Spay and Neuter facts you may not know...

[kalina82]

Originally Posted by SweetViolet

Fox terriers are not a large breed. At best, they are medium sized. My Foxy has hemangiosarcoma and if you are a vet tech, you know what she is going through, with three surgeries in 9 months. She almost died after the second one. She is an older dog...don't we all hope our puppies will live to be older dogs? I refuse to do something unnecessary to my puppy that puts her at higher risk for deadly diseases in her old age.

As far as osteo being linked to spay/neuter: there is a link between hormones and bone health. That is why post-menopausal women are at a higher risk of osteoporosis. I haven't researched the connection, but perhaps, being a veterinary professional, you could research the topic (in peer-reviewed journals, of course) and let us know what you find. Until then, I'm going to take the information seriously and not fall prey to the Pollyanna attitude that spay/neutering is a panacea that cures what ails our doggie friends and has no downside.

I'm very sorry your Foxy has cancer.

How do you know that spaying as a puppy lead to her getting hemangiosarcoma? Where is her hemangio?

[JoshieBoy]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

I hate to see articles such as this posted as fact. We have a huge overpopulation of unwanted dogs, and too many are being killed each year. One unsprayed dog can be responsible for as many as 600 offspring. I can't tell you how many "opps" threads, I've read on YT alone, about accidental pregnancies, people who for 5 years kept their little darlings protected, and then in a flash of an eye, she's pregnant. What so many of you are forgetting is that pregnancy itself is not without risks, and the number one cause of unneutered male dogs is death to due to injuries caused by car accidents.

The majority of studies say neutered and spayed dogs live healthier longer lives, don't let one bit of isolated research sway your opinion. Questions, you want to ask yourself, is who is doing this research, is it truly unbiased? Many breeding lobbyists are fighting the spaying laws in different states, and they think if they can get the average citizen in an uproar about spaying their dogs, then they will have a better chance at fighting this legislation. Responsible pet owners spay and neuter, don't be manipulated by the commercial breeders lobbyist propaganda.

Good Information

[QuickSilver]

From what I understand, the health benefits of s/n far outweigh the cons. That doesn't mean there are any cons. No kind of alteration can be 100% positive. Human birth control pills reduce breast cancer risk and increase cervical cancer risk (I might have flipped them, but it's good for one and bad for another). Of course, women take birth control pills primarily to prevent pregnancy. While it is a separate issue, there are staggering numbers of unwanted pets in this country. Your female will be ready to breed a few dozen times in her life. Your male will be ready all the time.

It would take a lot for me to ever refrain from fixing my animal. It is generally, though not always, much better for their health; it makes them better around people and other dogs; and it guarantees no accidental pregnancies.

I would say that 99% of people who work in veterinary medicine or animal rescue are in favor of spaying and neutering. These people are very knowledgable and they care about animals.

That being said, I would be heartbroken if my pet ended up on the unlucky side and contracted a disease made more likely by their alteration. My heart goes out to SweetViolet and Foxy.

[kalina82]

I've just been searching PubMed for articles relating to intact vs fixed dogs with hemangiosarcoma. what i've found so far isn't very promising. A lot of the articles that are somewhat related are from the 80s or earlier, so i don't find them very relivent. The other articles will give me stats for dogs studied, dogs with cancer and dogs without cancer. they also state that dogs that were fixed have a greater chance of developing hemangio. However, they do not state out of the total number of dogs studied, how many were fixed and how many were intact.

In veterinary medicine, their studies aren't very accurate because they can't get the proper number of cases to do a proper controlled study. Ideally, they need a few thousand dogs with equal numbers of males and females, and within those two groups they need equal numbers of intact and fixed dogs. Then they need 10-15 years to watch this group of dogs grow up and see which ones develop cancer and which ones don't. There are also environmental and other factors that can lead to cancer or add a bonus to factor that increases the rate of cancer. Its very hard.

I've read many articles throughout school and my career and you have to read them with a grain of salt because they are not the same as human studies and other more controlled studies.

