De-Clawing

Veterinary School Application Advising Ad
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Members do not see this ad.
CanadianGolden said:
If you don't like scratching *don't get a cat*
Click to expand...

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who likes to have their furniture and skin destroyed outside of a BDSM club. But I'm going to just drop it and agree to disagree with you on the trainability of cats and also on the absolute doomsday predictions of most strictly anti-declawing advocates.

I've also never heard of someone using local anesthesia for an ear crop. Nowadays a lot of vets don't do them at all, but the ones I've heard of who do will do it under full anesthesia. I'd think that doing it under a local would leave too much room for an active, wiggly puppy to cause an imperfect crop which would PO the owners pretty badly. I realize that it's not a perfect parallel, but it's still an elective procedure and one would argue that at least declawing has a purpose behind it - whereas ear cropping is solely for aesthetic reasons.
 
ratbandit said:
AGREED, I bet a lot of the people here who are for declawing work in a practice where they do it regularly. Bottom line is that it is a money maker and vets talk themselves into thinking it is the best for the cat or else its going to get euthanized or some crap like that.QUOTE]

Nope never worked in a practice that does it regularly and do not even work in private practice now, so let's not generalize (okay now I had to put down my popcorn and join because my biggest pet peeves is generalizations😡) and I was soooooooo happy with my popcorn🙁
Click to expand...
 
I worked for a veterinarian that did declaws routinely, on any age cat, with pain medicatoin optional! 🙁 It was horrible to see the poor kitties in such pain, sometimes the techs would sneak it to them anyway.

Also did ear crops with optional pain control.
 
I worked in a clinic where it was done regularly, as if it were routine, on lots of kittens. They occasionally did an older cat (one was a cat OWNED by one of the techs!!). I didn't like it then and I still don't.
 
I worked in a practice where it was done via either scalpel or laser method with multimodal pain management required, and the cats stayed with us for 2 nights afterwards to ensure that there were no immediate problems. Front paws only, under a year old only except in very extreme cases. (the only one I can recall where we did back claws and did a cat over a year old was in the case where the owner developed a clotting disorder and the cat was a definite scratcher, and we didn't do all four at the same time)

Maybe if I'd worked in a practice that used the guillotine method with optional pain management I'd think differently of it, but I never really saw complications or problems with declawed cats at our clinic, so that's probably why I feel like the claims against it are a bit exaggerated.

Again, I don't think every kitten who comes in the door needs to be declawed, and it should be considered on a case by case basis, but I'm just not rabidly against it, that's all.
 
Agree it should be on a case-by-case basis, since sometimes it is warranted. But I think many people believe that it's just what you do with a cat, and in those situations...poor cats. My cat scratched my sclera once, trying to escape from me when the dog scared him. I don't think that's a legitimate reason to remove claws. But an owner who develops a clotting problem, immune deficiency, etc, and rehoming the cat would be more stressful than declawing, then it might be warranted.
 
ouch.
 
I'm kinda surprised at all the responses like if you can't handle the claws too you just shouldn't have a cat. I agree, if it's going to be in/out, it shouldn't be declawed. If it's an older cat, I think it's wrong to declaw them beacuse of potential complications. But, I don't see why if a cat could have a home, but needs to be declawed that you would rather see it homeless (or at a shelter) and have all it's claws. There would be a lot more homeless kittens! However, if you are going to declaw, pain meds should be used to make the animal comfortable and only fronts should be done (unless medical reasons).

I was also wondering what people thought then about rental properties (apartments or whatever) that require cats be front declawed. Yes, people could move to a clawed-cat friendly place, but at least around here, those are hard to come by. Are those people not allowed to have cats then?

I'd much rather see a kitten declawed than a dog's ears cropped or tail docked.
 
wivet2011 said:
I was also wondering what people thought then about rental properties (apartments or whatever) that require cats be front declawed. Yes, people could move to a clawed-cat friendly place, but at least around here, those are hard to come by. Are those people not allowed to have cats then?
Click to expand...


My landlord had that in my rental agreement. I refused to sign it without taking that part out. I, in return put a deposit on my place specifically for any "damage" my cats cause. Both are actually very good at only scratching their posts, and are both over 3 years old so there was no way I was going to declaw them just to move into an apartment. I actually told him that I would find a different place if he would not bend for that.

Again, I am not against declawing when it is necessary. I just don't see declawing my cats because we moved as valid. If I were to sign a cluase to declaw any cats before I ever had them, then I would have adopted already declawed cats (you can find plenty of them at humane societies.)
 
I think we can all agree that the willy-nilly fundamentalist claw-removal theory of cat ownership is bad... and that in some extreme cases, declawing is necessary for either cat or human health... and that in the middle, it's a grey area!

