|
|
|
|
|
Though I risk incurring your ire with this post, I submit it in protest to the claims that I am so noble a veterinarian I deserve the adulation you so often bestow upon this mere mortal. In truth, I am but a simple human, rife with failing you cannot imagine save by observing your own worst demons.
The surgical feline declaw, ladies and gentlemen, is the subject of this tedious post. It’s fair to say that few of you respect the veterinarian willing to engage in such brutality. I’ve been aware of this fact since before my first post on the subject. Recent weeks have also laid claims on my attention to your opinions.
Not only have several past posts received extra attention lately in the form of numerous written protestations against the practice, but a recent article in The Miami Herald (penned by this vet, I’ll admit) have garnered some negative fan mail on the subject, as well. (Though in my defense, I was trying to argue against the declaw and my intent was sadly misinterpreted.)
The truth is that I defend the practice, though not without deep concern and thoughtful misgivings. Though I am largely unwilling to engage in this practice and though I recommend against it and counsel breathlessly on methods necessary to avoid it, I still take the occasional declaw to heart. Sometimes, I’ve learned, it’s best to never say never.
I began my veterinary career with an oath against all forms of cosmetic or human convenience-based procedures. I refused to administer chronic low-dose antibiotics for tear-stained show dogs, I professed never to engage in ear crops or tail docks and I swore off declaws forever.
Once inculcated to the realities of raising a family, I caved to every but the first client demand. Indeed, I loathe the overuse of antibiotics and see little benefit to their cosmetic use. Worse though, I was expected, as a lowly associate, to undertake what our society considers the most brutal forms of cosmetic surgery. I did so because I was weak in refusing (and scared to have to find another job) and because, at the time, it was considered a valuable surgical skill.
Times have changed and so has my confidence level. I’ll no longer undertake cosmetics except for the occasional restoration, those very rare tail docks (addressed in another post as a mea culpa) or the innocuous wart-job.
But declaws are another matter, altogether. I have a high stress-level when it comes to this surgery in spite of my degree of proficiency. I know I perform higher-than-the-standard-of care declaws, but I hate to do them.
Still, I will, if convinced by a client’s situation, take them on. Immunodeficiencies in clients, inability to convince cats to wear SoftPaws and severely destructive felines averse to all methods of control (with no hope of finding another home) tug at my heartstrings.
You might find it odd that I refer to a declaw as an emotional situation, but I challenge you to look these people in the eye and tell them their beloved cat needs a new home, must be thrust outside or runs the risk of being euthanized. I can’t do it if I’m truly swayed by their arguments.
I think it’s far from gratuitous, my approach to this procedure. And if I must submit myself to your condemnation then so be it. At least you can be sure I’m only trying to level with you.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
However, when considering the alternative for cats who vets to refuse to declaw (euthaization, rehoming, abadoment), I understand your side of the story. In the cases of cats living with people with impaired immune systems, the declaw goes far beyond an aesthetic operation and becomes one of necessity.
My first cat adopted as an adult was de-clawed. It was a condition of my grandmother that I lived with at the time. She had a great 14 years with me with no problems. I always felt guilty about the declaw though. Then I worked at a vet and saw some being done. Will I ever do it again? Highly unlikely. I can't imagine it ever after actually witnessing it. It's to bad people think of it as a primary option than other things. I remember someone wanting to get 8 week old kittens declawed after adoption. We refused to do it that young thankfully. They went elsewhere and got it done, coincidently (or not) those kittens had litter box issues after that.
I agree that declawing is better than euthanasia. But I wish more people would see it as a last resort, and not the first defense. By the way, there are also already declawed cats available at your local shelters if you prefer declawed but wouldn't do it yourself. (How's that for adoption enabling? VBG)
;)
You can view it however you want. I'm with you. And so are most people I know that have cats. My best friend always tells me she can have her cat or nice stuff (in her case a couch as well) and she choses a cat.
Unfortunately there are people out there who are not quite as understanding and I think that as a last ditch effort, declawing a cat in those homes so it can stay home can be justified.