[QuickSilver]

Also keep in mind that those with unaltered pets benefit from the fact that most pets are altered. Maybe you would be careful with your intact female, but suppose you have a male dog you take outside. Do you trust everyone else to be vigilant about when their females are in heat?

[bjh]

I have posted this link before that explains the long term effects of spaying and neutering:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

I just think everyone should be aware of the risks, especially of spaying and neutering pets at too young of an age. I think it is sad for our pets that they are subjected to procedures at too young an age that can possible increase their risks to other health issues just because we don't want to be responsible owners and assure they don't get bred.

To the OP, I am so sorry your baby has cancer. My heartfelt prays go out for you and your baby.

[Wabbit]

Originally Posted by bjh

I have posted this link before that explains the long term effects of spaying and neutering:
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongT...uterInDogs.pdf

I just think everyone should be aware of the risks, especially of spaying and neutering pets at too young of an age. I think it is sad for our pets that they are subjected to procedures at too young an age that can possible increase their risks to other health issues just because we don't want to be responsible owners and assure they don't get bred.

To the OP, I am so sorry your baby has cancer. My heartfelt prays go out for you and your baby.

I agree!!!

[MyTrixie143]

I for one will always spay and neuter my pets if they aren't being bred and I recommend the same. It is something I feel very strongly about.
I believe the pros far out weigh the cons.

I had a golden years ago that we didn't get spayed. She was 12 and had to have an emergency surgery to be spayed as it almost killed her but luckily she got spayed in time. I will never forgive myself for letting her go that long without being spayed. I can't remember what they said it was but I do know had she been spayed she wouldn't have had this problem that nearly cost her her life.

My cocker spaniel at 3 started having problems with her heat cycle. They were coming too frequently and making her sick. She too had to have an emergency spay and she has been healthy ever since.


It is a very big decision to make so please educate yourself and talk it over with your vet and even other vets and decide what you think is best for you and your pet.

[Wabbit]

Here's a couple more articles that people should consider:

The first one is an argument for waiting to spay/neuter your dog until after it reaches maturity!

Canine Sports Productions: Early Spay-Neuter Considerations for the Canine Athlete

And the second is information that might make you atleast give a second thought to spaying....at all.....

dangers of spay neutering

[SweetViolet]

Wabbit, thank you for your research and posts. I've kind of stopped posting here because I was really shocked at the hostility directed at me and my posts. The fact is, spaying and neutering is not a panacea, and there are some definite downsides to it. My Foxy is living...surviving...one of them.

My position is not to speak against spay and neuter but to speak in favour of the owners being fully informed. To be attacked as I have been here, to be obliquely accused of being in league with people who have something to gain from a reduction in the procedure was shocking...and hurtful.

Thank you, Wabbit, for taking a balanced view and posting corroborating information. Hopefully there are a few people who will take this info into consideration before they make their decision and, if they choose to spay or neuter, will now be able to monitor their pets for the potential harmful side effects and get them early treatment. My intent was not to imply that people who spay/neuter their pets are wrong or bad, only that they lack important information that can save their pet's lives, no matter which they decide.

For the poster who seems to think that legitimate research requires hundreds of study subjects, please be aware that legitimate research is conducted on fewer than ten subject: I just came across an article on PubMed regarding B12 deficiency in the nursing infants of vegan mothers that used just 7 subjects. The fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal is sufficient: it will trigger subsequent studies and if these findings are incorrect, subsequent studies to that effect will be published. Also, the fact that research was done in the 80s does not invalidate it: we discovered that penicillin kills bacteria back in the 30s, and that is still valid. I worked for a number of years in a company that did medical research and published in the journals, so I am intimately familiar with the way these studies are done, reviewed, and published.

For the poster who feels bad that her dog needed an emergency spay...the condition was likely pyometra...and even if you spayed her early she could still have gotten "stump pyometra," a condition in which the cervix...the stump of the uterus that remains after spay...becomes infected.

