Talk:Neutering/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

NPOV

I have to question the NPOV status of this article. In every section there seems to be a questioning of the worth of spaying and/or neutering, without much talking about advantages. For example, the health benefits are real, not "theoretical", and "will definitely produce minor personality changes" is without any basis (or source). People often expect their dogs to "slow down" after being neutered, but rarely find that to be the case (in my experience as a vet). Health benefits include elimination of the possibility of pyometra, a common and often fatal disease if not treated, and dogs not spayed by the age of two are seven times more likely to develop mammary tumors.

The section on neutering seems to lead the reader to believe that behavioral reasons for neutering are not worth it, "far from absoute". A closer look at the reference given (a website for Neutersol, a commercial product which is a nonsurgical alternative for neutering - definitely not NPOV - and actually uses as one of its sources its own product insert) shows that neutering gives a greater testosterone reduction and significant effect on mounting, roaming, and urine marking behaviors. The traits not significantly affected are fear and aggression, and I couldn't agree more with that. The source for the part about "poor development of fur" is not cited, but I am familiar with testosterone-responsive alopecia in neutered dogs. It is uncommon, however, and there are also skin problems secondary to testosterone (stud tail).

I do appreciate the point made about no reduced risk of prostate cancer with neutering. That is a common misconception and it drives me crazy when I hear other vets give it as a reason for neutering.

I know I should just shut up and change what I feel is necessary, but I wanted to give everyone a heads up. --Joelmills 05:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Professional input would certainly be appreciated, especially when it comes to sources. I will readily admit that it's very "sketchy" to be sourcing so much information on a single paper associated so closely with a commercial product. However, there is a definite lack of other research on the topic, which, to a great extent, appears to be because a lot of the "facts" (neutering will calm your dog down; neutering will keep your dog from turning into a sex maniac; neutering prevents cancer; etc) are simply taken for granted. I'd be very interested in seeing other research which considers the overall health benefits and risks of S/N. I'm rather sick of seeing references to one particular study which was performed on a dozen or so kittens and came up with the rather obvious conclusion that neutering caused a significant decrease in sexual behavior. (Gee, you think?) Long-term health risks appear to be an understudied topic, which is particularly surprising when one considers that the human equivalents (especially ovariohysterectomy - men generally avoid castration for rather obvious reasons) are generally avoided in the absence of pressing health reasons.

I will also readily admit that I am far from an unbiased source. Had I written this page myself, it'd reflect a strong anti-S/N POV. However, when I first began editing the article, it represented a strongly pro-S/N POV - it read like a shelter's "millions of animals are dying" pamphlet, and in fact cited several such documents as sources.

So yes. Go ahead and change as necessary, with a particular eye to providing alternate academic sources. Zetawoof 09:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Joelmills, go right ahead! The vet's knowledge (longer elaborations in NPOV) is exactly what the article needs. I see there's a whole lot of what could be considered commercial advertisements on the page here, although it's likely they weren't introduced to advertise. I'm probably at least somewhat anti-S/N myself — I do find it somewhat distasteful that there's a legion out there reciting the mantra of spay-spay-spay-spay-spay, ready to repeat the same "facts" when they're pressed for reasons, as though lopping off the genitalia is automatically great and deserves no thought about it. Were it just a process of sterilization, it'd be more sensible. - 194.89.2.39 14:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If the concern about "commercial advertisements" regards the two pharmaceuticals, then that isn't really a major issue. They're both entirely relevant to the discussion, and as far as I know they're more or less unique in the field.

Also, now that you mention it, there doesn't seem to be very much information in the article on simple methods of sterilization (e.g. vasectomy and tubal ligation) - there's a one-line mention of an experimental method of performing a nonsurgical vasectomy, but no mention of the standard surgical method. As far as I know, vasectomies are pretty straightforward in most domestic animals - in some countries, it's even standard practice for some cat breeders to keep vasectomized "teaser toms". It's with tubal ligations that unforeseen issues are said to come up; however, as usual, little research seems to exist... more room for expansion.

What I begin to wonder, however, is whether a move may be in order, as the article is expanding to cover methods of animal sterilization/population control instead of sticking to spaying and neutering. I don't see anything wrong with this expansion; a discussion of spaying and neutering cannot be complete without a mention of their disadvantages and alternatives, so the article naturally expands to cover these related topics. Any suggestions for a broader article title? Zetawoof 19:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with the fact that there is a compulsion among vets to spay and neuter, and alternatives are rarely discussed. I even once read a study suggesting intact male dogs live longer than neutered ones, but I'll be damned if I can remember where.