It's just that to me, declawing cats is akin to debarking dogs, dewailing babies, deballing your husband..... you get them because of who or what they are, and then you want to take away their 'inconvenient' attributes. Note - I don't include sterilizing your pets (or your kinfolk, if you figure that human overpopulation does more damage to the world than the rest of the animal kingdom put together - here in the deep south, neutering your husband leaves him with his groin intact....!), but anything that takes away an animal's defences and it's inherent characteristics is probably a sign that you shouldn't be living with one of them anyway.
Declawing is something that hasn't ever caught on here, so I've seen very few myself, TG. It's certainly something I'd never consider for my own foursome, although I have described to each of them in great detail as they shred the armchair how tempting it could be.
I say this as a licensed vet tech and have been in the business for about 10 years. The only dog that would benefit from an ear crop is the cocker spaniel. Of course then there would be fewer TECAs performed.
Declawing is a necessary (at times) evil. If the cat will lose it's home if not declawed then I felt that the owner's wishes should be granted. However it needs to be done properly and only on the front legs. I see no reason for all four paws to be declawed.
My family has two 14 year old cats. One is "fully loaded" as my dad says. The other was declawed several days after we brought him home from the pound as the life of our golden retreiver and my dad was threatened when Joey climbed my dad to get away from the dog and got a claw stuck in my dad's neck...far too close to the jugular for our comfort. Our dear kitty still hates the dogs and will still beat them up when he's in a mood.
yes, i understand there are some cases where it's the only resort left, but that's the minority of situations. most cats are declawed because it's what you do with cats. it's the mindset of a huge section of the pet-owning population. i don't know how you change that.
I also will not do a declaw unless my client accepts an estimate that includes pain control (regional nerve blocks, post-op pain meds). Pretty much, I give them almost a drop-dead estimate!
I don't do ear crops. Aside from the pain and discomfort it causes the pet, there's too much potential for screwing up. The procedure just looks like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Your description of the declaw dilemma is shared by most of us "newer" vets - I still consider myself a newish clinician, as I do anyone who graduated in the 90's. This, you understand makes it inconceivable to me that I have brilliant colleagues who have graduated after the year 2000 who'd not yet left high school when I started practicing! Procedures for cosmetics were done much more frequently by some of the more "seasoned" vets, who practiced in a different era than us - and I for one can never claim to know the choices I'd have made had I been around back then and walked in their shoes. I mean, they'd have never even heard of a course in veterinary ethics and compassion during their vet school years. Not only that, but many older mentors I've worked with who'd done ear crops et all during their early years have been delighted to see the trends change so they could actually refuse to do ear crops for the rest of their career and are darned glad for it.
I, too graduated with all of my cherished ideals and noble medical ethics not yet sullied by the harsh reality of actually practicing veterinary medicine - whoa...
We'd never even discussed declaw procedures in lectures, nor was it performed by the University Teaching hospital. The same was true about tail docking, ears, etc. So, I was faced with having to learn to perform declaws, it was part of my job and as my boss advised as gently as she could, " Listen, we all despise doing these, but I've come to learn that if the pet's destructiveness is bad enough, or it's causing too many scars on grandma for owners to want it done after all the options I've encouraged haven't helped, they'll go to the next hospital down the road, dump the cat off on someone's farm, the pound, or elect euthanasia."
She was quite right after all. I've annoyed plenty of techs at many clinics by taking too much time in rooms trying to convince people to at least try soft paws first, educating them etc. Only to find myself resigned to the same perspective you've so artfully described. Pain control for cats is not an option for my clients, it's part of the whole deal or no dice. I'm currently learning to use a laser this month as well when I must do the deed, hoping to minimize scarring and faster healing.
I work in a dense, urban area - with many affluent pet owners, and one of the most positive things I CAN report is that there is only one old timer within the entire southern half of the state who still does ear crops. Absolutely none of the thousands of vets in 3 surrounding counties here will perform this procedure for any cost. That's speaks volumes for the potential for continued positive changes that can happen as pet owners take the time to learn about healthcare and wellness for their animals. That's kind of encouraging.