A good thing about there being lots of vets available for small animal work is that people can set their own boundaries and do what they're comfortable with.

and in terms of rent and things - if I were to be renting out to people with cats, rather than scratching I'd be much more concerned about cat piss smell, which is IMPOSSIBLE to get out if one has male cats who spray... yikes. I adore cats, my parents have 7 cats, I'm sure I'll have multiple cats when I can, but damm does cat pee smell bad! and yet thankfully de-bladdering surgery is, umm, somewhat impossible. 😀
 
chris03333 said:
My landlord had that in my rental agreement. I refused to sign it without taking that part out. I, in return put a deposit on my place specifically for any "damage" my cats cause. Both are actually very good at only scratching their posts, and are both over 3 years old so there was no way I was going to declaw them just to move into an apartment. I actually told him that I would find a different place if he would not bend for that.

Again, I am not against declawing when it is necessary. I just don't see declawing my cats because we moved as valid. If I were to sign a cluase to declaw any cats before I ever had them, then I would have adopted already declawed cats (you can find plenty of them at humane societies.)
Click to expand...

Oh, I completely agree. you shouldn't declaw your cats just because you are moving. But if you are already in a place and decide to get a cat, it is an option, but then it should be a kitten. I guess my comment was more towards a case of you already have an apartment and want to get a cat. In my case, I spent over a year looking for a declawed cat that had the right personality and without behavior/health problems. I weighed the options and decided I'd rather declaw a kitten (which until then, I said I'd never do) than adopt a problem. (And fwiw, I've volunteered at a shelter and worked at a clinic for the last 5.5yrs, so I've heard all the +/- for both sides) I'm not saying it's impossible to find a declawed cat, in fact, I have one that I adopted from a client. But, it is difficult.
 
wivet2011 said:
I'd much rather see a kitten declawed than a dog's ears cropped or tail docked.
Click to expand...

Why? Tail docking and ear cropping never (or almost never) have any long term effects at all, while declawing has several. (Effects would be inability to stretch properly, inability to defend itself. Declawing also has the potential to cause long term HARM, in the form of early onset arthritis, problems walking, and litterbox problems.) Yes, cropping/docking are cosmetic (and tail docking may interfere with the dog's ability to turn, although if done at 2 days old the dog never knows the use of a tail) but they have many fewer problems associated with them than declawing.

P.S. Cat pee has a half life of 8 million years. 😉
 
Couldn't the argument be made that 8 weeks isn't a terribly long time for a cat to have claws anyway? And so they will get used to stretching without them? And indoor cats don't need to defend themselves. And they still swipe when they play, so obviously they are still exhibiting the behaviors ...

Further it seems like the problems walking has already been addressed: force plate studies were done, and no difference was detected.

I'm not saying that you don't have the right to not declaw, more that we should have the right to choose. I would be interested in seeing if there is a lot of literature one way or the other.
 
CanadianGolden said:
P.S. Cat pee has a half life of 8 million years. 😉
Click to expand...

Try working at a cat colony with hundreds of intact cats. The male cages and the cats have an awful permanent smell to them. I'm moderately sure that they just have giant spraying-parties all night long. They'll even nail you if you stand in the crossfire (area between two male cages) and are not careful. It's SO disgusting.

Oh and yes, my arms are scarred and scratched so badly on a regular basis that I appear to be a masochist. I swear I got looks of sympathy when I was in Pittsburgh with the fam over the holidays...
 
CanadianGolden said:
Why? Tail docking and ear cropping never (or almost never) have any long term effects at all, while declawing has several. (Effects would be inability to stretch properly, inability to defend itself. Declawing also has the potential to cause long term HARM, in the form of early onset arthritis, problems walking, and litterbox problems.) Yes, cropping/docking are cosmetic (and tail docking may interfere with the dog's ability to turn, although if done at 2 days old the dog never knows the use of a tail) but they have many fewer problems associated with them than declawing.

P.S. Cat pee has a half life of 8 million years. 😉
Click to expand...

Both have the potential to cause problems. Any surgery has the potential to cause problems. As far as declawing, a lot of the problems come from declawing when they are older or overweight. If you declaw early, the chance for complications decreases. As far as cropping and docking, your right, def. cosmetic, so what's the point? Someone said that it helps hearing and prevents injury out in the field and I don't really buy either of those. How many hunting labs do you see with docked tails? And it's certainly not affecting whether they have homes or not. For cats, declawing can make the difference of having a home or not. Like I said before, if you can avoid declawing great, but I'd rather see a kitten be declawed than see it homeless. To say that you need to be able to deal with the cat, claws in all, or you shouldn't have a cat, is not fair.

