YorkieTalk.com Forums - Yorkshire Terrier Community - View Single Post

LoveMyLittleOne · 02-16-2013, 07:44 PM

When I adopted my yorkie in 2006 her breeder told me not to have her spayed. He emphasized that he'd lost several females to the procedure over the decades, and that the spray/neuter movement was propagandized for population control. He stressed that putting her through the procedure was unnecessary because mine would be a single-dog household where she would never be around the opposite sex. I remember looking at him sideways because I'd heard the mantra, "spay and neuter or you're an irresponsible buffoon" for as long as I could remember. I never had her spayed. She's now 7 years old and as healthy as can be.

Ever since then when I've taken her to the vet for a check-up or booster shot, I get lectured by the vet about how risky it is to leave her in-tact. And every time this happens I ask the vet for proof that having her spayed will prolong her life. Each time I ask my completely relevant and practical question, the vet looks at me like I'm crazy for not just taking their word for it. This always makes me incredibly suspicious. If it's so beneficial, why isn't there a list of studies and proof available in support of it? I understand the importance of pet population control, this isn't about that. That's a collective human failure and it breaks my heart to see so many homeless pets. But that doesn't apply to a single-furchild home where there's no chance in hades she would ever fall pregnant. She's with me 24/7 and has been for the past 7 years. I work from home and she's in my arms if we leave the house. If she were a large socialized dog roaming pet parks with me or "outside" even in a fenced in area at times, I would have her fixed as a precaution but that's not the case.

I have no problem with putting her under for dental cleanings, as the benefits of her having a healthy mouth far outweigh any risks or complications from the procedures, and she's on all of her preventatives. But I refuse to have her spayed because no one can provide me with solid evidence that it's the best thing for her, and the potential complications of surgery and post op healing are great.

The latest episode was last week, when I took her in for her rabies booster. Again I asked for specific studies in support of the surgery, and was met with a fear-mongering "she'll get a puss filled uterine sack." The vet was referencing pyometra, which I've come to learn only effects 1% of in-tact females. Once again, a lame excuse for slicing my only child open and risking the complications of surgery and post op healing.

I would have her spayed in a heartbeat if the veterinarian community had any sound, solid proof that it would prolong her life. But all I've been met with is a bunch of pushy vets saying I should spay my female because it's dangerous not to... that's how general and unscientific they are about it. Saying I should 'do it because it's dangerous not to' is the equivalent of saying I should wack my boobs off because not having a mastectomy will "most definitely" increase my risk for breast cancer. It's absurd.
Just show me the scientific proof that it will prolong her life and I'll gladly do it. No one can seem to do that. It's just a bunch of "because I said so's" and "well she could get cancers." She could also get hit by the next falling meteor or choke on a hairball. I just want some solid, sound scientific proof that it will prolong her life. Why is that so difficult for the veterinarian community to provide? It seems unnatural to me to have to remove an organ in a mammal in order for it to have a long life. We don't all have our appendix's removed at the age of 6 do we? Or our breasts, ovaries and testis? No, because that would be unnecessarily invasive.

02-16-2013, 07:44 PM	#1
LoveMyLittleOne YorkieTalk Newbie! Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: LA Posts: 2	Spaying Controversy When I adopted my yorkie in 2006 her breeder told me not to have her spayed. He emphasized that he'd lost several females to the procedure over the decades, and that the spray/neuter movement was propagandized for population control. He stressed that putting her through the procedure was unnecessary because mine would be a single-dog household where she would never be around the opposite sex. I remember looking at him sideways because I'd heard the mantra, "spay and neuter or you're an irresponsible buffoon" for as long as I could remember. I never had her spayed. She's now 7 years old and as healthy as can be. Ever since then when I've taken her to the vet for a check-up or booster shot, I get lectured by the vet about how risky it is to leave her in-tact. And every time this happens I ask the vet for proof that having her spayed will prolong her life. Each time I ask my completely relevant and practical question, the vet looks at me like I'm crazy for not just taking their word for it. This always makes me incredibly suspicious. If it's so beneficial, why isn't there a list of studies and proof available in support of it? I understand the importance of pet population control, this isn't about that. That's a collective human failure and it breaks my heart to see so many homeless pets. But that doesn't apply to a single-furchild home where there's no chance in hades she would ever fall pregnant. She's with me 24/7 and has been for the past 7 years. I work from home and she's in my arms if we leave the house. If she were a large socialized dog roaming pet parks with me or "outside" even in a fenced in area at times, I would have her fixed as a precaution but that's not the case. I have no problem with putting her under for dental cleanings, as the benefits of her having a healthy mouth far outweigh any risks or complications from the procedures, and she's on all of her preventatives. But I refuse to have her spayed because no one can provide me with solid evidence that it's the best thing for her, and the potential complications of surgery and post op healing are great. The latest episode was last week, when I took her in for her rabies booster. Again I asked for specific studies in support of the surgery, and was met with a fear-mongering "she'll get a puss filled uterine sack." The vet was referencing pyometra, which I've come to learn only effects 1% of in-tact females. Once again, a lame excuse for slicing my only child open and risking the complications of surgery and post op healing. I would have her spayed in a heartbeat if the veterinarian community had any sound, solid proof that it would prolong her life. But all I've been met with is a bunch of pushy vets saying I should spay my female because it's dangerous not to... that's how general and unscientific they are about it. Saying I should 'do it because it's dangerous not to' is the equivalent of saying I should wack my boobs off because not having a mastectomy will "most definitely" increase my risk for breast cancer. It's absurd. Just show me the scientific proof that it will prolong her life and I'll gladly do it. No one can seem to do that. It's just a bunch of "because I said so's" and "well she could get cancers." She could also get hit by the next falling meteor or choke on a hairball. I just want some solid, sound scientific proof that it will prolong her life. Why is that so difficult for the veterinarian community to provide? It seems unnatural to me to have to remove an organ in a mammal in order for it to have a long life. We don't all have our appendix's removed at the age of 6 do we? Or our breasts, ovaries and testis? No, because that would be unnecessarily invasive.