It seems to me there was more imagination than logic in this decision. It will set an example many people will follow with dubious benefit except to those who get paid.
Celebrities are pushed and prodded for their publicity value. You and I don’t know everything that was presented to Angelina Jolie as fact versus speculation and what other sources of information if any she considered.
Some people choose to put their life and health in someone else’s hands. They’re the expert.
I have always puzzled over how you can be too dumb to decide your medical choices and smart enough to choose who can?
We don’t know why she made her choices.
The only thing we can do is decide for ourselves based on what we know, whether or not, the theory of protective organ removal is an example we or others should follow or avoid.
The following article looks at how many theories had to be considered as facts for this organ removal decision to make much sense.
And where did the theoretical statistics come from that were told to Jolie?
Beware of Organ Removal for “Cancer Prevention”: Jolie’s Precautionary Tale
Angelina Jolie has just announced she has removed her ovaries and fallopian tubes to “prevent cancer,” following her decision last year to remove her breasts for the same reason. Is this medically justified, sane behavior?
With Angelina Jolie’s recent announcement that she had her ovaries and fallopian tubes removed because of both a BRCA ‘gene defect’ and a history of breast and ovarian cancer in her family, the idea that genes play a dominant role in determining biological destiny and cancer risk is proliferating in the mainstream media and popular consciousness uncontrollably like a cancer.
Back in 2014, in a New York Times Op-Ed titled, “My Medical Choice,” Angelina Jolie explained why she chose to have a double mastectomy, recounting what her doctors told her was the extreme health risk associated with her BRCA1 ‘gene mutation’:
“My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each.”
At first glance, these estimates are frightening.
Who, given such a bleak prognosis, wouldn’t also feel compelled towards aggressive intervention when doing nothing (watchful waiting) would result in a 50% increased risk of developing the most lethal gynecological cancer known to exist. 
But where do these numbers come from? How did her caretakers arrive with any certainty at this figure?
The reality is that the average woman’s lifetime risk of ovarian cancer is exceedingly small, with the overall risk of developing ovarian cancer by 65 years of age being 0.8 percent and the lifetime risk 1.8 percent.
For those with a first-degree relative developing ovarian cancer, as is the case for Jolie, the risk estimates show increases to 4.4 and 9.4 percent, respectively.