Talk:Onychectomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in Cat.

	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.

Contents 1 Comment 2 pro-wildlife campaigners 3 An Argument for Declawing 4 Animal Welfare Bill (UK) 5 POV-check template 6 New external links 7 Other countries? 8 Laser declawing 9 Image request 10 Minor rewrite 11 Drafts of new sections: Purpose and benefits, and Risks and drawbacks 11.1 Purpose and benefits 11.2 Risks and drawbacks 11.3 Four-Paw Declawing 11.4 Comments

[edit] Comment

I've tried to clean this article up a bit, but there's a lot more that could be done by editors more knowledgeable than me. I've tried my best to keep to NPOV, but I'm conscious of the fact that I might not have succeeded, since declawing is something I really strongly dislike. The External links section could probably do with a mention of a pro-declawing site, but I'm not the person to add that.

One thing I would say, though, is that I am not exaggerating when I say that declawing is "almost universally considered cruel" in the UK; I've never seen a declawed cat, and never heard it spoken of positively by any cat owner here. Finally, it may be relevant that the great majority of cats in this country (90%, perhaps) are "outdoor cats"; unfortunately I have no hard figures, just as I have no hard figures for the prevalence of declawing in the US. Loganberry (Talk) 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Added "Canada" to the sentence stating that onychectomy is rather commonplace in the United States. That is also unfortunately true in Canada.Ramdrake 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] pro-wildlife campaigners

I noticed the additional mention of "pro-wildlife campaigners " who support declawing. I hope somebody can find a source for this. I think most opponents of declawing bans, aren't actually for declawing, they just don't support a law against it (many oppose animal legal rights), or want exceptions allowed for. I can't recall a specific organized group that actually lobbies *for* declawing. I would like to know their name. Generally, I think wild-life groups are more likely to call for cats to simply be kept indoors. If this perspective exists, we should show it. But, I'm not sure it exists in any organized way. --rob 13:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The only mention I found is at [1], but maybe that may give us a lead to find out more on that topic. Lupo 14:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I found a lot of copies of that article with Google. It's the "defanging" part that seems utterly bizarre to me. I think there are some hunters who are violently hostile to cats. But those people usually resort (sadly) to killing cats, and don't take them to veterinarians to perform surgery, so they can be returned to the outdoors defanged and declawed. --rob 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] An Argument for Declawing

I love cats. We rescued a young cat that was slated to be put down. We had a rented house at the time, and the cat promptly started shredding the carpet and other things. When we had her spayed, since she was already going to be under anesthesia, we also had her declawed rather than be forced to make her an outside kitty. Admitedly, I was unaware that declawing was such a drastic surgery (our vet didn't say much about it when we suggested it), but I was aware that indoor/outdoor cats live shorter lives than pure indoor cats, so I knew there were some benefits to our cat by getting to stay inside.

She has never been injured nor had parasites in the 6 years we have had her. She has never been sick (except for the occasional hairball) and has only had a brief encounter with fleas. She doesn't seem to miss her claws and we never have to worry about chasing her off of furniture or drapes though she is very playful. Her outdoor time is spent on the balcony which gives her a bird's eye view of the street and she loves it. She never even attempts to go outside downstairs and doesn't seem at all interested in doing so.

When I was a kid we had a lot of cats, none declawed, and they were always getting yelled at and chased off of things because they liked to shred stuff. There has to be something said for a cat not getting into trouble! She is a very happy, well contented kitty and doesn't have her claws. It is not the end of the world for a cat to be declawed; in fact, it could improve their lives if they are kept as indoor only pets. Of course, she didn't like going through the surgery or recovery (which took about a week and thankfully had no complications), but I am pretty certain she forgot all about it by now. From all my experience with cats, she is very much enjoying her life and is queen of the house--or at least thinks she is which is all that counts! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruser (talk • contribs) .

I just wanted to say I agree with you. My cats all have been declawed, and as far as I know their personalities haven't changed. They're all still very affectionate, and don't seem to be holding a grudge about it. I notice alot of anti-clawing sites mention destruction of furniture as a reason for people wanting to declaw their cats. They don't adress issues such as a small child, having a cat and being hurt by it's claws and frightened by it.

Or in general, someone who wants to enjoy their cat without worrying about being clawed. It's hard for me to understand that certian countries would consider Onychetomy as cruelty to animals. It's like a child getting their first shot, or a young person having to get their tonsils removed. It hurts, but you get over it. There really are alot of ways that cats wouldn't be able to enjoy being with their owners if they weren't declawed, like sleeping with them. Nobody wants to wake up with a clawed face.

