Let’s face it, cats like to scratch. Sometimes scratching a tree is not good enough…they also enjoy drapes, sofa’s and sometimes your favorite chair.
There are ways to curb your cat from bad scratching. Water guns, noise makers, commands, using sticky paper around the areas they claw at, offering cat posts and scratching pads, and much more.
Is it really ethical to declaw them? Declawing them is equivalent to cutting our fingers off at the first joint. It is not just a matter of cutting the nails. It is painful and must be done by someone with much expeirence.
Declawing cats has been banned in many cities. Just a few days ago it was overturned in Hollywood.
Well, I would rather be alive missing and some fingers than be put to sleep. So while it is something I would not do to a cat, I can see why some people have it done. And I don’t think it should be banned.
I am against declawing, though I can understand why people have it done.
Some cats really don’t seem to mind being declawed. There is, of course, the pain of the surgery and the aftermath, but some cats come through that with flying colors. Others, like my cat Orson, end up with badly deformed feet, permanent pain, and a tendency toward being fairly grumpy. His people declawed a very loving cat, then discovered that he wasn’t loving anymore and dumped him at a shelter.
Oh, dear God . . . Isabelle, do a “search” on “declawing” and take a gander at what a pie-fight this always turns into . . . Me, I’m backing slowly into my bomb shelter . . .
I guess the question you’re asking is: “Is it OK to surgically alter an animal for aesthetic reasons?”
In my mind, declawing is no different from adding a row of metal spikes to its spine or giving it a tattoo (not that it happens, that I’m aware of, but I’m thinking of similar surgical alterations for aesthetic purposes, like people who do body-modification).
If those are OK, so is declawing. If not, neither is declawing. I don’t have much of an opinion on it either way, but lean toward unethical.
I don’t know about the spikes, but the comparison to a tattoo doesn’t work, I think. A tattoo’s effect on the animal, because animals don’t have the appearance consciousness of humans, is pretty temporary.
Declawing will affect a cat for the rest of its life. They will be unable to perform certain actions, including certain types of stretching. And, as I mentioned above, there is a risk of unpleasant complications. (I don’t know anything about tattoos, so I acknowledge that tattoos might have a risk of complications, too.)
I’m married to a vet, and she would never declaw a cat that we owned. She hates the practice. It’s extremely painful for the animal, it leaves them defenseless and negatively affects agility.
50% of declaws have complications.
She still performs the surgery if the owner insists on it (she doesn’t own the practice) but always advises against it and pushes behavoir modification instead.
I always see it this way: If I had something as cool as retractable claws, which helped me hunt, climb and defend my self, would I want somebody cutting them and thelast bone in my fingers out?
If you can’t handle a little scratching, don’t get a cat…
Ooh, haven’t had this particular fight for at least 3 months now!
Remember the SDMB rules for healthy and normal bits, the chopping off of:
[ul]
[li]cat = bad[/li][li]infant son = good[/li][/ul]
Disagree and you’ll get an argument that’s guaranteed to turn ugly.
May I inquire as to why one cannot destroy the cuticle tissue? The nails needs to grow from something, right? How can they be welded straight into the bone?
My sons are not circumcised. See no need for it at all. All the “research” done in favor of it is from suspect sources. It’s a purely cosmetic procedure as far as we’re concerned. We’re not Jews nor Muslims.
Well, I am not married to a vet, but I am the son of one who performed the procedure many thousands of times over his career.
I am not sure if I can put this delicately enough, but a vet with a 50% rate of complications for a simple procedure like a declaw has something very wrong with his or her surgical technique, steile procedure, or post-op treatment.
Don’t know what state your wife practices in, but if she were in the state where my dad served as head of the licensing board, she is very likely to have heard from them before too long.
It certainly seems unethical. A friend of mine is doing a speech procject on this very subject. Don’t know how it turned out, haven’t been in touch with her since yesterday. I never considered what was involved in the procedure, what kind of health risks and possible other ramifications it might have. There are alternatives though. Like this inventive one for example.
Epimetheus, from the anecdotal evidence I heard in my two years at a vet clinic, those don’t work very well. Primarily, because they don’t stay on (or get chewed off). Also, it can be very difficult to apply them if kitty doesn’t like her paws touched.
Shodan, I must agree with you. Maybe the success rate has something to do with the method of de-clawing. I can see where the old-fashioned use of sterilized nail clippers might not work as well as careful resection with a scalpel (or even a laser).
No. I think it is unethical, and constitutes animal cruelty. Either keep your cat away from your treasured furniture, or welcome a few scratches as part of the mixed joys of owning a pet.
I’ll thank you not to comment on my wife’s capability as a vet, and I won’t comment on your mother’s reputation, as both of us know nothing of the other.
I’m not posting from my wife’s experience anyway but from studies conducted:
"Retrospective phone follow-up of teaching hospital clients, DVM student surgeons. 39/98 owners whose cats underwent elective onychectomy or tendonectomy were contacted two months to five years (median 11.5 months) after surgery. 17 (44%) of declawed cats returned to normal within three days, 35 (90%) within two weeks. 31 (80%) had more than one medical complication. 13 (33%) developed at least one behavior problem. 6(15.4%) would not use the litter box and 7 (17.9%) had an increase in biting habits or intensity. 34(87%) owners had a positive attitude and 2 (5.1%) had a negative attitude towards declawing. "
(this is from the last study listed on the page)
There are studies listed on the same page with lower complications rates as well but you can see where I got the figure from. Note - it was NOT from my wife’s inadequacies. She’s pretty damn good.
In fact for the record on my wife’s capability in the field of veterinary medicine:
She graduated from U Penn (considered one of the top Vet schools, along with Cornell and UC Davis) 2 years ago and has been working for a private small animal practice since. She does occasionally butt heads with a few of the older doctors working there as they tend to stick to older treatments which are not considered effective/current. Forunately she ends up being vindicated as she has had several atypical cases where the referred specialist concurs with her diagnosis.
She spent two years while at U Penn working in the small animal behavoir department in the U Penn animal hospital (the largest & busiest in the country) and her current practice refers all behavoir issues to her.
She attends professional conferences twice a year to stay current, and the majority of her teaching comes from leaders in the field - she always knows a few of the authors of articles in every JAVMA. She performs surgery for one full day each week, every week.
Declawing is illegal/only practiced in extreme cases in the following coutries:
England
Scotland
Wales
Italy
France
Germany
Austria
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Netherlands
Northern Ireland
Ireland
Denmark
Finland
Slovenia
Portugal
Belgium
Spain
Brazil
Australia
New Zealand
Yugoslavia
Israel
Japan
Don’t think it’s painless or not cruel.
