Spay and Neuter: When and If ever?

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by dottiesyrky

Having had a dog with cataracts, I would not say that was a minor issue. Over two months of recovery from the surgery, post op effects, and many medications were very unpleasant for the dog.
Honestly, in your opinion would surgery for removal of a benign mammary tumor be worse? Thank you for your opinion. I really want to know.
I posted before you posted the video, perhaps my answer is there.

Cataract surgery is rough on the dogs and the owners. Compliance with all the eye drops is a must.

I would not compare the surgeries .. .. bottom line though is that cataract surgery is optional/elective. Mammary tumor removal is not. And, it is painful and almost completely avoidable. To put a pup at risk for no good reason is not sensible in my world. Spay surgery is something they really do recover quickly from.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

The more I think would people and I think the answer is definitely no there are women out there who get tested for the breast cancer gene now and if they have it they have a mastectomy even though there is a chance they might not get cancer. Since we can't do that with our dogs per say we should spay them before there first heat if possible because then the mammarys are not developed.

Yes, Taylor that is very true. Women that have that gene will also have their reproductive organs removed. The estrogen also causes breast cancer to spread in human......so they deal with it.


Let me add, you would be shock at how large humans let their breast tumors grow before looking for treatment. Even those that have had previous breast cancer. They will let things so out of denial.

[megansmomma]

Originally Posted by ladyjane

Cataract surgery is rough on the dogs and the owners. Compliance with all the eye drops is a must.

I would not compare the surgeries .. .. bottom line though is that cataract surgery is optional/elective. Mammary tumor removal is not. And, it is painful and almost completely avoidable. To put a pup at risk for no good reason is not sensible in my world. Spay surgery is something they really do recover quickly from.

The idea that the vet used towel clamps to pull the skin together to close the incision is just horrible! What an unnecessarily painful thing to put your dog through. As you know I work with breast cancer every day and any mastectomy is pretty gruesome. But to take so much tissue that towel clamps are used blows my mind!

[dottiesyrky]

Cataract surgery was not optional as I was told if we did not operate, my dog might get glaucoma ( very painful) and other complications. Had it been optional and had no effects other than sight loss I probably would not have put him through all that. Trust me we were very careful about the eye drops and the complex regimen and rechecks were a full time job. So although it seems a simple surgery it is not in dogs. I was asking if the suffering for a dog would be more or less for an average mammary surgery and I think they could be compared.
My point was the eyes and ears are not trivial health issues.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by megansmomma

This IS REALLY what happens when people do not Spay their pets. Every single day! The dog get's pregnant and they drop her off and her entire litter. This is reality.

Originally Posted by megansmomma

People are not responsible when it comes to ownership.


Addressing a Pet Overpopulation Tragedy

Each day 10,000 humans are born in the US and each day 70,000 puppies and kittens are born. That represents one human to 15 dogs/45 cats. As long as these birth rates exist, there will never be enough homes for all these animals.

One cat has five kittens three times a year – these kittens reach maturity, have kittens of their own. From one pairing, 420,000 cats can be born in seven years. One dog and her descendants can produce more than 60,000 dogs in six years.

The number of animals entering shelters each year is 8-12 million (HSUS estimate).
The number of cats and dogs euthanized in shelters across the US is between 5-9 million – 60% dogs, 70% cats (ASPCA estimate).


Five out of ten dogs and seven out ten cats in shelters are destroyed simply because there is no one to adopt them (ASPCA estimate).

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!

[SirTeddykins]

Sorry, also meant to comment on the research paper which has generated so much interested discourse here:


Within the conclusion is the following statement by the researchers:


Substantial between-breed variation in the incidence of pyometra and MTs was

demonstrated.



These differences indicate that genetic factors may predispose and/or protect for disease development. These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.


These results may be valuable for future genetic studies or breeding programs aimed to decrease the prevalence in high-risk breeds.


Therefore, we can take from this statement that genes are playing a factor in certain breeds risk for developing these two types of cancers i.e. breed standards/breeders of purebred dogs are not taking this risk into consideration. (We have to assume that these dogs mentioned are purebred. I have seen some dogs which people claim are purebred which are NOT yet they are registered as a definite breed for insurance purposes. This raises another interesting issue in this research paper because it was assumed that owners info re: their dogs were accurate on the basis of insurance. I think we all know that just because people THINK their dogs are certain breeds - it isn't always the case).


The authors do NOT state that spaying females will PREVENT these tumors. However, from what I know about estrogen production, there is no doubt in my mind that spaying would dramatically REDUCE the chances of mammary tumors for breeds which are genetically predisposed.