1 - When I made the appointment for our youngest cat, Patrick, to be neutered, they asked if I wanted to "do the declaw" at the same time. I explained that we got our eldest cat, Daniel, at 10 months old and felt it best to leave him as he'd become accustomed to living, so really it was safest for all felines in our house to be "fully loaded," to use another poster's terminology.
The same conversation occurred when I took our little boy in for his neuter. Yipes.
We did have his claws trimmed while he was under anesthesia, but you better believe I checked to make sure they were still there and functional.
2 - When I took Daniel in to the vet for a case of icky conjunctivitis (we were treating with ointment at home, but he's large and highly resistant to any type of medicating), the vet we saw didn't know him and foolishly reached into the crate just as I was warning him, "He has all his claws."
He shook his arm and said ruefully, "Yep, and he knows how to use them, too."
WHY would this many just reach in to a carier to get a cat out he'd never met (and one I'd warned him was terrified) if he didn't assume he'd come away undamaged?
So yeah, lots of declaws in my area. But not in my house.
That said, if it were truly necessary (immune compromised stuff), I'd have it done. But it isn't, thank goodness.
I'll still never declaw. And I still love that cat very much. (We are trimming everyone's nails more often though :-P
I do think it's better for the cat to have a home without claws than be given up, but I so wish it weren't necessary.
Declawing ... it is not a black and white issue.
You don't have my ire, but I was a bit amused at this statement:
<i>I began my veterinary career with an oath against all forms of cosmetic or human convenience-based procedures.</i>
We'll agree that declawing is a human convenience-based procedure, but how about neutering?! };>
Neutering pet animals is widely endorsed but don't let us ever forget that it is _still_ an elective surgery that is truly about convenience to the owner and increasingly a source of corruptible power and revenue for the local governments.
Neutering yields assorted imagined, or statisically hyped or actually guaranteed advantages. Guaranteed advantages include those such as absolving the owner of full responsibility of knowing or understanding animal behavior in such areas as management of an animal in heat, keeping track of heats, separating animals or controlling a male who is ISO one.
Many dog wise/ animal wise, people have pets that are not neutered and know how to keep them under control and prevent unwanted litters. The neutering of animals is convenient because it allows more people, who may not otherwise be qualified, to have pets.
Along with these conveniences, unfortunately there are some long term disadvantages for the pet.
http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf
And now, the hype....
On one hand, neutering is promoted as a method to (allegedly) ensure compliant, easier to manage animals/pets - yes "Stepford Pets". That "convenience" thing again.
See HSUS's neutering endorsement material which is promoted just about everywhere in some form:
"Spaying or Neutering Is Good for YOU" -- "Spaying and neutering makes pets BETTER, MORE AFFECTIONATE companions.". (Caps are mine for emphasis - yes Stepford Pets - definitely some imaginary conveniences there.)
http://www.hsus.org/pets/pet_care/why_you_should_s...)
HSUS then dives headfirst into speciesism with its dichotomy regarding the perceived conveniences potentially effected by neutering by recognizing all these elective surgeries are about human convenience (or imagined conveniences):
"The animal's behavior is usually misunderstood and often radically altered in captivity as a result of inappropriate care; in order to domesticate the animal, the owner resorts to such "corrective measures" as defanging, declawing, and castration."
http://www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlif...
My point with the above is the wide open dichotomy in the matter of "surgeries of convenience" where one elects to remove parts of an animal to shape it into something that the natural animal is not.
I agree with your stance on declawing. While there is no surgical procedure that will guarantee that any pet has its Forever Home at the time of any elective surgery, we need open minded veterinarians who will not go blindly in support of rhetoric while ignoring the realistic needs of the owner. Bravo Dr Khuly!
There are not nearly enough studies as to the effects of declawing on cats.. I've seen some recent ones that show a correlation between arthritis and declawing.. yet because of these lack of official studies, too many vets swear it is safe and the cats do not suffer at all.
If it is going to be done, all one can ask is that the owners get the full facts. Too many go into it thinking it is little more than a nail trim.