I personally see more reasons for declawing if your cat is going to be a indoor cat, than not. As far as a cat being lost and not being able to defend themselves, I'm not sure about other countries. In the USA there is a company called Home Again which sells tiny chips you can put under your cat or dog's skin, so that if they are found and taken to a vet, the vet can scan them and their information of where they are from and who owns them will show up. So it would seem that if there is that technology, it'd be more rare that a pet would be lost for a long amount of time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Violet yoshi (talk • contribs) .

Ruser and Violet Yoshi, it is possible to teach your cat not to scratch your furniture. My cat is five years old and he has never scratched the furniture, he's happy enough scratching the boxes I give him. Have you heard of Soft Claws? [2] They are nail caps for your cats, so that they keep their precious nails and you don't have to worry about them scratching your furniture, I never had to use Soft Claws but I believe they are a far better alternative than cutting off your cat's joints. Dionyseus 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT GET A FUCKING CAT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT FOR WHAT IT IS. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ONE. IF YOU USE FURNITURE AS AN EXCUSE, YOU'RE A HEARTLESS DOUCHE WHO SHOULDN'T BE NEAR ANY ANIMALS.

Wow, what a mindblowingly immature response. And in all capitals. :\

Well sorry, but I can't help myself when it comes to this kind of ludicrous bullshit. I seriously wonder how some of you can justify this kind of cruelty. Oh, saving money on furniture? Hooray, what a great reason! Seriously, so many people get pets but then can't take care of them and throw them away, and then some geniuses actually think that taking away a cat's most important "tool" is somehow... humane? Justified? I don't know, but it's just so insane. I am so, so, SO glad that Europe (and most of the civilized world) is beyond this kind of horrid mutilation. Sure, we have as many idiots as everyone else, but AT LEAST we don't condone this kind of maiming. And my mother and father, who are both vets, and pretty much all their colleagues are also horrified at how the US (and Canada?) can still allow this. It's just completely insane.

I wonder whether opponents of onychectomy hold the same views, when it comes to castration/sterilization, just like with onychectomy you may claim, that the procedure will ultimately benefit the animal as well (they live longer, become calmer...) but it really is all about the comfort of the owner. And speaking of a cat's most important "tool", would you rather part with your fingernails or your balls? No question, what the most important "tool" there is for me. 89.247.67.28 16:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad that there are some people over there who think that declawing is cruel, for instance: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=2644. Read that article VERY carefully, even if you don't agree with my opinions. Please.

Declawing perserves furniture, protects children, and prevents nasty scratches. But this isn't a forum to discuss our opinions. MafiaCapo 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's rather ironic... "here's my opinion, but this isn't the place for discussing opinions"! But yes, you're right: even with subjects that excite such strong views - especially with such subjects - we need to be careful to keep discussion here to points directly relevant to the article itself. Loganberry (Talk) 17:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

More irony: The call for keeping the discussion to relavant points directly below Mr. ALL CAPS and his anti-USA bombastic prose. I am amused, and reminded by no less than my dog-eared Third Edition of Strunk and White's Elements of Style "To air one's views gratuitously, however, is to imply that the demand for them is brisk, which may not be the case ..."

Speaking only for myself, the demand for anti-USA speech is not brisk, desired, or requested. Neither is the demand for personal attack and name-calling. While I encourage Wikipedians everywhere to please obtain and hold whatever opinions you may have about the USA and its citizens (or any other government on the planet for that matter), if all you have to contribute is hateful bombast, please follow one of our most cherished rights and traditions, and keep silent about it. Lowellt 14:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Welfare Bill (UK)

I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month to ask them whether declawing for non-medical reasons would be outlawed by the Animal Welfare Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. Here is the salient part of the response I received today:

At present, no Act specifically makes the declawing of cats an offence. However, Defra is not aware that it is carried out within the UK for anything other than therapeutic reasons.

However, the Animal Welfare Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, contains a provision to prohibit the mutilation of an animal. The declawing of cats is classed as a mutilation and therefore it will be explicitly banned under the Animal Welfare Bill, exept where it is done for therapeutic reasons.