However, they do state in the discussion section:


However, recently the protective effects by spaying on MT development have been questioned (Beauvais et al. 2012). In the present study, high incidences (up to 73%) of pyometra and MTs were demonstrated in some giant and large breeds of which are commonly affected by post spaying urinary incontinence (Thrusfield et al. 1998). Since the pros and cons of elective spaying will vary by breed, knowledge of breed-variations will be clinically useful in the decision process for each dog.


This is an important point to make because it suggests that the evidence that spaying CONCLUSIVELY protects against mammary tumors just isn't there... AND, it suggests that CLINICAL (vet) discussions are had prior to the surgery to consider the efficacy by BREED. Sadly, the only information contained here is re: larger breeds so more info would be needed re: YT's before we could comment on that aspect. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions either way on the basis of this papers result alone.






















Also, the authors declare no bias but their research was part funded by the insurance company:


Acknowledgements


Agria Pet Insurance kindly allowed us to use their database. Financial


support was provided by Thure F. and Karin Forsbergs Research


Foundation, M. Forsgrens Research Foundation and Agria Insurance


and The Swedish Kennel Club Research Foundation.


Therefore, their statement re: no conflict of interest is not true. I am surprised that this has not been picked up but these things often get missed in research papers submitted on behalf of the funding body.


I hope my opinion has helped put some things into perspective. I am a harsh critic of research because my research is harshly criticized and rightly so...


That is the nature of the profession! This paper is USEFUL but it is not FLAWLESS. Much like me...maybe the other way around? Flawless but useless?

[Lovetodream88]

Oh come on! There is plenty of scientific proof your pet will live a longer healthier happy life if spayed or neutered especially if they are female. Not getting your female fixed is playing with disaster and possibly a death sentence if they get poymentra. That's not a joke and it is certainly not made up! People should be scared of that. My grandparents dog before I was born died of poymentra the vet told they before that hey if you don't get her fixed this is a real possibility of happening and they didn't listen and she ended up with it and they couldn't save her. My other grandparents had gotten a puppy and she became my grandpas dog and then when she was a year old he died so she became my grandmothers dog but 6 years later she died and was the only last link to my grandparents that my aunts and uncles had then a year later got poymentra got emergency surgery and it was extremely rough on her and she died a month later. There is a member on here who had multiple dogs get it and die from it. It is not as rare as people want to believe it is not a joke and it can happen and does! As well as mammary tumors whether they turn out to cancer or not it is painful and rough on the dog. These are very real reasons whether you chose to believe them or not!

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

Oh come on! There is plenty of scientific proof your pet will live a longer healthier happy life if spayed or neutered especially if they are female. Not getting your female fixed is playing with disaster and possibly a death sentence if they get poymentra. That's not a joke and it is certainly not made up! People should be scared of that. My grandparents dog before I was born died of poymentra the vet told they before that hey if you don't get her fixed this is a real possibility of happening and they didn't listen and she ended up with it and they couldn't save her. My other grandparents had gotten a puppy and she became my grandpas dog and then when she was a year old he died so she became my grandmothers dog but 6 years later she died and was the only last link to my grandparents that my aunts and uncles had then a year later got poymentra got emergency surgery and it was extremely rough on her and she died a month later. There is a member on here who had multiple dogs get it and die from it. It is not as rare as people want to believe it is not a joke and it can happen and does! As well as mammary tumors whether they turn out to cancer or not it is painful and rough on the dog. These are very real reasons whether you chose to believe them or not!

Hiya,


I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not?


But, just to clarify, no one is disputing your experiences or the existence of certain conditions. What is in question is to what extent, if any, does spaying prevent or reduce these conditions. Additionally, to what extent does the genetics of a certain breed, namely the YT, influence the manifestation of these conditions.


Whilst we can guess or have an idea or use experience as a guide, my point is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to answer these questions. The existing scientific evidence re: the pros and cons of spaying only raise more questions which is what good research does i.e. generate considerations which inform future research.


If your experience leads you to believe spaying is a preventative measure for these conditions, then please spay on these grounds, by all means. I don't see anyone suggesting that spaying causes harm.


Not everyone, though, has their decisions informed by previous experience or others experience. Some people use science to inform their decisions and for those who do, the debate is valid since existing evidence is currently conflicting.


This is why the researchers state that further research is needed and spaying should be discussed with the vet who makes a decision based on the breed and other criteria.


As always, I admire your passion.

