To neuter or not? - Page 2

**bubsy** · 06-29-2008, 05:03 PM

Here is another link to read
Spaying and Castration -- Pros, Cons, Myths, and Dobermans

tranquility · 06-30-2008, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubsy

Here is another link to read
Spaying and Castration -- Pros, Cons, Myths, and Dobermans

Thanks for that link.

So I quote from there:
(re prostate)
"2.Castrating male dogs makes them more likely to get prostate cancer.

No, this is not true. There is apparently NO significant difference between the incidence of prostatic adenocarcinoma in intact males vs castrated males (Obradovich 1987). The only difference is an increased spread of the cancer to the lungs of the neutered dogs (Bell 1991). And MOST types of prostatic disease are ELIMINATED by castration, as discussed above (Krawiec 1994).",

which appears to debunk the argument in the 1st link that there are no significant benefits for neutering re prostate. However, I note that the 1st link's study was done in 2007 while this 2nd link was back in 2000: not sure if the results still stand?

(re incontinence)
How about the below statement also therein which states that fixed Dobes may suffer incontinence? I wonder how prevalent is this problem?

"3. Dobermans are more likely than most other breeds to have problems with urinary incontinence.

This is true, whether the incontinence is related to sterilization (Arnold 1997, Holt 1993) or not (Adams 1983). Fortunately, most incontinent dobermans respond very well to the drug phenylpropanolamine."

(re thyroid)
Another issue is thyroid: it appears that neutering will create some problems there? Are there any issues with long-term use of drugs to counter this problem?

Thanks again to all.

Onyx and Xena · 06-30-2008, 06:52 AM

I didn't neuter my first dobie, he was a gentlemen, and I saw no urgent need for it, until his prostate got enlarged. He was over 5 yo at the time... and went into shock the weekend after surgery, but we got him to a vet in time. Turns out he had DCM, and we lost him that following New Years...

MaryAndDobes · 06-30-2008, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoeberry

We just operated on a very sick 6 year old basset hound that had pyometra which is literally pus in the uterus. Not a pretty site for sure and the dog was extremely sick. Almost always it is emergency surgery. We are fairly inexpensive but some places charge over a $1,000.

We just went through this with a 6 year old Doberman. She was bred for the first time last spring, didn't take. We repeated the breeding this spring, didn't take. Instead, she developed an open pyometra followed by a closed pyometra followed by an emergency spay at the Ontario Veterinary College and nearly $4000 in vet bills (leading up to the surgery and the surgery itself). Jessie's uterus weighed over 8 lbs at the time of her surgery. Dangerous, dangerous, dangerous! A rupture would have meant all that pus in her belly.

Jessie was bred so late in life because of a decision to let her co-owner pursue (and accomplish) her obedience title (and therefore her ROMC) before having a litter.

Pyometra is no laughing matter, and if you put off spaying for a silly reason like possible incontinence, well, there is just no comparison between incontinence and almost losing your dog to something like pyometra that could have been completely avoided with spaying.

tranquility · 07-01-2008, 04:59 AM

Thanks for all your comments so far. It appears the consensus that spaying would be more beneficial to the dog vs no spaying. I'm quite clear on that. However, I'm still wondering about neutering though and it would be great if there is info that can debunk what the 1st link I put up proposes to argue, i.e. that it is not necessary to neuter.

**berkshire** · 07-01-2008, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranquility

However, I'm still wondering about neutering though and it would be great if there is info that can debunk what the 1st link I put up proposes to argue, i.e. that it is not necessary to neuter.

It sounds like you're looking for a specific answer. I think the question has been discussed relatively well - the pros and cons of neutering early seem to have been covered. At this point, you really have the information you need to make a decision. If it were cut and dry, it would be simple. But there is no scientific evidence that castration is necessary.

Let me just tell you that having an intact dog can become difficult socially, though. I can't take Tucker to doggy daycare because he's over 6 months old and intact. I get flak at the dog park occasionally. And boy oh boy, being a vet student with an intact dog has been interesting.

If you wait until later in life to neuter a dog, you put him at significantly increased risk with anesthesia. And it is almost certain that you will have to neuter him at some point due to prostate hyperplasia or infection. It will mean increased expense and increased risk to the dog. And what have you gained? Years of having an intact dog, yes...but there is no benefit to the dog for being neutered if he is not being used for breeding. There is some evidence that early castration can have a negative impact (i.e. increased risk for arthritis and CCL ruptures), but if you have a dog neutered following sexual maturity (~1 year), you reduce that risk without increasing anesthetic risk by neutering at 7 or 8 years of age.

