Talk:Neutering/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

questionable facts

'In the long run, dogs of both genders have an increased risk of obesity due to the fact that pet owners continue to feed as if the animal was still intact, which can be prevented by modifying the diet.'

removed this as there is no evidence to support it. --80.41.90.45 01:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is lots of evidence to support this. Consult any good vet surgery textbook. --130.92.9.57 14:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, most pets today are at risk of obesity due to the fact that we humans don't always understand how much food we should be feeding them, and often don't give our animals enough excersize. In the case of both intact and unintact animals, proper diet and activity would probably fix 99% of overweight animals. I'm not sure that the desexing process really changes their dietary needs THAT much. (I wonder: I think American obesity and over all laziness has increased over the last 30 years, as has awareness of desexing your animals. I wonder if this is a coincidental thing--that pet owners grow more lazy, as more animals are being fixed, and thus, it seems that the populations of desexed animals that are overweight are larger, as there are more and more of them to select from.. No facts or anything, just random thoughts..) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColbyWolf (talk • contribs) 19:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but both of your arguments are rather weak regarding this subject. Neither one of you has cited any credible sources or stated any facts beyond your own preconceived notions on the matter. ColbyWolf specifically is drawing bold parallels between a human obesity issue and a pet obesity issue. Whatever happened to instinct? Show me one source that can verify that, given plentiful food, the only possible behavioral outcome by both humans and animals is overeating to the point of obesity. Alternatively, show me one source that can validate that the behavioral changes associated with spaying/neutering don't include changes in appetite that could lead to irregular eating habits, including those that lead to obesity. I believe there's a lot that hasn't been covered here, such as whether or not it is in fact the owner's obligation and responsibility to micromanage an animal companion's available food supply in quantity. Why are we to conclude that nature doesn't do what's best? --Glitch82 (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Not taking any sides but interesting read here on the general obesity issue. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/57821/ and abstract http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/11/19/rspb.2010.1890.abstract Bob98133 (talk) 13:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Article is anti-neutering POV.

Every website, every source, every vet I have ever consulted has one consistent position on neutering: In 99.9% of cases, is a good thing to do. This article is the only place I've ever seen that honestly makes it sound like neutering can do more harm than good. As such, I ask that this article be marked with a POV tag. For the time being, I will put the POV-check tag up for the article itself, and flag one specific section as clear NPOV (I hope this dual tagging is allowable; please remove the section tag if not). toll_booth (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Toll Booth - your insertion of this tag is OR unless you have some refs to back up your position. Every one you've talked to is not a reference. If you'd talked to an AKC vet or a breeder, he would tell you that neutering is negative. That's why this section is well-referenced. If you can find references to support your view, please include them in the article. Besides, the section you tagged is neither pro nor con but merely presents referenced material. Bob98133 (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, no offense, but I suggest you take a closer look at your words. The sheer volume of anti-neutering claims in the article clearly result in an article biased against neutering. Furthermore, you said that the AKC says that "neutering is negative." Contrast that claim with this page from AKC.org, which clearly leans in favor of neutering. Other sources show even more pronounced support of neutering:

The Humane Society

Oregon Veterinary Medical Association

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

And that's just the result of a quick google search. But even if you want to still contend that the cons outweigh the pros, you need to give a thorough defense of why dog and cat overpopulation, and the resulting widespread euthanasia, is not as bad as the occasional botched neutering. That's just one of the *many* dangers that not neutering holds. The ball is in your court to explain why the anti-neutering position holds equal weight with the pro-neutering position. I claim that the pros significantly outweigh the cons. toll_booth (talk) 23:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Toll booth. However, I don't think that this article should draw conclusions, but should rather express all points of view about the subject provided they are referenced. Claiming that neutering is better than stacks of dead animals is a POV position, although most folks would agree with it. I do not think that you can find reliable references to support this - just opinions. You may be able to show that it is cost efficient for society to neuter animals rather than deal with pet overpopulation, but claiming that this is somehow better than dealing with the animals later, is not so easily referenced. Culturally, it would seem that society prefers not neutering and killing animals to other alternatives, since that is the prevailing historical and current model at this time. Bob98133 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The overwhelming consensus among veterinarians, animal breeders, and animal rights activists is that the advantages of neutering far outweigh any disadvantages. To claim that the two sides are at best equal, and at worst the cons outweigh the pros, is giving undue weight to a minority POV. It is for that very reason that I put the POV tags up, and the cons sections need to be cut significantly. toll_booth (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of the overwhelming consensus is irrelevant. And moreover, the overwhelming consensus that "neutering is good" have nothing to do with the well-sourced claims in this article. E For each claim that you see in this article that you don't agree with, please find several reliable sources to show that the source cited is inaccurate. That is, if you want to remove the claims by the Journal of the American Veterinary Medicine Association, that neutering increases the risk of osteosarcoma then find a few sources of equal or higher quality that refute their claims. Otherwise you are just doing original research. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research?? WTF?? Now you're not just splitting hairs; your claims are completely false. I already gave sources; all I would need to do is put them in the article. toll_booth (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You're saying animal breeders think the advantages of neutering outweigh the disadvantages? That's a bit paradoxical. It's time to show some references. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion, just the unreferenced overwhelming support you think it enjoys. I don't think you can reference any overwhelming consensus. Instead, you could certainly incorporate position statements from representative groups (as your links above) that they believe this to be so. That would help balance the article without making unverifiable claims. Bob98133 (talk) 15:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bob, now you're just splitting hairs. You're saying that the references of overwhelming support aren't there, and then you acknowledge my links?? Don't look at the individual articles to reach this conclusion; look at the sum of the articles and see the big picture. That said, however, I do not want the anti-neutering position eliminated from the article, but I do want it significantly trimmed in length. That would satisfy my request. toll_booth (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no "anti-neutering POV" -- citing academic journals discussing the negative health effects of something is not "POV". There is merely information backed up by reliable sources, and there is no reason for anything to be "trimmed in length". If we were talking about an obscure opinion, that would be different, but unless you can cite several sources that show that each of these claims are not valid, then you should remove nothing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

POV is not just a matter of truth, it's also a matter of context and weight. Pyometra has a high incidence and mortality rate and the prevention of that is a major benefit for females who gets spayed. That is not mentioned, but the low risks of the prevented cancers are. There is similarly no context for most of the cons. Twofold and fourfold risks seems like a big deal but if it means increasing the incidence of an easily treatable disease from 0.05% to 0.2%(numbers are hypothetical), then they are not. I don't agree with a lot of what Toll booth is saying but this article is far from being neutral.--Dodo bird (talk)

By all means, add any information you wish that is backed by reliable sources. If you want to find articles/books which discuss the beneficial effects of spaying/neutering, I am in full support of including them. And as far as I can tell, nobody is opposed to including them. What I and Bob98133 are opposed to is the removal of factual information that is cited in high-quality reliable sources. Again, let me reiterate -- I have no problem with including data which shows how spaying/neutering is beneficial, just the removal of well-sourced information that shows that it is harmful. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For the third time, it's the WEIGHT of the viewpoints, NOT the facts themselves. Basically what this article does is to drum up all sorts of relatively trivial reasons not to neuter, while grossly neglecting the reasons in favor of neutering toll_booth (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY what I've been trying to say, and it's something that Jrt and Bob are not getting: The article gives an undue weight to the minority POV. The ball is completely in their court, and by asking us to cite all these sources they are trying to unfairly shift the burden of proof.