As far as cats not being able to defend themselves... if it's going to be an inside only cat, what is it having to defend itself against? (yeah, I know... what happens if Fluffy gets out then 🙄) And if it's inside/outside it shouldn't be declawed, plain and simple.
 
wivet2011 said:
Both have the potential to cause problems. Any surgery has the potential to cause problems. As far as declawing, a lot of the problems come from declawing when they are older or overweight. If you declaw early, the chance for complications decreases. As far as cropping and docking, your right, def. cosmetic, so what's the point? Someone said that it helps hearing and prevents injury out in the field and I don't really buy either of those. How many hunting labs do you see with docked tails? And it's certainly not affecting whether they have homes or not. For cats, declawing can make the difference of having a home or not. Like I said before, if you can avoid declawing great, but I'd rather see a kitten be declawed than see it homeless. To say that you need to be able to deal with the cat, claws in all, or you shouldn't have a cat, is not fair.

As far as cats not being able to defend themselves... if it's going to be an inside only cat, what is it having to defend itself against? (yeah, I know... what happens if Fluffy gets out then 🙄) And if it's inside/outside it shouldn't be declawed, plain and simple.
Click to expand...

I didn't say I agreed with cropping and docking, but they also don't have the potential for long term complications as declawing does. Really, though, why would you get a cat if you aren't prepared to deal with cat claws? You have to deal with a litterbox, and meowing, and paying for food...why aren't claws part of the package? Barking is part of a dog, and it can cause major nuisances, but no one advocates debarking as a routine procedure. What's the difference?
 
CanadianGolden said:
I didn't say I agreed with cropping and docking, but they also don't have the potential for long term complications as declawing does. Really, though, why would you get a cat if you aren't prepared to deal with cat claws? You have to deal with a litterbox, and meowing, and paying for food...why aren't claws part of the package? Barking is part of a dog, and it can cause major nuisances, but no one advocates debarking as a routine procedure. What's the difference?
Click to expand...

Why get a dog if you aren't prepared to deal with it's ears and tail!!

Honestly, we don't have to agree, but you really shouldn't tell people they are cruel to declaw a cat (which is what I'm getting out of your posts). There are legitimate points for both sides of the arguement. Whether you want to actually listen, is up to you.
 
I wrote an essay for english class on cat licensing. It is pretty hard that a cat will be an indoor cat for its entire life. In the article that I chose to write on, it said that one in three cats and dogs will escape at least once in their lifetime. It would totally suck if your declawed cat got out and got injured by another animal.

Um... how do I feel about the situation?

Cats scratch. It's what they do. There are a lot of options to control this behavior: training, softpaws, trimming their nails on a regular basis, ect. There is no excuse for de-clawing. Don't want your cat scratching your new sofa to pieces? Don't want your cat scratching your agressive children? Curve the behavior. Don't have enough time? Not enough patience? Too lazy? Then you shouldn't be owning a cat. Genuine situations, like the owner being a hemophiliac, are rare.

I don't really agree with any of this, but if I become a vet, I guess I don't really have a choice. As long as de-clawing is legal, you have to be neutral towards it. This is the procedure, these are the risks, this is what we do for pain, this is the cost, these are the alternatives. What is your decision?
 
well said, scarcelyheard. i agree with your stance about the practice personally, as well as your suggested way of dealing with clients about it.
 
Barking is part of a dog, and it can cause major nuisances, but no one advocates debarking as a routine procedure

No one is recommending declawing as a 'routine' procedure, either....unless I missed something completely. I think we can all agree that declawing for silly things like scratching up furniture isn't warranted.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
No one is recommending declawing as a 'routine' procedure, either....unless I missed something completely. I think we can all agree that declawing for silly things like scratching up furniture isn't warranted.
Click to expand...

Many vets perform the procedure as a matter of routine when they neuter the cat. Some of the vets where I used to work were prone to doing this. I don't think it needs to be like that, but I'd still rather declaw a cat for scratching up furniture than have it be put outside permanently or taken to a shelter. I think that's the gray area that hoodle was talking about.
 
I think that's the gray area that hoodle was talking about.

Ah yes, I do agree.

I think what I was trying to say was that probably all of us here agree that declawing for reasons like that should not be 'routine' in the way that we would neglect to suggest behavioral therapy, training, soft paws, etc first.