I will have to find some good sources on advantages and disadvantages of spaying and neutering. The only source I can think of off the top of my head is a surgery textbook at the office, and you can guess what POV that has. So for now I'll try to expand the article without including sources, but I won't put in anything too controversial. Let me know if I make it too pro S/N. And I think its fine to leave in the Neutersol reference, but I will clarify some of the info coming from their page.

As far as broadening the title, I can't think of a good way to do it at this time. Maybe a separate article for population control in dogs and cats. There is a lot of controversy over trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs for feral cats right now, so I should be able to find some good sources. --Joelmills 20:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The only source I can think of off the top of my head is a surgery textbook at the office, and you can guess what POV that has. Having never read a veterinary surgical textbook myself, I can't say for sure, but I would expect such a source would mostly just cover the mechanics of the procedure itself, and perhaps mention a couple immediate, acute responses that a vet surgeon should check for. It's unlikely to cover longer-term side effects that result from the hormonal changes, which generally don't show up until significantly later. Still, it may be useful.

One thing that I'd definitely like to keep pretty clear in this article is that Neutersol is not significantly different from neutering in its mode of action. Unlike a ZPV (zona pellucida vaccine) for females, its action is more or less a result of its chemically destroying the testes; the differences in results between it and neutering are primarily a result of incomplete destruction of the secretory tissues. As such, it isn't really an alternative to neutering as much as it is an alternate method.

And while I'm mentioning things which I've heard but haven't inserted into the article as a result of a lack of sources, I've also been told that inter-dog aggression involving intact males is generally a result of increased aggression from neutered males toward intact males, rather than vice versa. Is this a documented phenomenon, and does anyone have any idea why?

And yes - please clarify wherever you can! I'm not a veterinary expert, so you're likely to know a lot of details better than I do. Go ahead, be WP:BOLD, and make changes as seem appropriate. If I think you're pushing POV too far in the opposite direction, I'll let you know then. Zetawoof 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

shouldnt the bullets on the disadvantages be removed? or at least bullets added to the advantages? it seems at first that there are far more disadvantages to neutering than advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.162.90 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I definitely oppose the removal of bullet points from that list. When so many effects must be considered, the list format is more readable and more easily understandable than a bit of prose. I would actually support the "Advantages" and "Ambiguous" parts to also be converted into lists.

As for your second point, it would seem that there are more health disadvantages than advantages in males, whereas the health advantages probably outnumber the health disadvantages in females. --128.231.88.7 (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm writing to affirm that the article is unnecessarily skewed in favor of leaving animals "in tact." While it might be true that Americans are more into spaying and neutering than Europeans, I don't see how you can run an article on this subject and not point out the extreme immorality of allowing your animal to roam the neighborhood impregnating other people's animals. Or if that's not neutral enough, then it needs to be said that "many, many people would prefer you not allow your male doberman to impregnate their pekinese." Both sides of an issue should be given their due, yes, when both sides have a legitimate argument, but not when one side is issuing utter nonsense. Also, the main reason to neuter a male cat is that there's no living with one who hasn't been neutered. Neutering has entirely changed the personalities of my animals, transforming them from hellions to pets that are a joy to have around. Neutering makes cats MUCH more affectionate and more amenable to training and suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.63.255.236 (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If you find citations from reliable sources (i.e. the scientific literature) that support your points, feel free to add them. As for the idea that neutering male animals is a reasonable approach to population control, please refer to "An Epidemiologic Perspective" further down. Also, the point that neutering cats can make them more easy to live with is covered in both "Advantages" and "Ambiguous".

Besides, this article is about neutering as a veterinary procedure, not about letting one's animals roam free.

--128.231.88.7 (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Images

The article in its current version has only images depicting cats. I suggest that we also include images of some other species, notably dogs; possibly horses, cattle, sheep and other species. --77.56.246.249 (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two photos on commons here and here. I'm not sure if we want to put them in though. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Health and behavioral effects

How did the long list of references in the "behavioral effects" section come about? I seriously doubt the sentence is an accurate summary of the references used. Anyone wants to do it properly? Expand it a little and maybe use review articles that cite those studies. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it seems the ref dump is quite recent.[1]--Dodo bird (talk) 07:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Took it out.--Dodo bird (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! Looks like you got a concensus for this change. I love this line that you added to the article: "In a telephone interview-based study of 29 intact male dogs..." How does one interview a dog by telephone? Bob98133 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, pending consensus. My bad. Feel free to revert to the "consensus version" that grossly misrepresents the reference.--Dodo bird (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Mentioning that the study was based on phone interviews (as opposed to questionnaires etc.) is not really necessary in an encyclopedia article. Whoever is interested in the exact methodology can follow the reference - it's what references are for. --77.56.246.249 (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Use of Reference Contents

This can be read as a general comment, but is mainly put here due to the behaviour of User:Dodo bird. Given its general relevance to the topic and also given that she deletes her discussion page regularly, it is better put here.