Forgive me for sounding ticked off, it's just that I HATE it when wikipedians treat opinion as fact. toll_booth (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I hate that, too, Tollbooth. So please supply some facts instead of opinions. It is not the obligation of other editors to add content that you feel is needed. If you think the article is POV, add sources to bring the article to NPOV. If you can't do that, quit demanding that other editors do it for you. Bob98133 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to add any citations until I was confident that they would not get deleted. As such, I will get to work on that, with the primary purpose of having the article's POV reflect the generally-accepted POV on neutering. toll_booth (talk) 19:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Toll - all good on your recent edits. Keep at it. Thanks - Bob98133 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well...OK then, I'll continue as I find more stuff. :) My goal has been to make sure that whatever I trim or add, there are reliable sources out there (preferably veterinary journals and the like) to back it up. toll_booth (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Let us take a small, even tiny step backward. First, let us put things into very real perspective: 1. The animals we are discussing were intended to reproduce <Yes?> hence even the science vs. creationism rules still apply to furthering a species. 2. Veterinary doctors, clinics and such are businesses. Yes they have some altruism built in to their business models, but they are in the business of building someone's nest egg, retirement, children's college fund, etc. Keeping these two little tiny details in perspective drastically changes basis for the "facts" as everyone seems so inclined to present. The facts are that without human intervention, and turning these animals into pets, that they generally have half of the life-expectancy that is presented. Look at the historical numbers instead of the manufactured data: Dogs rarely live past the age of 7 in their native environments--that includes coyotes, wolves, African wild dogs, and such. And, yes, the sources can be referenced--take one look at old Wild Kingdom footage and you'll see of the obvious and simple references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.88.11 (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

74.127...Can you please explain your comment above? I don't understand what you mean by "intended to reproduce". Can you supply a reference for that - not simply go watch Wild Kingdom - maybe some reliable sources online? Can you supply a reliable reference that vets are in the business of building nest eggs? Or that life spans of domestic and wild animals differ? And if you can supply all those references, can you succinctly state how the article could be improved including references for suggested changes? Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not the original author to whom you are replying, but I believe I do share some of that author's viewpoints. Let's hypothetically assume that human presence on our planet is nonexistent; would the dog/cat overpopulation issue still be relevant? Would animals continue to reproduce in light of those conditions? If humans weren't around, would male cat dominant behaviors still be considered "undesirable", and would animals practice self-genital mutilation for the perceived improvements in behavior that our culture attributes to such procedures? Finally, regarding the "nest egg" scenario: just because there's a lack of empirical evidence to suggest veterinarians engage in bias does not imply that they're free from conflicts of interest. Spaying and neutering procedures are a source of income for veterinarians; for a vetrinerian to suggest or imply possible disadvantages to the procedure would be in direct conflict with theoretical personal vested interests in keeping a source of income available to satisfy family and personal obligations. Raising public awareness of any theoretical disadvantages might prove damaging to that source of income. --Glitch82 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The article lists prevention of pyometra as one of the advantages of spaying. How large is that risk? The article contains risk estimates for some other diseases, but not for this one. Therefore I would like to add a reference to Egenvall, Hagman, Bonnett, Hedhammar, Olson, and Lagerstedt, J Vet Intern Med 2001;15:530–538. They showed that for Swedisch bitches < 10 year, the 12-month risk of pyometra was 2.0% in 1995 and 1.9% in 1996, with case fatality of 4.3% and 4.2% respectively. The prevalence of pyometra was found to be related to age and breed. However, neither the indicidence nor the mortality rate are quite so high as Dodo bird seems to suggest - although 'high' and 'low' are of course matters of personal opinion that should not be part of the article. The chance that one bitch dies in the next year due to pyometra is less than 1 in 1000 according to these numbers. Nevertheless, of the bitches < 10 year with insurance claims for veterinary care, 14.3% (in 1995) and 13.7% (in 1996) had a diagnosis of pyometra. This clearly makes it an important disease in bitches. These apparently conflicting percentages may shed some light on why vets and pet owners can often have such different opinions: If a vet and a dog owner both see 1000 bitches in a year, then the vet will see 143 bitches with pyometra, of which 6 die, while the dog owner will see 20 cases of pyometra, of which 1 dies. That is, even if they see the same number of dogs, they will get very different percentages. In reality most dog owners will know a much smaller number of bitches, say 30, of which 0 or 1 gets pyometra but probably doesn't die. (I do not want to add this interpretation to the article, I just want to add the reference and the latest (1996) percentages 1.9%, 4.2% and 13.7%.).