I've added a short paragraph to the article reflecting this official position, which will of course need to be updated when and if - as seems almost certain - the Bill becomes law. Loganberry (Talk) 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check template

Much as I personally dislike this practice, this article reads as being very critical of it, and may not conform to WP:NPOV. --Ginkgo100 03:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states the facts. The facts don't support the practice being an acceptable one. NPOV isn't about giving one argument for for every one against, it's about giving the relevant facts without bias of reporting or language. There are simply very few facts on the 'pro' side. Rsynnott 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New external links

I see that two new external links have been added. The "American Veterinary Medical Assocation Statement on Declawing" is a solid one, and should definitely be kept, but I was less than happy with the other (listed as "Is Declawing Really That Cruel?"). For one thing it repeats the tired old statement that it is legal under certain conditions for an Englishman to shoot a Welshman in Chester. This sort of casual assertion does not imply a well-checked and reliable source - while that law has not technically been repealed, it no longer offers any protection against a prosecution for murder, and so is effectively moribund. "Legal" is meaningless.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's a self-published Geocities site from an anonymous author, and the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". (This may also apply to some of the anti-declawing sites, of course.) I think we should have a link to a pro-declawing (or indeed anti-anti-declawing) site, but I don't really think that one is a very good choice. A bit of searching dug up this page, which is also generally positive about the operation:

Declawing is probably the single most important surgical procedure (other than neutering/spaying) that will help insure a satisfactory relationship between the cat and its owner.

This site is from a named veterinary hospital, rather than an anonymous individual, and as such I think it is a more acceptable link for a Wikipedia article. Notwithstanding my personal views, it's a clear description from a verifiable source with checkable, relevant expertise, and as such I've substituted it for the less satisfactory Geocities article link. Loganberry (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other countries?

I'm intending to do a bit of cleanup on this article when I have a moment, and one of the things I certainly think would be sensible would be to have separate sections for North America and for Europe, since there's a clear split there in terms of atittudes to, and laws regarding, declawing - in North America there's a heated debate; in Europe hardly anyone is in favour. But does anyone have any information regarding the situation in other countries? Australia, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc etc... it would be a valuable addition to the article if so. Loganberry (Talk) 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We now have a short list of countries where it's banned, but in most of those cases no sources have been given. WP:V requires better than a simple assertion; we need sources, otherwise those specific countries will have to go. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Laser declawing

I notice this article is missing any information about laser declawing, wherein the nerve is killed by a laser, eliminating the need to amputate the claw itself. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you know about it and can provide sources, then by all means add it. It's not a type of declawing I know about, though I'm fairly sure it would still be illegal under the new legislation in the UK, since that prohibits "mutilation" rather than the specific act of amputation, and I suspect killing a nerve would count. Loganberry (Talk) 13:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed studies indicate laser declawing results in no less post-operative pain than declawing with a blade. I can site if needed.

[edit] Image request

Is it possible to find an image, preferably a side-on cutaway illustration of a cat's toe bones and claws - which would indicate exactly which portions of the anatomy are amputated and which remain? Even better would be an illustration that could demonstrate the change in stance required by the amputation. Kasreyn 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor rewrite

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to move the information on risks and side effects of declawing, found under the "Alternatives" section, to their own section? The stated purpose and "benefit" of the procedure - stopping scratching - is already clearly explained. I note that in the articles on other controversial surgeries and non-therapeutic procedures, there is usually a section detailing possible risks and drawbacks to the procedure. The information would probably belong in such a section more than where it is now. Kasreyn 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drafts of new sections: Purpose and benefits, and Risks and drawbacks

I submit these here for discussion. I feel that most of the points here will be easily sourced, as I have read them in a great many places, so I'm not worrying about sourcing yet. (Thus for the time being, they are full of weasel words, so don't bother telling me that. Sources later.) First I want to hash out language and topic coverage. Feel free to make any comments needed.

Full disclosure: I work at a county Humane Society no-kill shelter, where I am responsible for about 70 homeless cats at any given time; I personally am adamantly opposed to the procedure and feel the United States should follow the EU's lead. Please let me know if you feel I violate WP:NPOV at any time. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose and benefits

The stated purpose of declawing is to prevent injury to pet owners and other pets, and to prevent damage to furniture through sharpening behavior. As the procedure involves the permanent removal of the claw, third phalanx, and connected tendons, it is highly effective at preventing scratching.

Benefits of declawing mostly accrue to the pet owner: prevention of injury to humans and other pets by cat scratches, and prevention of damage to furniture from sharpening behavior.

It is also stated, by supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians, that a secondary benefit of declawing is that it makes the cat more likely to remain an "indoor" cat for life (due, supporters claim, to the reduced frequency of declawed cats being relegated to "outdoor" status). It is widely recognized by both supporters and opponents of the procedure that "indoor" cats live longer, healthier lives due to decreased exposure to disease, accident, theft, and predators.

[edit] Risks and drawbacks

Opponents of the procedure claim that while onychectomy is effective in preventing scratching, there are long-term negative repercussions to the cat's health, as well as possible behavior changes which may result in the cat becoming unacceptable as a pet. Opponents also variously maintain either:

• that there are sufficient alternatives to declawing that render the benefit (eliminate scratching) moot, and that therefore concern for the cat's safety should be the chief concern; or
• that the benefit of preventing scratching behavior, even if there were no alternative methods, should never outweigh concern for the cat's health and happiness. Typically, these opponents believe that scratching behavior is fundamental to the cat's happiness and quality of life.