Did you know the odds of deadly mammary adenocarcinoma occurence in unspayed female cats and dogs over the age of 6? The rate hovers around 7-9%. The rate of this cancer in females spayed AFTER their first heat drops way down to 3-4%! Wanna guess at the rate of this dreaded cancer in females spayed prior to first heat at all? Yup, less than 1%. Any "benefits" medically you can imagine that justifies not spaying a female pet cannot possibly top avoiding the ravages of this brutal, deadly cancer. Less common, but certainly an avoidable tragedy nonetheless are the prostate disease, and worse, the highly metastatic nature of testicular cancer that's most often already spread far and wide long before it's ever detected in the testicle to save any dog unlucky enough to be diagnosed.
This is without even bothering to go into the "oops" backyard breeders who'd been meaning to get around to spaying/neutering thier pets, and the shelters nationwide are filled to devastating capacity as a result of the "oops" owners...
I'm sorry, I'm sure you feel strongly, and it's obvious you care about animal's well being - but in this topic, I'm afraid the facts simply do not support your argument here.
Rae
1.
_Unnecessary_ ? eh?
Rae, first, the word "unnecessary" is your own and not mine. It is never mentioned in my post. My posting was _not_ about neutering being unnecessary. Neutering is indeed a _substitution_ for owner responsibility in knowledgeable conduct with aspects of animal husbandry in areas of behavior, breeding, control and containment.
2.
_Elective convenience_ Yep! That’s what I said.
On the matter of being elective convenience:
Dr Khuly's initial wording referred to "human convenience-based procedures". I replied, pointing out that neutering as commonly used, panders to issues of "convenience" to (hopefully) force an animal to fit into the lifestyle expectations of another species. Namely, humans.
They are animals. When my mares were in heat, I elected to keep them away from the stallions and exercise responsible knowledge in their management. A good control and containment system is a must. When I have other unneutered animals in heat (cats and dogs), I opt to keep them secured as long as necessary.
While most people realize they are not prepared to responsibly own a horse, it IS because dogs and cats are smaller and popular, that they are more commonly subject to being surgically modified to force them to fit into the expectations of the owners' lifestyle. Call a spade, a spade.
Surgery to neuter (in absence of other trauma) is in fact _elective_; not an immediate necessity to save a life. A human female could opt to have bilateral mastectomies in order to prevent certain types of breast cancer that she may never have -- using the same logic of "prevention" and it would still be elective.
3.
_Deleterious long term effects_ Absolutely!
On issues of deleterious non-reproductive concerns associated with neutering, Dr. John Verstegen's comments on the ACC-D session overview summarizes much of this quite well (previously referred link lays out some of the data). No need to reinterate. Drs Serpell, Duffy and many others, including service dog organizations have interesting materials as well. While in most professional areas including health care fields, we are required to keep up-to-date in our areas of focus, I realize that some find it unnecessary or inconvenient but that does not negate the fact that sometimes there are two or more sides of an issue of which to be aware.
Bone growth is affected by neutering, especially in mid to large breeds. The Rottie has been shown to be four times more likely to have osteosarcoma when neutered before their first birthday which is exactly what some recent legislation wants to have made mandatory. http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/full/11/1... ACL in many breeds is more common in neuters. Some behavioral issues are in fact more common in neuters and sometimes, cause for relinquishment. Some may not consider these to be long term deleterious defects, but few will find these to be merits in the neutered population.
NB- I did not say "do not neuter" and that I never neuter. Only that the surgery is elective and a indeed a matter of human convenience. That position is not necessarily anti-neuter, any more than a doctor who refuses to give antibiotics for 'everything' can be said to be anti-progress.
Experience
I was responsible for several pediatric neuters thirteen years ago when I believed it was “a Good Thing". I retain long term comparative data on genetically related animals in order to accumulate information on bloodlines and genetic issues. As a result, I have learned that neutering, especially neutering early, created hardship and problems. It did not in fact, effect longer, happier and healthier lives compared to siblings (part of my control population). Some of these problems in the neutered population regrettably affected responsible evaluation of new bloodlines, some of which genetics sources are now gone forever. Potential problems of genetic diversity due to a small founder genepool creates a need to proactively avoid genetic bottlenecks (which is a serious issue that MSN actually endorses!). Students of science and genetics will understand the weighty elements these issues pose when elective surgery no longer is.
Fun chat!