With respect to the pro/anti-neutering POV, I think it is appropriate to list some important organizations that have a pro-neutering POV, and perhaps their main reasons. However, imho this should definitely not be a reason to camouflage medical disadvantages. If such disadvantages are published in a peer reviewed scientific journal, then they should be listed. Whether this agrees with the political objectives of some or all organizations, is irrelevant. JulesEllis (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In addition to my previous comment, I think that the paragraph about mammary cancer has a pro-neutering bias (1) by focussing at the percentage of 99.5%, which can be misleading for readers with less statistical education, and (2) by ignoring the fatality rate. I prefer the formulation of the American College of Veterinary Surgeons (ACVS): "More than a quarter of unspayed female dogs will develop a mammary tumor during their lifetime. The risk is much lower for spayed female dogs, male dogs, and cats of either gender. In female dogs, 50% of mammary tumors are benign and 50% are malignant. However, few of the malignant mammary tumors are fatal. In contrast, over 85% of mammary tumors in cats are malignant and most of these have an aggressive biologic behavior (i.e., mammary tumors in cats tend to be locally invasive and metastasize to distant sites such as the lymph nodes and lungs)." One difference is that the present article says "The risk is of mammary cancer generally estimated at 25%". Here, mammary *cancer* should be mammary *tumor*, of which about 50% are cancerous. A second difference is that many readers will intuitively equate "mammary cancer" with "death", and this is incorrect according to the ACVS. JulesEllis (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

those changes seem referenced and reasonable. I have no objection. Bob98133 (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want to mislead readers with less statistical education, you could start by mentioning that 23-24% gets pyometra by age 10 rather than use the 12-months risk figure.--Dodo bird (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to revive this dead horse, but it's been half a year since this discussion and very little has changed about the article: It remains solidly against neutering, something blatantly contradicted by many, many veterinarian groups. Jrtayloriv inexplicably took the POV tags down last August, and I am going to put them back up again until we get this issue resolved. To be clear, it is not the anti-neutering facts per se that I disagree with: It is the undue weight that their points receive, which by definition is POV. The underlying problem seems to be that the pros-and-cons are presented almost entirely from the medical effects of the procedure; neutering's effect on pet overpopulation is barely even mentioned.

So I'm going to see if I can find any articles over the Thanksgiving holiday that could help restore some POV balance to this article, in addition to looking for minor statistics against neutering that are serving little purpose other than to take up space. For example, the statistic about how neutered dogs are more likely to have adverse reactions to vaccinations, but oh-by-the-way the overall risk is well under one percent. I think the biggest opportunity is to expand the sentence phrase "Besides being a birth control method, and being convenient to the owner." Spaying and neutering can directly counter pet overpopulation and indirectly counter pet abandonment. Again, the article focuses too much on risks to individual animals, and it gives barely a mention to the benefits for animal societies and the ecosystem at-large. toll_booth (talk) 22:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Toll booth is completely correct here. A person without any prior knowledge of neutering as it relates to cats and dogs could easily come away from this page believing that risks out weigh the benefits which could not be further from the truth. This article should have far more information on the benefits of neutering to the animal population than it does now. Anyone who has worked or visited an animal shelter would be well aware that there is crisis of cat and dog overpopulation and it is irresponsible for any competent person not to neuter their pet. Dpetzold (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The pics

A bit too graphic, IMO. Josh 04:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Messy pictures of a messy operation. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree that it's a bit too graphic to have a canine uterus displayed on the page. Sure, that may in fact be the end result, but that picture serves no real educational or informational purpose. Seeing that will make some people uncomfortable, and I hope that's not the goal of putting up that picture.69.207.161.146 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That's what it looks like in real life (I've performed the operation more often than I'd care to count). I don't see why this factually accurate picture should be censored. --130.92.9.58 14:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that picture does provide useful information, as the anatomy is labeled, but maybe we could use one that is a little less bloody. I'll try to get one soon. --Joelmills 03:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced it with a new image, a little less bloody (with the extra bonus of an ovarian cyst). --Joelmills 00:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice. Is that midline or side incision? --84.74.129.156 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Midline. Sorry that the incision is not shown. --Joelmills 21:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a side-by-side comparison of a neutered/un-neutered dog.... EvilHom3r 20:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

