Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovetodream88  I just read a small article in Modern dog magazine that said neutered males are living 18% longer then non neutered males and spayed females are living 24% longer then non spayed females. Just thought I would share. |
In my opinion as a nurse, I would think that actually - the opposite would be true. The reason for this is bc hormones play an UNBELIEVABLY important part in the way our bodies function -- and we are essentially robbing our animals of important hormones. Stats taken out of context rarely are as good as they appear.
Remember, the real reason there is such a push for spaying/neutering is not really for the health of the animal, but more bc of over population. If health of the animal were paramount, we wouldn't see S/N as often as we do. And yes, while spaying female dogs can help avoid certain cancers, it's still not the real reason to spay -- unless you also believe that we human females should spay ourselves in order to avoid cancers...!!!??? It's the same concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impish Sorry but not so fast. Please post the article. And yes the statistics at first glance make it seem like it's a no brainer. But there are a lot of other factors to consider. It's really not so cut and dried: Snipped from here: Benefits and Risks of Neutering, An Evidence Update: Effects of Neutering on Longevity and Cause of Death in Dogs | The SkeptVet Blog "Several specific infectious diseases occurred with sufficient frequency to be analyzed individually. Sterilized dogs were at lower risk of death due to four of these five disease. However, these results are a bit more problematic than those concerning cancer risk. Unlike most cancers, the parasitic and infectious diseases listed are almost all completely preventable with proper vaccination or other preventative veterinary care. This raises the question of whether differences between sterilized and intact animals in these causes of death may be confounded by differences in the level of care they receive, in the socioeconomic status of their owners, in the time and place in which they lived, and many other variables not specifically addressed in this study. It is interesting that the same patterns in differences between cause of death in neutered and intact dogs were seen across many different breeds, each with their own specific risk pattern for particular diseases. Cancer, for example, appeared to be a more common cause of death in neutered compared to intact animals even in breeds with relatively low rates of cancer. This strengthens the idea that neutering is directly associated with the risk of such disease and also emphasizes the importance of considering the absolute, rather than relative risk, and the overall risk picture in any individual patient.
In a nutshell - Spayed and Neutered pets are more likely to die from cancer and have many more serious ailments. Intact animals die more from trauma and infection.
Now what are the reasons for this? Could be more dogs that are not fixed are out running free. That doesn't mean if you have a dog inside and cloistered it will be likely to have the same level of risks.
The study isn't definitive. The cases taken from a teaching hospital so not representative of the overall population.
Also please read this: Health Issues Linked to Spaying and Neutering Dogs
UC Davis is well regarded. It's not as cut and dried as a one line statistic.
Also WHEN you spay and neuter is starting to change. Educate yourself for your sake and your dogs, then make a decision.
If someone tells me my dog is more likely to die of cancer, if I neuter; or die from an infection that I can immunize against, if I don't, I might consider the latter. Just wanting to offer more information for thought. |
Thanks for digging into this. Now the stats make much more sense.