Having to choose between declawing a cat and having the owners give it up to be euthed is a real toughie. I mean, I would rather see the cat declawed than dead - declawed cats can live perfectly happy lives. I really dislike people who put you in that kind of situation, though, without having tried other things (or being unwilling to try other things) first. Beh. They shouldn't have gotten a cat, but I'd rather the cat had a home than a cage at a shelter, or stuck permanently outside, etc.
 
wivet2011 said:
Why get a dog if you aren't prepared to deal with it's ears and tail!!

Honestly, we don't have to agree, but you really shouldn't tell people they are cruel to declaw a cat (which is what I'm getting out of your posts). There are legitimate points for both sides of the arguement. Whether you want to actually listen, is up to you.
Click to expand...

I listened, and as I said, there are some legitimate situations where declawing is warranted. But right now, there are a lot of cats getting declaws who don't fit those legitimate situations.I agree with WhtstheFrequency that declawing shouldn't be routine, but I didn't get the impression that everyone here thinks that.

I don't necessarily agree with cropping and docking, but it can be awfully hard to find a puppy from a breeder whose tail isn't docked. They're not going to leave all the tails just because one buyer wants a tail. Same with dewclaws, btw--their removal, in my observation of hundreds of performance dogs (I don't know if a study has been done), those with dewclaws have a higher incidence of carpal arthritis because their carpus takes the strain of turning instead of the dewclaw. I wish breeders would stop removing them.

I like scarcelyheard's way of putting things.
 
I just have a question about what you all think should have been done in this situation:

When I was little one of our cats died, so I got to pick a new one out. It took me three months to find one, but that's not really the point. We got her tons of scratching posts, etc., but she always had to scratch something before she would jump on it (table, chair, sofa, door, etc.). Also, she used to climb things such as our screens while we were gone, so we'd find her scared and stuck in some awkward when we got home. True, we could have removed our screens, but I'd rather keep them on when the windows are open. We did trim her nails, but she'd just sit for hours and resharpen them. In a day or two it was like we'd never clipped them. Anyway, my parents did say we had to get rid of her or declaw her, and she's now 18 and we haven't had any problems. I was just wondering what other people would have done.
 
In that talk that Pressmom and I went to, the Dr. told us that in the 70's it was a routine procedure, but it really isn't routine now except in some clinics. And soft paws are nice and all, but do you really want to bring your pet in to the vet everytime you wanted to replace them? Because as an owner, I would find that highly inconvenient and inconvenience seems to dictate a lot of actions.

I feel that ear cropping and tail docking are worse because it is simply cosmetic, there is no value to having the surgery done. Declawing a cat will most likely give it a home and can be the difference between life and death.

And from a business standpoint, I would hate to lose a client due to the fact that I simply refused to do a procedure. I would rather that they were not alienated by their vet and therefore keep their animals coming in at least fairly regularly.
 
Sure if anyone here refused to do a declaw they may just go to another vet, but standing up for something you don't think is right says something about you and sends a message to your client. If more vets just stood their ground on their opinions then these procedure wouldn't be as routine. Again, the "it's the difference between life and death" is the exception rather than the rule. So what if another vet is going to do it, let them, at least you stood your ground. As far as "not having a choice" and "having to be neutral" Seriously people, use your professional judgement and don't do something you don't feel is right - it's really not that complicated.
 
CanadianGolden said:
Same with dewclaws, btw--their removal, in my observation of hundreds of performance dogs (I don't know if a study has been done), those with dewclaws have a higher incidence of carpal arthritis because their carpus takes the strain of turning instead of the dewclaw. I wish breeders would stop removing them.
Click to expand...

I'm not quoting you to agree or disagree. I'm just wondering if you were able to find any research that supports this (I know you said you didnt know about any studies and its just through your observation)? Have any of you vets that read these threads make an observation like this? I'd like more information on this topic, if possible, because I never thought of this as a (potential) issue for removing dewclaws.
 
CanadianGolden said:
Yes, my mentor, who is a DVM PhD and has written multiple lauded books on canine sports medicine and conditioning is the one who originally made the observation. She gives seminars across the world on these topics (conditioning the canine athlete, nutrition, sports medicine, and rehabilitation of sports injuries in dogs) and is regarded as one of the leading experts in the field of canine sports medicine. I would be happy to PM you her name.
Click to expand...

thanks! 🙂
 
FishHick said:
I worked for a veterinarian that did declaws routinely, on any age cat, with pain medicatoin optional! 🙁 It was horrible to see the poor kitties in such pain, sometimes the techs would sneak it to them anyway.