From the back end, I assume? --Joelmills 00:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

How graphic images are should not determine whether or not they're put on. Readers come to this article on their own choice. Even the seizure causing video on the Dennō_Senshi_Porygon article was not censored. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Common Knowledge Veterinary Embryonic Stemcells

Would it be common knowledge and appropriate to add here that an animal is less likely to suffer transplant rejection using stem cells from an embryo that they parented; a process which would be made impossible by having them spayed or neutered? I'm not saying this "technology" is currently available but when it is available; this would have to be the case. You would think at least one person with an injured animal might want to know about this option before getting them spade or neutered. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

A reliable secondary source would be required to establish the relevance of such a statement. You could come up with an unlimited number of speculative consequences that neutering might have, such speculation does not belong in our articles. Zad68 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

All too human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CensoredScribe (talk • contribs) 00:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

No; when the technology is available (and when we have reliable sources saying so), that might be a reasonable addition, but not before then. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Shortens lifespan???

While I am admittedly no expert in animal health or nutrition (another clearly possible version), personal observation seems to show that, in California, friends' (always neutered) cats were considered ancient and geriatric past age 10, while still-hyperactive and youthful cats nearing (and sometimes surpassing) age 20 are quite common in Russia (where neutering hasn't really caught on much). Oh, and that's despite the fact that few Russian cats have ever seen a veterinarian in their lives, while American ones seem to get better medical care than working-class American PEOPLE. Males, especially, seem to be affected, with intact near-20s healthy, crazy, lively, and all over the place as ever, and shockingly, even retaining a major libido (if that ain't a sign of overall health, I don't know what is)... Aadieu (talk) 02:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What you suggest may be true, however it would require a reliable reference to conclude that the shortened lifespan is related to neutering and not diet, increased number of cars, or any number of other factors. Ideally, a study in which many factors are taken into account, with a reliable control group, might answer this but I am not aware of any such study. I am aware that cats confined indoors tend to live longer than those who roam free, but again, factors such as traffic, disease transmission, interaction with wild animals, etc. are probably the determinants for longer life, not simply whether the cat is confined or not. Bob98133 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Life span doesn't equal productivity. For pets, their purpose is mainly to make the owner's time more comfortable, and when it dies, the owner can always get another one. Thus, a shorter life span matters little, what is more important is the quality of owning the pet: which is dependent on it's obedience. 173.180.202.22 (talk) 02:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the viewpoint that a companion animal's lifespan is unimportant to its owner - some people actually care about the overall health of their pets, don't they? Jarble (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Inside cats live about eight years longer than outside cats. Indoor and outdoor spayed and neutered cats live longer than cats that haven't had the surgery. It reduces attempts by indoor cats to go outside and find a mate or, in the case of males, to fight off other males. Cats that interact with outside cats often contract lethal viral and bacterial diseases as well as parasites. Spaying eliminates a female cat's chances of getting ovarian, uterine or cervical cancer. Neutering a male cat gets rid of any chance he will develop testicular cancer. The average life span for a healthy, indoor, spayed or neutered cat is 15 years. We had a cat that lived to be 21 and two that reached 18, but the rest were between 15-16 when they died. And yes, their lifespans (and their relative shortness) affected us very much. Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

New illustration needed

Could someone please find a new illustration for this article that doesn't involve torturing a cat? Or any other kind of animal? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 04:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed it, it's a hateful painting depicting animal torture. It shouldn't be here. How about a modern photo of a spay surgery under anesthesia? Csn someone supply something like that? Rissa, Guild of Copy Editors (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neutering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081231024429/http://www.acc-d.org:80/Neutersol to http://www.acc-d.org/Neutersol

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)