Talk:Neutering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Medicine. Please rate the article.

	Cats Portal This article is supported by the Cats WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Dogs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents 1 More to do 2 NPOV 3 External links 4 Facts in new edits 5 The pics 6 Changing the name of the article

[edit] More to do

Whew, set up article, fixed a whole lot of links and redirs, need to now add text about spaying/neutering policies and so on, but I'm out of time. Elf | Talk 23:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put some more meat in the article. A vet or somebody could greatly improve it as well. -- RmM 12:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

A request/suggestion. Info on reccomended minimal age for spay/neuter(in cats and dogs) also info on early spay/neuter programs. --Dodo bird 10:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What about explaining the term 'rig' for animals, particularly horses, where the castration has no change in behaviour and neutered animals still behave as if they are intact? Is this the place to cover that? --[User:Nick Wallis]] 12:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The description of Bob Barker's Price Is Right spay/neuter endorsements should be clarified, specifying that he only began making these endorsements in 1981, as explained in Bob_Barker#Animal_rights. --Cybrbeth 16:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] External links

I'm going to go ahead and remove the first three external links. Dog hause gives misinformation such as neutering decreasing the risk of prostate cancer and giving the pets longer lives. Spaying/neutering animals says uterine cancer is common, which is not true. Neuter.org is very POV oriented and gives a lot of misinfo, including listing health effects of spaying and neutering such as hypothyroidism, intervertebral disc disease, personality changes, and respiratory disease. Also, Neuter Nazi is just a little too inflammatory, in my opinion.

The last two links, Humane society and Pet rights, aren't perfect, but they balance each other pretty well as far as POV, and Pet rights gives good surgical alternative info. --Joelmills 21:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Very good, in fact. You've got to love this line from the HSUS site, though:

"Doesn't neutering alter an animal's personality? No. Personality changes that may result from neutering are for the better."

So... does it alter personality, or doesn't it? :-)

Anyways, I've done some cleanup on your recent big edit. The diff looks pretty scary, but most of the changes are primarily semantic. The biggest non-semantic change was a mention that cancers of the reproductive organs tend to be relatively rare in animals - otherwise, the assumption is that they're just as common as they are in humans. I also moved some stuff around, placing information on alternatives further down the page. It may make more sense to mention specific methods as an alternative when we talk about a particular operation, though - spaying and Spayvac have more in common with each other than Spayvac and a vasectomy do with each other, for example. And as long as we're talking about moving stuff around, names for spayed/neutered animals probably belong together, too...

Good work, though. This is looking much better. Zetawoof 01:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Facts in new edits

I think we have this article pretty well cited, so I am going to request that any new edit presenting a new fact also be cited. I'll put something on the user's talk page, and leave the "unspayed dogs have a 25% chance of developing mammary tumors" there for the time being. --Joelmills 03:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What bothers me the most about that claim is the lack of any reference. Is this 25% chance yearly? Over an average animal's lifetime? Does this figure include tumors which never grow large enough to be noticed? If so, how does this affect the claim that "about 50% [...] are malignant"? I'm also a bit peeved that the fact that testicular/ovarian/uterine cancers are generally neither malignant nor common seems to have been removed at the same time that this figure was added - it is not otherwise obvious that testicular cancer (for example) is much less common, and less severe, in animals than it is in humans. I've reworked the sentence to stick this back in. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure 25 percent is over the lifetime of the dog. It sounds about right by my experience, but I put a request for a cite on the user's talk page. 50 percent malignancy is right, and this is from analysis of biopsied tumors, so yes, it only includes tumors large enough to be noticed, but to my knowledge, that's pretty much all of them. Mammary tumors are not shy. As to the rest of it, the contributer is a new user (and vet from their name), so I would just assume good intentions on their part. --Joelmills 03:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Changing the name of the article

I am moving this article to Neutering (and also its discussion section), because spaying is only neutering in females, thus already included in neutering. --Michael Retriever 15:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)