Quote:
Originally Posted by SirTeddykins  These are both excellent posts because this is the REAL reason we should consider spaying and neutering. I think gemy (who will correct me if I'm wrong) is not in any way suggesting that pets should not be spayed or neutered. But, I think she is against the exaggeration of the health benefits which are touted (unscientifically most of the time) along with the procedure.
With every procedure, there is a risk/benefit analysis which must be made. This is true for humans and animals.
I would be extremely disappointed if anyone here was arguing on anything other than scientific merit because spaying and neutering should be advocated but for the RIGHT reasons. Misleading people into thinking there are health benefits is just wrong. And, for the record, I'm not suggesting that anyone on this forum is doing this.. but the institutions which use scare mongering for compliance have resulted in a lot of confusion amongst pet owners even though I'm sure this all began with good intent.
BUT, pretending that there is not an overpopulation problem which results in the deaths of many animals is equally wrong.
We keep talking about reputable sources and pointing to various institutions. But, my vet is a vet with a professional opinion and I do not believe his opinion is any less valid than another vets opinion which agrees or disagrees with his own. SO, the argument can't really be about who is reputable, who isn't, etc. It comes down to what we know and what we THINK we know and what we FEEL.
I FEEL it is wrong to let millions of dogs run around intact and overpopulating areas by doing what is natural and then being fatally punished for that. Therefore, I KNOW that the only way to prevent these needless deaths is to spay and neuter.
I KNOW it is wrong to let millions of pet owners believe that their dogs are going to live longer lives if they are spayed/neutered. There are so many other things which affect longevity. Genes AND environment come into play with cancer development.
This is why I say that this article is a useful guide ONLY. It cannot be construed as TRUTH. It doesn't matter that the incident rate of mammary tumors are so high within this SINGLE study. There are hundreds of confounding variables which may have led to this result. AND, although the research itself may not have been biased, the publication by the INSURANCE company has meant that there is NOT a balanced view. I have already said why this is having worked in insurance for ten years.
I think we are all adding to our body of knowledge here and I hope that everyone feels like they can agree to disagree or learn to grow or just ignore the info and do what they do...
I would be disappointed if there was any hidden agenda and I strongly feel that it is not the case. Again, this is an opportunity to learn from each other and I think we shouldn't fight it - we should embrace it. These are real issues which affect all of us, personally, and it would be a shame if the only result we had from discussing it was polarization.
I just want to add that no one is dismissing personal experience. Not from my point of view..
However, there are two sides. There is personal experience and there is scientific evidence. Sometimes, the two have to be separated in order to have a meaningful discussion which addresses each issue completely. That is not dismissive of either science or experience. It just ensures that the discussion remains balanced for both sides.
I hope you all have a great day today. I'm off to type up my research re: the brain/mind health benefits of exercise on rats and pups who have been addicted to ethanol. Fun times! |
What I am for is the judicious decision of WHEN or if ever in some cases to spay and neuter, more research to understand the impacts of s+n by breed type. We need to separate out the real and un-biased facts of promoting and giving our dogs the best chance of a healthy life, which would include when we s+n, when and how often to vaccinate, appropriate and timely vet care, exercise, feeding and training.
I was attracted to the Swedish study because of its sheer number of subjects. A very very large database of all breed types. And the fact that Sweden has a long history of not neutering and yet apparently no pet overpopulation problem......
It is as everything I post here a mere nugget of research that adds to the volumne of health information we have on dogs.
WE need to differentiate between societal goals no matter how altruistic and the health of dogs. If s+n at six months or so old is NOT in the best interest of this breed of dog, then when - if ever? Is there an alternative to s+N and the answer is yes of course there is. But the vet community needs to see the need to secure that training in order to offer real choices by breed to each individual pet owner.
.