[Lovetodream88]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

Hiya,


I'm not sure if this was directed at me or not?


But, just to clarify, no one is disputing your experiences or the existence of certain conditions. What is in question is to what extent, if any, does spaying prevent or reduce these conditions. Additionally, to what extent does the genetics of a certain breed, namely the YT, influence the manifestation of these conditions.


Whilst we can guess or have an idea or use experience as a guide, my point is that there is no conclusive scientific evidence to answer these questions. The existing scientific evidence re: the pros and cons of spaying only raise more questions which is what good research does i.e. generate considerations which inform future research.


If your experience leads you to believe spaying is a preventative measure for these conditions, then please spay on these grounds, by all means. I don't see anyone suggesting that spaying causes harm.


Not everyone, though, has their decisions informed by previous experience or others experience. Some people use science to inform their decisions and for those who do, the debate is valid since existing evidence is currently conflicting.


This is why the researchers state that further research is needed and spaying should be discussed with the vet who makes a decision based on the breed and other criteria.


As always, I admire your passion.

If there is not a uterus it can not fill with blood and mucus meaning no poymentra pretty scientific if you ask me. The mammarys of a dog spayed before there first heat have not have developed mammarys there for can't get mammary tumors again scientific. You don't need a scientist to tell you that you can't get cancer in something thing you don't have and that you can't get a deadly infection in something you don't have. Plenty of science to prove the pros and pretty much none to prove the cons.

[SirTeddykins]

Originally Posted by Lovetodream88

If there is not a uterus it can not fill with blood and mucus meaning no poymentra pretty scientific if you ask me. The mammarys of a dog spayed before there first heat have not have developed mammarys there for can't get mammary tumors again scientific. You don't need a scientist to tell you that you can't get cancer in something thing you don't have and that you can't get a deadly infection in something you don't have. Plenty of science to prove the pros and pretty much none to prove the cons.

I do understand what you're saying. However, the researchers have stated that there have been studies which show that MTs have been found in larger breeds post-spay, hence the conflict.


I get your logic, though!

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

I do understand what you're saying. However, the researchers have stated that there have been studies which show that MTs have been found in larger breeds post-spay, hence the conflict.


I get your logic, though!

All I can say is that perhaps some of the people who want to "educate" others about the risk of s/n should focus their efforts on a forum where you say these risks are are not an issue. As it is, yorkies ARE at risk of mammary tumors and pyometra.....so I see no reason for people to keep harping on this one study.

[ladyjane]

Originally Posted by SirTeddykins

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.

My personal experiences have pretty much solidified or bolstered what the scientiric evidence/study says. Early spays DO almost eliminate the possibility of mammary tumors in yorkies. The other health risks I have stated may or may not also be bolstered by those claims.

I didn't quote you on this, but I have to say that I have NEVER been told or guaranteed that my pups would live longer lives if they were altered. ALL I was told about when I asked were about the many risks...and yes oopsie pregnancies are one of those risks. Something else I have seen....yorkies and puppies dying due to breeding. The list of benefits is VERY long. As you suggested, there are two sides. ME, I am an advocate for yorkies and will always encourage s/n. There is no way I believe that the risks of s/n outweigh the risks of not s/n.

[pstinard]

*sigh* Never mind.

[ColesMommy01]

Originally Posted by pstinard

*sigh* Never mind.

*pats on back*
There will always be proponents and opponents for s/n. Those who advocate for it definitely have their reasons why they've come to their decisions while ppl who question the procedures or won't have it done on their pets definitely have their reasons for doing so as well. There are benefits to alter and also drawbacks. Same as for keeping pets intact. Spay and neuter is not a one size fits all for every owner, breed, or individual pet imo. I do find it interesting how s/n isn't pushed in so many countries and they also don't have a stray overpopulation issue. I enjoy reading these studies and hearing the interpretations. Now I'm off to catch up on RHOA and make ceviche.

[pstinard]

Originally Posted by ColesMommy01

*pats on back*
There will always be proponents and opponents for s/n. Those who advocate for it definitely have their reasons why they've come to their decisions while ppl who question the procedures or won't have it done on their pets definitely have their reasons for doing so as well. There are benefits to alter and also drawbacks. Same as for keeping pets intact. Spay and neuter is not a one size fits all for every owner, breed, or individual pet imo. I do find it interesting how s/n isn't pushed in so many countries and they also don't have a stray overpopulation issue. I enjoy reading these studies and hearing the interpretations. Now I'm off to catch up on RHOA and make ceviche.

Thank you . I love ceviche! Can I have some?