IMO, if you don't plan on breeding a dog, there's (almost) NO good reason (can't think of one, but sure someone has one) for leaving him intact past 2 years of age. You seem to want people to tell you that you don't have to neuter. No one can make that decision for you - you have to weigh your personal feelings on the matter (which seem to be general reluctance) versus the benefits to the dog down the road by avoiding anesthesia as a geriatric patient.

musicdobe · 07-01-2008, 10:18 AM

I had a mixed breed when I was small and he was not neutered until late in life. Reason? Well, we found that he had a precancerous condition (tumors) which was eliviated by neutering. My other dog (which was also neutered late) had a testicle that was infected (we kept getting bladder infections and could not find the source until then).

As soon as my boy does not show anymore, he will be neutered. I believe that there are health benefits to neutering especially with my personal past experiences. So, my vote is for neutering!

Also, my vet (who is like a member of the family) suggests neutering. And if you knew him, you would not say he is in it for the money. He has eaten quite a bit of costs (time and supplies) just to help a animal in need. He will do it even though he KNOWS that he will not be paid. His reason for encouraging neutering is mostly for preventing unwanted litters, but also for the health benefits (like the ones I mentioned above).

tranquility · 07-01-2008, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by berkshire

It sounds like you're looking for a specific answer. I think the question has been discussed relatively well - the pros and cons of neutering early seem to have been covered. At this point, you really have the information you need to make a decision. If it were cut and dry, it would be simple. But there is no scientific evidence that castration is necessary.

Let me just tell you that having an intact dog can become difficult socially, though. I can't take Tucker to doggy daycare because he's over 6 months old and intact. I get flak at the dog park occasionally. And boy oh boy, being a vet student with an intact dog has been interesting.

If you wait until later in life to neuter a dog, you put him at significantly increased risk with anesthesia. And it is almost certain that you will have to neuter him at some point due to prostate hyperplasia or infection. It will mean increased expense and increased risk to the dog. And what have you gained? Years of having an intact dog, yes...but there is no benefit to the dog for being neutered if he is not being used for breeding. There is some evidence that early castration can have a negative impact (i.e. increased risk for arthritis and CCL ruptures), but if you have a dog neutered following sexual maturity (~1 year), you reduce that risk without increasing anesthetic risk by neutering at 7 or 8 years of age.

IMO, if you don't plan on breeding a dog, there's (almost) NO good reason (can't think of one, but sure someone has one) for leaving him intact past 2 years of age. You seem to want people to tell you that you don't have to neuter. No one can make that decision for you - you have to weigh your personal feelings on the matter (which seem to be general reluctance) versus the benefits to the dog down the road by avoiding anesthesia as a geriatric patient.

I don't have a strong preference whether to neuter or not because I'm still trying to grasp and understand this complex issue, but will do whatever is best for the dog. Your above are good pts in favor of neutering to take into consideration when making the decision. The 1st linked article argues that the prostate issue is negligible (neuter or not) so I'm concerned about that, i.e. it claims that neuter will lower non-cancerous prostate disorders but is 4 times increase for prostate cancer risk? So the pro-neuter argument is that non-prostate prbs are not common, hence the overall better benefit of fixing the dog?

**greenkouki** · 07-01-2008, 10:31 AM

here's the simple answer... your dog will have a better chance of living a longer healthier life if he is neutered at an appropriate age. It's been proven that altering any sexed pet increases lifespan

**RedFawnRising** · 07-01-2008, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tranquility

Can anyone refute the claims in the link that was presented, which states that it is better NOT to neuter (but ok to spay)?

Well, if that's the same NAIA article that Kimbertalkls is quoting ad nauseum over on the breeder thread, they are just that--claims, not conclusions.

(I'm having browser/computer issues and that pdf is locking up my computer, so I can't take a look at it right now.)

It's a lit review and not even a very well-done one.

It's poor science. There aren't any parameters, no statistical analysis to show any significant links, and again, it's a lit review--there is no possible way to draw any real conclusions from that as opposed to controlled studies.

I'm kinda shocked that I've seen several comments that vets are profit-motivated to spay/neuter.

I used to work for a vet. Believe me, there is much more money to be made other ways, with a far larger profit margin.

Think of all the litter exams a vet could do, all the repeat business from the new owners of those puppies/kittens.

Or--think of all the quick euth fees from putting down all the unwanted puppies, kittens, and adult animals in this country every single day.

Believe me, most vets price their spays/neuters with very little profit margin or even none--because THEY see the consequences of pet overpopulation, every day.

And--it truly only takes sitting in on one pyometra surgery to never ever forget that smell. It's a smell that will convert you to evangelical shouting to get folks to spay!