Opponents claim that while some veterinarians performing the procedure describe it as a minor operation, it is in fact a major one, involving ten (or more - see polydactyly) seperate amputations.

Among the various possible negative health and behavioral consequences claimed by opponents of the procedure are:

• Possibility of wound infection, death under anaesthetic, or other complications such as regrowth of vestigial claws and wound abcessation. Opponents of the procedure claim that onychectomy has a high complication rate.
• Chronic and recurrent pain, such as Phantom pain, which some believe the cat is unlikely to give any outward sign of.
• As cats are digitigrade (walk upon their toes rather than their soles), poor posture may develop (due to missing distal phalanges), leading to possible arthritis and other joint problems.
• Greater vulnerability to harm due to inability to protect itself in an outdoors environment (inability to climb or scratch). Even if a declawed cat's owner keeps it indoors, it may escape.
• Difficulty hunting prey in an outdoors environment (as claws are used to grasp and restrain prey for the killing bite).
• Difficulty or discomfort with using a litter box, leading (according to opponents) to a higher chance of the cat being abused, abandoned, or becoming an outdoor cat, where its declawed state makes it more vulnerable.
• Increased chance of biting behavior due to lack of other defensive means and/or loss of trust in owners or humans, again leading (according to opponents) to increased risk of abandonment, including euthanasia in a shelter.
• Decreased quality of life due to inability to perform natural stretching, scratching, kneading, and climbing behaviors. Animal behaviorists believe scratching also serves as a form of communication between cats, in the form of territorial marking and display, which would become unavailable to a declawed cat. Inability to balance (due to inability to grasp with claws) also prevents the cat from walking along ledges or high places safely.

The Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA) "perceives the declawing of cats (onychectomy ) and the severing of digital tendons (tendonectomy) to be elective surgical procedures which are without benefit to the cat. Because of the discomfort associated with any surgery and potential future behavioral or physical effects, CFA disapproves of routine declawing or tendonectomy surgery in lieu of alternative solutions to prevent household damage."[3]

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) takes the position that: "Cosmetic or non-therapeutic surgical procedures or amputations, such as ... declawing in large and domestic cats ... are inhumane. The suffering and disfigurement they cause are not offset by any benefits to the animals."[4]

[edit] Four-Paw Declawing

While it is much less common than the typical front-paw declawing, some veterinarians will perform declawing upon the hind paws as well. Opponents of declawing claim that this merely doubles the drawbacks of the procedure while adding no effective benefit to human or cat, as the hind claws are almost never used to damage furniture or scratch humans. Some veterinarians who will declaw the front paws refuse to declaw the hind ones.

[edit] Comments

Please make any comments here, to keep the section readable. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, thank you very much for that excellent work. I want to stress that first because now I'm going to nit-pick a little! Though really I think the only significant problems I can see with what you've written are in terms of possible US (or at least NAm)-centricism, and I'm not sure that can be avoided. For example, your draft mentions "supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians". That statement would be misleading if applied to British vets, since the number here who support the procedure is negligible if not actually zero, and so the phrase would be meaningless. I'm also not sure (though I will happily stand corrected) that there is anything like enough consensus in Britain that indoor cats are healthier than outdoor ones for a phrase like "widely recognised". Most cats here are at least partially outdoor cats, and the lack of any natural predators probably counts for something. (Cars of course are another matter.) Loganberry (Talk) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, I'd like to see this text added. At the moment the article is almost entirely based around limited legal reference with respect to a few countries. Since North America's legal and social perspective with regards to the subject is clearly in the minority, it shouldn't be the basis or main subject of the main article. As long as the rest of the world's opinion is the majority and essentially de facto stance, as should the article's be with a nod to alternative points of view such as the US (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).

In addition to the above excellent contribution, the main Cat#Declawing article is considerably cleaner and more informative than the main article. Ideally if there's going to be a main article at all, the Cat content should be moved or at least replicated in some fashion on this page and at least some of the above suggested content added. The legal aspect should not be the predominant subject of the article. TygerTyger 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the above discussion, I wonder if the best course might be to create a seperate section for "North American Declawing Practices", to keep things clear and NPOV, with some of the information in the forgegoing suggested section. I would be careful about sourcing, though, as many of the so-called "benefits", and well as some of the risks, are not clearly bourne out by research. I think it is important to also address the profit motive involve in declawing. Some would say the only "benefit" of declawing is to the vet's bank account .WatchCat87 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)