To those posters who refuse to consider that spay/neuter can have negative consequences, please read up on the conditions to which your dogs are now more at risk to contract and read up on their symptoms. Had I known about hemangiosarcoma, its symptoms and the higher risk spayed dogs have of getting it, my Foxy might not be terminal today.

I am not sure if I will return. If the way YTers respond to new information that challenges their beliefs is to, in essence, call the poster a liar and assassinate her character, then this is just the wrong place for me to be.

Thanks again, Wabbit. May you and yours live long and healthy lives.

[cutieusagi]

It's really unfair to mislead people into thinking that neutering/spaying will easily solve problems (e.g. aggression, marking, certain cancers-- if they actually do get solved) and not come with other risks. Whether it be testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, etc., these hormones affect and regulate not only what you see on the outside but also all those on the inside! Moreover, these hormones don't affect just the sexual organs but also other parts like the brain, bones and muscles. It should come to no surprise that other problems will surface once you take these important hormones away.

On the other hand, I know pet overpopulation is a big problem so that's why so many are advocating neutering/spaying. But I'm wondering, would there be the same level of support for human sterilization once human overpopulation becomes such a big a problem as well? It's shameful that we diminish the health of our little ones that we care so much about because of accidental pregnancies or bad people out there.

That said, I still decided to go ahead with Teddi's neutering today. (I was such a hot mess when I dropped him off this morning! Teddi must've felt it because he was more anxious in the car than usual. But the vet says he's doing ok now! I digress...) For us, the (potential) pros over-weighed the (potential) cons so that's why we did it but this shouldn't be the case for everyone.

Thank you, SweetViolet, for bringing up this discussion!

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by SweetViolet

I am not sure if I will return. If the way YTers respond to new information that challenges their beliefs is to, in essence, call the poster a liar and assassinate her character, then this is just the wrong place for me to be.

Well, I certainly hope that you stay! I may have missed it, but I didn't see any post here that came remotely close to calling you a liar or character assassination. I did see some posts that questioned the reliability of the study you posted, which only seems fair since this thread is about a factual issue, the pros and cons of fixing your pets.

I can see how this would be a very painful subject for you, and I am truly sorry for your beloved Foxy. I will admit that it's hard for me to be objective about this topic because I believe so strongly in s/n. Many people on this forum say they don't take their dogs to parks because they don't trust other owners to stay current on vaccines or to control their aggressive dogs. There are tons of threads here about irresponsible owners ship and breeding. Why would we assume these same people will be careful enough to keep a non-altered animal from breeding?

Again, I very much hope that I see you on the boards, and I'm sorry if anything in my previous posts upset you.

[bjh]

Originally Posted by cutieusagi

It's really unfair to mislead people into thinking that neutering/spaying will easily solve problems (e.g. aggression, marking, certain cancers-- if they actually do get solved) and not come with other risks. Whether it be testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, etc., these hormones affect and regulate not only what you see on the outside but also all those on the inside! Moreover, these hormones don't affect just the sexual organs but also other parts like the brain, bones and muscles. It should come to no surprise that other problems will surface once you take these important hormones away.

On the other hand, I know pet overpopulation is a big problem so that's why so many are advocating neutering/spaying. But I'm wondering, would there be the same level of support for human sterilization once human overpopulation becomes such a big a problem as well? It's shameful that we diminish the health of our little ones that we care so much about because of accidental pregnancies or bad people out there.

That said, I still decided to go ahead with Teddi's neutering today. (I was such a hot mess when I dropped him off this morning! Teddi must've felt it because he was more anxious in the car than usual. But the vet says he's doing ok now! I digress...) For us, the (potential) pros over-weighed the (potential) cons so that's why we did it but this shouldn't be the case for everyone.

Thank you, SweetViolet, for bringing up this discussion!

I wish the best for Teddi. I pray everything went well. I know it is a hard decision. Please keep us updated on how he does.

[SweetViolet]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Well, I certainly hope that you stay! I may have missed it, but I didn't see any post here that came remotely close to calling you a liar or character assassination. I did see some posts that questioned the reliability of the study you posted, which only seems fair since this thread is about a factual issue, the pros and cons of fixing your pets.