When one reads through references, it is not unusual to find differing answers for one particular question (the non-compliance with neutering requirements being one possible case). Unfortunately, people then have a tendency to simply use the most extreme available number that is useful to confirm their particular bias. Dodo bird, whose bias is apparently strongly in favour of neutering, has a particular history of misreading references in this way, which is neither encyclopedic nor honest. When writing "one study shows value X to be as high as 60%", the honest thing to do would be to write that another study also puts it as low as whatever minimal level can be found in a complete and unbiased literature research. Everything else is junk science that is used to press for one particular political agenda, but does not improve encyclopedic content.

As an aside, there are a lot of sites that are strongly POV as far as neutering is concerned, which would make it prudent to only use data published in the peer-reviewed literature - especially given that this is a medical topic. Using other references seems irresponsible in this case. --77.56.251.227 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You really should take your own advice. "Read the refs, please." JAVMA not good enough for you?.

Please sign your comments. JAVMA is good enough; your interpretetion, however, is OR rather than NPOV and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject. --77.56.251.227 (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it, it must me made clear that the studies you cite were comparisons between early-age neutering and standard-age neutering (as opposed to early-age neutering vs. leaving animals intact). This means that all the effects of neutering cited above apply and that the effects described in the studies you cite must be considered to occur in addition to the effects already cited. --77.56.251.227 (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear: attempts to hide the fact that all the effects above also apply to early-age neutering will not be tolerated. --77.56.246.25 (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have had several similar problems with editor Dodo bird. This editor entirely changes articles to his/her POV, fails to respond or does not respond in any reasonable manner to talk, and plows on making multiple edits and reverting other editors. He/she repeatedly replaces well referenced material with edits from POV sources to support his/her POV. He/she will then get in an edit war reverting NPOV content w/o explanation. I will support any reversions of content entered by this editor; not necessarily because the individual edit is incorrect but because of the bullying, non-productive editing style of this meglomaniac Dodo bird. Bob98133 (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at WP:BP. --84.72.43.211 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy of notice filed on Dodo-bird user page

Copy of notice filed on Dodo-bird user page (since he/she deletes all user talk): Please be advised that your disruptive and insulting editing style has been reported to Wiki administrators. You have violated the 3r rule repeatedly, refuse to discuss edits, shamelessly insert POV, and delete anything derogatory from your talk page, as well as previously redirecting your user/talk page to another Wiki article. [[2]] Bob98133 (talk) 16:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-castration behavior changes

Resent studies show a fairly close factual statistic match of my and other breeders, trainers and behaviorists personal experience dealing with dogs after post-castration abrupt negative behavior changes: http://www.acc-d.org/2006%20Symposium%20Docs/Session%20I.pdf based on the methods: http://research.vet.upenn.edu/Portals/36/media/HsuSerpellJAVMA2003.pdf

Ignoring such findings IMHO is as helpful as hiding head in the sand. IMHO, the article needs adjustments, --Afru (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What changes are you suggesting? The presentation summary mentions aggression in females, which is already in the article. Also, it compares the behavior of a group of neutered dogs with a group of unneutered dogs, it doesn't measure actual behavior changes caused by neutering. --Dodo bird (talk) 12:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The study I referred to above claims to measure behavior changes fairly accurate, and the changes are not minor. Evaluation of behavior changes combination makes it clear that majority of neutered dogs may react to everyday routine as well as to major stress factors differently than unaltered, what actually can mean that the same dog's reaction to the same factor may change to opposite after castration. Or may be atypical for the breed. Misreading dog's reaction and wrong expectations are a route to bite injuries. I'd clarify that point. --Afru (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

All that the Hsu and Serpell study claims is that the questionnaire is a reliable assessment of the dog's actual temperament and behavior, it does not measure changes. The author of the other study made the assumption that the behavioral differences between the two groups are a result of neutering, but don't actually do anything to back that up. Their own material states that neutering for control or prevention of behavior problems make up 18.1% all cases. This means that a portion of 18% were neutered because of preexisting behavioral problem. Did they factor that into their results? If they did, they failed to mention it in their material. Like Thesoxlost points out on Talk:Dog#aggression_in_spayed_animals, this is a very weak reference.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