Also did ear crops with optional pain control.
Click to expand...
I worked for a veterinarian before med school where pain meds were optional for declaws as well and it was so horrid to see the cats suffer in excruciating pain for hours just for the sake of a few dollars.
 
ratbandit said:
Sure if anyone here refused to do a declaw they may just go to another vet, but standing up for something you don't think is right says something about you and sends a message to your client. If more vets just stood their ground on their opinions then these procedure wouldn't be as routine. Again, the "it's the difference between life and death" is the exception rather than the rule. So what if another vet is going to do it, let them, at least you stood your ground. As far as "not having a choice" and "having to be neutral" Seriously people, use your professional judgement and don't do something you don't feel is right - it's really not that complicated.
Click to expand...

I agree. In fact it disturbs me that so many people are going into this practice either not really giving these issues much consideration or being very reluctant to set limits on what they will and will not do.

I can also say from my experience that average Americans are simply unaware of what declawing actually is and have no idea that there is any controversy surrounding its practice. I can't tell you how many myths about cats (they are loners, only males can spray...etc.) that I am confronted with when working with the public at shelters.

Why are cat owners ignorant about the controversy surrounding declawing? I don't know for sure, but I suspect it lies squarely with the veterinary industry's attitude here (as I posted earlier, veterinarians in several other countries are unwilling to do the procedure). In N. America it is clearly different from other parts of the first world (where so many people actually have disposable income to spend on something like a cat). My hunch is that it is probably because vets not only continue to offer the service, but actively promote and ADVERTISE it! Think about it. If your health practitioner advocated a certain diet or procedure or whatever, do you not think you would trust their judgement? I tend to, and I expect I would trust a veterinarian even more so when dealing with a species different from my own (ie; a cat, about which humans know intrinsically less than they do about Homo sapiens). The general public thinks of vets (and shelter workers) as advocates for animals. I wish they all were rigorous in living up to that ideal of animal advocacy, but it is not the case. I think this is a major issue in animal care and welfare. Medicine and titles like "Dr." evoke the do no harm kind of message... Is the profession worthy of such expectations if they do not challenge things like willful declaws and many current animal husbandry practices (another topic of debate...)?

As for 'do no harm'... Do most people on here not agree that the vast majority of cases of declaws are more harmful than beneficial to an animal?

I would love to see vets stop advertising this option. To me it sends the wrong message. It's advertised all over, vets are very willing to do it, so who can blame the public that en masse requests it?

At the shelter we work very hard to educate people about preventing inappropriate scratching problems before they develop. We provide literature and expose them to the wide variety of scratchers and products available to them (there are tons of scratcher types and some cats have clear preferences). We encourage them to massage and manipulate their cats' paws during affection time, as well as give them detailed instructions on how to trim claws safely.

Sometimes, adopters, wanting to assure me that they are kind and generous, tell me that they don't care if their furniture gets scratched, often because (as they say) it is 'old and crappy, anyways'. I always reply that it's still imperative that they not allow their cats to develop a habit of scratching inappropriately. Why? Because in the future they might find the resources to purchase or have an interest in getting nicer furniture. And worse yet, there is always the possibility that they one day surrender or re-home the cat.
Litterbox usage, jumping on counters, scratching in inappropriate places... these are issues of cat-people manners--cat-people manners must be instilled, to the best of one's ability, in the animal. To do otherwise decreases the chance that animal has of securing another home (should it ever be in that unfortunate position). If there are issues, I think a good effort to re-home an animal to an environment where it is accepted as is, ought to be a first start. Last resorts might have to be declawing...

Do most vets exhaust the list of alternatives before agreeing to something as serious as declawing? ( I would have thought so, but this thread is making me doubt).

BTW, I don't use them but I know two average cat owners who use soft paws and rave about them.

Finally, did someone actually say that they know of vets performing this sans pain control? That truly is cruel. I'd like to know what kind of behavior the cat exhibits post-op. Good luck trying to crate it for the next trip to the vet. Sheesh!!!
 
dyachei said:
And from a business standpoint, I would hate to lose a client due to the fact that I simply refused to do a procedure. I would rather that they were not alienated by their vet and therefore keep their animals coming in at least fairly regularly.
Click to expand...

Here's where I would disagree. I'm certainly not a licensed veterinarian, so this is more hypothetical than anything. But, to be true to my clients and their pets, I don't think I could offer to do something I was uncomfortable with. I don't want my (hypothetical) clients dictating to me what to 'do' or prescribe for their pets. I'll offer to do what I deem fit. American 'consumers' are instilled with 'the customer is king' mantra, which might be good for the burger and retail business, but is not as applicable to medicine, IMO. That's why I don't agree with advertisements for declawing and generally dislike commercials for pharmaceuticals.