I can see how this would be a very painful subject for you, and I am truly sorry for your beloved Foxy. I will admit that it's hard for me to be objective about this topic because I believe so strongly in s/n. Many people on this forum say they don't take their dogs to parks because they don't trust other owners to stay current on vaccines or to control their aggressive dogs. There are tons of threads here about irresponsible owners ship and breeding. Why would we assume these same people will be careful enough to keep a non-altered animal from breeding?

Again, I very much hope that I see you on the boards, and I'm sorry if anything in my previous posts upset you.

I did not post a study, I posted a link to an article in an online magazine. I fail to see why an online magazine article should be held to any higher standard than an article in any other magazine. If you read the exact same article in Time Magazine or Cosmopolitan, would you call it a "study" and question its validity? The ezine article even provided links to validating information, something print magazines seldom do.

Certain people seem to think I have an agenda here...something beyond the simple advocacy of providing pet owners with valid and accurate information. The truth is, most pet owners are misled by the spay/neuter advocates because they are simply not told about the potential side effects. I am not advocating against spay/neuter...I am advocating FOR honesty in discussing the procedure! And I am simply baffled at the number of people who are so against telling the truth...and so hostile in their manner of doing so!

Maybe I am just too old for this forum. I believe people should be civil and mannerly towards each other whenever possible. In the world I inhabit, someone providing me with new information that may contradict what I think I know is simply not the same as slapping me in the face and calling me wrong, and therefore it does not warrant a hostile, rudely challenging response. It may well warrant questions, but questions can be asked in a civil manner, even such questions as "where did you get this information?" and "why do you think that?"

The fact is, I'm an intelligent, honourable person who worked in a corporate environment for many years and part of my job was to research these kinds of things and distill them into a report, complete with citations, indicating what information I had found. I still do this, but on a freelance basis, for a dietician in my area, so my skills are still current. The information in that article is valid...and if you know anything about physiognomy, it makes good logical sense as well.

I think animal owners should be fully informed of both the benefits and possible negative side effects of ANY procedure to which they subject their pets. To mislead people into thinking spay and neuter are magic cure-alls with no downside is no less than lying to them by omission. I have never spayed/neutered an animal outside of medical necessity and I am not going to start now. I have owned dogs for more than 50 years and have never had an accidental litter. I don't expect I ever will because I am a knowledgable and conscientious owner.

I am NOT advocating my choice for everyone, only advocating full and honest information being given to all pet owners before they make their choice. And I simply do not understand why so many people are against honesty and full disclosure!

[SweetViolet]

Originally Posted by cutieusagi

It's really unfair to mislead people into thinking that neutering/spaying will easily solve problems (e.g. aggression, marking, certain cancers-- if they actually do get solved) and not come with other risks. Whether it be testosterone, estradiol, progesterone, etc., these hormones affect and regulate not only what you see on the outside but also all those on the inside! Moreover, these hormones don't affect just the sexual organs but also other parts like the brain, bones and muscles. It should come to no surprise that other problems will surface once you take these important hormones away.

On the other hand, I know pet overpopulation is a big problem so that's why so many are advocating neutering/spaying. But I'm wondering, would there be the same level of support for human sterilization once human overpopulation becomes such a big a problem as well? It's shameful that we diminish the health of our little ones that we care so much about because of accidental pregnancies or bad people out there.

That said, I still decided to go ahead with Teddi's neutering today. (I was such a hot mess when I dropped him off this morning! Teddi must've felt it because he was more anxious in the car than usual. But the vet says he's doing ok now! I digress...) For us, the (potential) pros over-weighed the (potential) cons so that's why we did it but this shouldn't be the case for everyone.

Thank you, SweetViolet, for bringing up this discussion!

You are welcome. Obviously you have made an informed decision, which is really my only issue here. You know what new risks your baby now faces and can be alert to the symptoms of them. Regardless of the choice you made, your Teddi can only benefit from your having made an informed one. I hope he is well and back on his feet soon!