), prevention is a precaution measure; since when preventing a problem meant that the problem already exists? We can further discuss the study' details at a discussion list, if there is a related list; there are several pro and contra, IMHO very interesting and important for dog professionals or scientists, that will most likely stay unclear for average dog owner. The essence is that purebred dogs suppose to have certain behavior traits, typical for such breeds, while Hsu methods is an attempt to analyze the behavior pattern. It proves that castration changes dog’s initial reactions to lay factors and stress factors, influencing overall behavior predictability and working abilities. In real life that means that chances are most likely a neutered dog has limited to no use for Search and Rescue team, while a family pet that reacted friendly when the owner scratched his back before neutering, may bite the owner for doing same thing, after neutering. When somebody is looking for a purebred dog, he is commonly shopping for certain traits, and castration is changing several at a time. Looking up breed-related part of stats IMHO is alarming.--Afru (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, it doesn't just say "prevention" it says "control or prevention". Again, the study does not prove that castration changes anything. Correlation does not imply causation.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on the ref; IMHO both, the study and method are not nearly perfectly reliable, but have enough data to account as a source proving significant behavioral difference between neutered and unaltered dogs of same breed or similar breeds. Will do a detailed breakdown and post somewhere for further discussion. Also, relying on this argument, one shall not state that castration reduces aggression and benefits temperament, as well, ) --Afru (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, "Effects of castration on problem behaviors in male dogs with reference to age and duration of behavior" actually compared behavior before and after castration, not just between two groups of dogs.

RESULTS: Effects of castration on fear of inanimate stimuli or aggression toward unfamiliar people were not significant. For urine marking, mounting, and roaming, castration resulted in an improvement of > or = 50% in > or = 60% of dogs and an improvement of > or = 90% in 25 to 40% of dogs. For remaining behaviors, castration resulted in an improvement of > or = 50% in < 35% of dogs. Significant correlations were not found between the percentage of improvement and age of the dog or duration of the problem behavior at the time of castration.

But of course it's only 57 dogs and as the O'Heare review article points out, guardian survey studies don't account for the perception bias of owners. O'Heare also points out that

Ben and Hart at the University of California carried out one of the most extensive surveys on the effects of gonadectomy on dogs, finding that at least in intermale aggression, aggression was reduced by neutering in 60% of cases with rapid reduction in 25%, and gradual reduction in 35% (Fogle, 1990, p. 53)

Hart and Eckstein (1997) performed a review of the research and literature on the effects of gonadal hormones on objectionable behavior. They relay that gonadectomy affects sexually dimorphic behaviors and that aggression toward other dogs and “dominance over owner” are particularly sexually dimorphic.

I can't find the original articles, but O'Heare talks about weaknesses in some of the studies he discusses, so I think it is safe to assume that the above studies are reliable.

The two articles used as cites for negative effects on male dogs, they are not meant as studies on the effects of neutering and at least from the abstract, they don't mention neutering either as a cause or even a factor in behavioral changes. Can someone with access to these articles verify if they back up the info cited? Same request for the cites for female behavior. I can't even find abstracts for those. --Dodo bird (talk) 06:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon this, the info used in the Duffy presentation was used in a published article, Breed differences in canine aggression. I haven't really read it yet, but it doesn't seem to make any attempt to draw a link between neutering and aggression.--Dodo bird (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, they are using the same "C-BARQ" questionnaire but I think the sample set is new.--Dodo bird (talk) 06:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal Status

May I suggest to add a section about the legal status of S/N to this article? AFAIK, there seems to be a certain increase in mandatory S/N laws in some parts of North America. Some European coutries have also recently adopted mandatory S/N laws for so-called "dangerous breeds". On the other hand, some of the Scandinavian countries prohibit the procedure altogether without a proper medical indication. I think it would be interesting to add information on this to the article. Does someone have sources? --130.92.9.58 11:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

One possible source: Unusual facts about Swedish dogs --128.231.88.5 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

rhode island has a law about mandatory s/n —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.182.151 (talk) 19:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History section needed

Article needs a history section. When did it become common, and where? Comet Tuttle (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Double standards

Why is Compulsory sterilization a crime against humanity while spaying and neutering of animals is encouraged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.168.239 (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is to discuss the article, not the topic. Bob98133 (talk) 14:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

If you use information from tertiary sources that doesn't meet the WP:Reliable source standard but make references to secondary sources that does, please don't just add the information with the secondary source as reference without making some effort to verify that the secondary source actually backs up that bit of info.

For example, the claim about the bone cancer study involving 3218 dogs can be found in many articles that tries to point out the risks of neutering. But the study that those articles reference is based only on 683 dogs, and they were all Rottweilers. Obviously all these articles took that incorrect information from the same source, probably this article by a Dr Zink. And here's an article written as a rebuttal to that if you are looking for more errors and omissions.--Dodo bird (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I will be more careful in the future. --

Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)