We don't need to chastise people for expecting to have declawing done on a whim. Why? Well first, most people are simply mis- and uninformed. I cannot expect them to have any prior knowledge, whatsoever, about felines and their care. Also, for reasons I outlined in the post above (ie; advertising, wide practice), we cannot blame cat owners for expecting to have easy access to declawing.

So the response is not a simple rebuke... We do, though, need to take all opportunities to connect with people as best we can and communicate with them. This type of scenario is an ideal one. I can easily explain how well I sympathize with the client's situation (furniture clawed and frustration). And I can offer all kinds of support to work on alternatives. But in any case, I am obligated to provide them with the knowledge and resources that will help them come to informed decisions about their animal's health. If, after receiving all the information, they still want to declaw, I would accept that, and offer up my opinion on where best to go to have that done (ie; at a vet's I respect).

While I know most people have a difficult time being told 'no', I hope this hypothetical client would still feel comfortable returning to our practice afterwards. Even if I were as as diplomatic as possible, I know that's probably unlikely. In the event they don't feel comfortable returning to my clinic, maybe I would at least have succeeded in referring them to a different vet that I trust. And maybe I would have planted a seed of change regarding how they think about their companion animal.

I really believe that as a veterinarian, if I were honest with clients about where I stand and gave them the information and also the choice, I would be providing the best customer service possible. After all, aren't people going to vets because they respect their expertise and opinions about the health and well-being of their animals??

I think educating and sharing what we know with people is perhaps the most important thing a veterinarian can do for her customers (and, in turn, patients). How do you encourage them to bring their animals back the following year? Not by mandating it and sending 10 reminders... but by giving them a good reason to want to come back--because you informed them about the life span of vaccines, or of the benefits of dental care and check-ups... because you explained what the common ailments of cats are and how prevention or early diagnosis are cheaper and more successful than emergency costs... because you cared enough to give them some literature about the options for feeding their cat... etc..

I realize that sounds idealistic, but I do think most people want to know more about the health services they 'consume' than they are ever told (to use a word I really don't like in that context)....

The same approach applies to another hypothetical scenario, which is not all that uncommon, either. Suppose a client requested euthanasia for an animal for reasons I deemed to be poor (ie; 'we are moving and no one wants our cat but we don't want to surrender it...'). If I cannot convince said individual to make use of local resources for rehoming and rescuing their cat, I'd rather offer to keep the kitty and have a resident pet at the clinic for awhile until I could find better digs for it. I don't think I could euthanize a (physically and emotionally) healthy animal just because the owner wished it. What kind of message would I be sending if I could not refuse a request that violated my values, and didn't take the opportunity to advocate for that animal?
 
cwazy cat lady said:
What kind of message would I be sending if I could not refuse a request that violated my values, and didn't take the opportunity to advocate for that animal?
Click to expand...

But this is assuming its our "values" to have the cat not become declawed. I personally don't believe that. And in our clinic, we always explain exactly what a declaw is: we're removing the bone, etc. So there is no confusion, and the owners KNOW what the surgery is, not just a "declaw".
 
wivet2011 said:
Why get a dog if you aren't prepared to deal with it's ears and tail!!

Honestly, we don't have to agree, but you really shouldn't tell people they are cruel to declaw a cat (which is what I'm getting out of your posts). There are legitimate points for both sides of the arguement. Whether you want to actually listen, is up to you.
Click to expand...

:bow:

I hate it that people think it's okay to dock and earcrop, yet if you declaw your kitten, for any reason, you're basically a heathen. I really resent that way of thinking on the situation.
 
Catch91 said:
:bow:

I hate it that people think it's okay to dock and earcrop, yet if you declaw your kitten, for any reason, you're basically a heathen. I really resent that way of thinking on the situation.
Click to expand...

...Okay, but I didn't say that. Although I do think that you aren't considering the long term implications of declawing, which are far more severe than those of docking and cropping.
 
Another spin on the question.

Would you still refuse to do a declaw if you, a competent veterinarian, knew the owner would just take it to some chop-shop vet instead? Or bite your tongue and do it yourself in order to make sure that it is done as well an painlessly as possible?

Yet another spin. A bit more hypothetical, but I know it certainly happens to people - so it is something to think about for those of us entering private practice.

So, let's say as an associate veterinarian (i.e. you don't own the clinic), you refuse to do declawing/docking/cropping (elective procedures you disagree with, but provided at your clinic) because it conflicts with your moral values. How is that different from a pharmacist refusing to give out birth control (an elective medication with uses he/she may disagree with), which is pretty much refusing to do your job - i.e. provide requested client services.

These are arguements I've heard....interested in opinions
 
1) I'd recommend another good vet. I would explain why I did not feel comfortable doing the procedure. If the client wanted to go to a "chop shop", I would explain my reasons for not recommending that vet (they don't give adequate pain meds, their techniques are not as current and thus cause more pain, etc--always explained diplomatically and professionally).

