, worry a lot anyway, and maybe not manage risk in the same way that you would if you knew (and I mean *knew*) that you were at risk.
But I also know that people cope differently with things, so no-one has a right to have an opinion about how you cope with your stuff.