2) I do think that it is my right to refuse to perform a procedure, even as an associate vet. I also think it's the right of a pharmacist or OB/GYN to refuse BC to a patient (although I don't AGREE with it and don't see why you would become an OB/GYN knowing that BC is a major aspect of the job). However, declawing is not a major part of being a vet, so I think it's a slightly different situation. If, say, I disagreed with neutering, that would be a little different, since that arguably is a large part of any small animal practice.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
So, let's say as an associate veterinarian (i.e. you don't own the clinic), you refuse to do declawing/docking/cropping (elective procedures you disagree with, but provided at your clinic) because it conflicts with your moral values. How is that different from a pharmacist refusing to give out birth control (an elective medication with uses he/she may disagree with), which is pretty much refusing to do your job - i.e. provide requested client services.
Click to expand...

Implying the reproductive rights in humans is on the same level as an elective surgical procedure on an animal? You'd have better luck finding relevance in the comparison of apples to oranges.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because at least in my country humans possess a little thing called the right to control the course of their life, up to and including the decision of whether or not to reproduce. And in this instance, that right has been legally upheld time and time again.

It is wholly unethical for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a legal contraceptive prescription unless doing so would cause an adverse drug reaction when combined with other medications being taken severe enough to cause the loss of life, limb or eyesight in the individual. That is as far as pharmacists can legally involve themselves in the decision-making process. What they "think" or "feel" or "believe" has absolutely zero impact or place in fulfilling the duties they agreed to assume when they took up the profession and title of pharmacist; dispensing prescription medication on the orders of a licensed medical professional. They are there to provide a technical skill/service, not make the moral or ethical decisions for other humans. Even MDs/DOs don't enjoy that particular little luxury.

Access to the surgical skill of declawing from a licensed professional is not a right. I don't care how you slice it, there is no human entitlement issues involved. Refusal to provide the service does not interfere with the humans right to control the course of their life, including the decision of whether or not to own an animal. You can still own an animal if it is not declawed; hard to not produce children if sexually active without contraceptives. And don't waste my time with the raising the counter-argument of "Well, then don't have sex". Get real. It has been demonstrated we (and some other species, for that matter) do not engage in sexual activity for the express purpose of species propagation alone. If it were we wouldn't even be having this conversation, now would we?

However, you are morally, ethically and legally obligated to practice veterinary medicine autonomously. This is done to insure no entity, directly or indirectly, influences how you decide to practice medicine and surgery. That includes employers. That includes clients. You, and you alone, decide how you practice and who you will practice on. And guess what that decision is based on? Oh, that's right. After first applying your training and knowledge and medical judgement and the standards of care to the best of your ability, what you "think" and "feel" and "believe" is in the best interest of a patient who has no rights. You may be wrong, but that is a right in the role you fill as a patient welfare advocate.
 
Actually, pharmacists and doctors can legally refuse to dispense a prescription or to prescribe a drug to someone for whatever reason they want. And you are free to not use their services.
 
WhtsThFrequency said:
Er, fetch.... 😳 I didnt say I agreed with the arguement. I just said it was an arguement I had heard.
Click to expand...

I know that. 🙂

Just little ol' me's opinion of why the argument presented is flawed. Am I not suppose to play? 🙁

CanadianGolden:
Who said pharmacists didn't have the right to legally refuse to dispense a drug? Not I, said the little veterinarian. In fact, I even cited an example of when it is professionally appropriate to do so.

The APA's position specifically addressing a pharmacist's right to refuse to dispense legal contraceptive based on personal moral/ethical grounds:

"...pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions as long as they make sure customers can get their medications some other way."
Click to expand...

I still maintain there is no place in the pharmacy/pharmaceutical sciences, or medicine for that matter, to impose ones moral/ethical opinions regarding access to legal contraceptive. I apparently I like to reinvent the wheel, too 😳 :

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/bioethics/news/documents/PharmacistRefuseLANCET2006.pdf
 
I don't AGREE that pharmacists should refuse medications (except for medical reasons), but they can, unfortunately. And so can OB/GYNs. I read online a (firsthand) story where someone went to a GYN specifically for BC and he refused to give it to her because she wasn't married. Sigh.
 
Just little ol' me's opinion of why the argument presented is flawed. Am I not suppose to play?


Of course you can! 🙂 Forgive my sensitivity + reading too much into things. I just got my head knocked in by an Ortho exam this morning and am running on 4 hrs sleep 😱 so I am reading just about everything wrong! 😉
 
Personally.... I do not agree with declaws and I do not see why it is necessary to crop ears or tails. In fact... I think declawing is my most hated procedure(when doing declaws the old fashion way). I have seen a few kittens never wake up, too many flip out so badly that they have hurt themselves, and way too much pain just because people wont buy a scratching post. I have a dog with a cropped tail (my parents bought her pure bread and it was done very early before we even picked her out). She is happy now, and I can't really provide an opinion on the process without being present. however, i do not think that it is a necessary procedure, and that it probably causes a large amount of unnecessary pain. If I had had the choice, I would probably have not had her cropped since we were not planning on showing her.


just my opinion....
 
CanadianGolden said:
I don't AGREE that pharmacists should refuse medications (except for medical reasons), but they can, unfortunately. And so can OB/GYNs. I read online a (firsthand) story where someone went to a GYN specifically for BC and he refused to give it to her because she wasn't married. Sigh.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you do or don't - didn't ask... 😉

You made what is normally a very a valid observation/statement. Just pointing out the APA's own position on this very specific, considerably controversial, subject disagrees with the general, normally acceptable, rights of a pharmacist to refuse service. In this instance they are in violation of the professions standard of care, potentially state practice acts and impending (passed?) laws that state they cannot refuse without making arrangements to insure the prescription is filled.

As for the story - the OB/GYN sounds like an utter asshat for taking on (and charging) the client without disclosing his/her prejudice. If the express purpose of the visit was made known at the time of appointment setting, a complaint should've been filed with the governing medical board.

Why? Because, again, we're dealing with a human right to pusue reproductive contraception as defined by the laws of this country. If it became a human right protected by laws to have a pet declawed, I would be espousing personal morals/ethics in the decision to perform declaws have no place as well.
 
States that allow doctors to refuse care

Contraception
AR, CO, FL, IL, ME, MS, TN, WA
Abortion
Every state has a law except AL, NH, VT, WV.
Sterilization
AR, GA, ID, IL, KS, KY, MD, MA, MS, MT, NJ, PA, RI, WA, WV, WI

States that allow hospitals to refuse care

Contraception
All hospitals
IL, MS, WA
Private hospitals only
AR, CO, ME, MA, NJ, TN
Abortion
All hospitals
AZ, AR, CO, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MS, MO, NE, NM, NC, ND, OH, SD, TN, VA, WA, WI
Private hospitals only
AK, IL, IN, IA, MN, MT, NV, NJ, OK, OR, PA, SC, TX, UT, WY
Religious hospitals only
CA
Sterilization
All hospitals
AR, GA, ID, IL, KS, MD, MS, NM, WA, WV, WI
Private hospitals only
MA, MT, NJ, PA

States considering new laws
Lawmakers in Missouri, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Vermont are considering sweeping bills that would allow medical professionals to refuse to provide any service they object to.


But anyway...back on topic now!
 
Here's a potentially dumb question that I have always wondered that hasn't directly come up in schooling yet...I realize that doing general anesthesia on a 2-3 day old puppy for a tail dock or dew claw is not a good idea. Can you do any sort of local anesthesia instead?
 
Probably a topical anesthetic cream would be okay? I'm not even sure it would matter--I've never observed this, but I'm told that the puppy seems to feel pain only for a second or two and then goes back to normal behavior. I don't know this for a fact, though, just what I've heard.
 
Electrophile said:
Here's a potentially dumb question that I have always wondered that hasn't directly come up in schooling yet...I realize that doing general anesthesia on a 2-3 day old puppy for a tail dock or dew claw is not a good idea. Can you do any sort of local anesthesia instead?
Click to expand...

Actually the vet that I worked for used a lidocaine block. The puppies really don't seem to care much though, CanadianGolden is right. I've assisted with some dewclaw removals/tail docks and the puppies do scream bloody murder when you're doing it. A few staff members refused to help with it because of that. But once you put them back in with their mom they sort of just go back to crawling around like little puppies and making little piles against each other and nursing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

WildZoo
Supernatural: Angels & Demons WW Game Thread
121 122 123 124 125
Replies
6K
Views
97K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Animal Midwife
Death Nommy - Game Thread
83 84 85 86 87
Replies
4K
Views
79K
SARdoghandler
SARdoghandler
J
Student Loans & Department of Education Changes
Replies
2
Views
758
DVM882029
D
YellowYolk413
Help Determine Pet Sitting Rate
Replies
7
Views
1K
sydneyandreano
S
Kirb
Traditional Small Animal GP Vet Assistant vs Dentist Vet Assistant Job
Replies
3
Views
696
juggling-zebra0831
J
Top Bottom