Neutering without removal of testes?

Paula - thanks for taking my post in the spirit in which it was intended.  I realise now that I was slightly off topic.
 
I was slightly aggravated by something unrelated at the time and may have been a bit....erm....forceful.  Sorry about the soapbox.  []
 
Kate

ORIGINAL: jennie_c_d

Yes, it's a risk. Putting the dog under for neutering is a risk, as well. Trusting the vet to get the dosage right on the anesthesia is a risk. Feeding the dog every day is a risk. Walking across the street is a risk. Life is full of risks, and we all pick and choose which ones we'll take. If an educated, responsible pet owner chooses to smell intact male pee in her own yard, contains her dog, and trains him properly, why is it our business?

If you're responsible and want to leave your dog intact... thats fine with me. I have a strong argument for spays, but very weak ones for dogs. Honestly, neuter isn't a big deal until the dog is reaching geriatric age. The majority of the diseases caused by testosterone are cured by removing the testes... IF its caught in time.  BUT... I've never had a non-showing owner that was responsible who wanted to keep a dog intact. The majority are people who insist their dog have "just one litter" or feel the need to start their own puppy mill with their 2 lb blue yorkie. Or they're people who think their dog won't guard well enough, or look tough enough, or... the list goes on. So I'm sorry if my first instinct is to neuter now and ask questions later. In the majority of cases its the more responsible choice for everyone involved. If the owners are responsible enough to wait until a year or even 3 years to fix the dog, then that is what I will recommend because there is mounting evidence that there may be benifits to waiting. I won't deny facts.

Why do people find vasectomy less invasive? Same anesthesia protocol.. still have an incision through the scrotum... still cut and tear tissue to get the vas deferens... and it requires gentle tissue handling and good hemostasis. Why put your dog through a procedure  a vet has only done once rather than a procedure done 4 times a day? If you don't want to remove the testes, don't do surgery at all. Just suck it up and be responsible for your dogs actions...

Why do people find vasectomy less invasive? Same anesthesia protocol..

Well I imagined that it would be considerably less invasive than a castration, especially since at least with humans the NSV -non scalpel vasectomy has been around for years. Heck they used to (or probably still do) have NSV bazaars around the world - like in Asia - where they'd do hundreds of men in a day.

I don't know what the procedure is in dogs but I bet there are a lot fewer sutures than in a castration....and they keep their balls.

Paula

BUT... I've never had a non-showing owner that was responsible who wanted to keep a dog intact.

I'm sorry that has been your experience, but surely you reallize you experience might not be a universal one. I imagine in countries where there isn't this big drive to castrate there are quite a few people who are responsible, not showing, not working and have intact or vasectomized dogs.  It's funny how our experiences define our perceptions. In one on-line relationship a regular poster, after years of communication, was surprised that I was black because I took care of my dogs. It took me aback, but I realized for her, the black people she met didn't take care of their dogs so her experience colored (pun intended) her perceptions to the point that it was so inconcievable that one could be black and responsible with one's dogs, that disclosure of my race surprised her.

Paula

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

Why do people find vasectomy less invasive? Same anesthesia protocol..

Well I imagined that it would be considerably less invasive than a castration, especially since at least with humans the NSV -non scalpel vasectomy has been around for years. Heck they used to (or probably still do) have NSV bazaars around the world - like in Asia - where they'd do hundreds of men in a day.

I don't know what the procedure is in dogs but I bet there are a lot fewer sutures than in a castration....and they keep their balls.

Paula

Unfortunately, while the technology in veterinary medicine continues to advance by leaps and bounds, it doesn't quite keep up with human technology. Its just plain too expensive... cows are spayed without ANY anesthesia still, which is rather barbaric... The few people who can afford it will go to specialty centers, and I suppose you could do that if you wanted a special surgery like a vasectomy done by an expert. The descriptions I read on the vet message boards didn't make it out to be much better than a regular neuter. The incision is smaller I'm sure, but not enough to make a big difference. A dog with a 3 inch incision from a tumor removal recovers the same as a dog with a 1 inch neuter incision.

If someone wanted one, I would do it without any problems, I just don't see the advantages over leaving a dog intact, unless they thought they couldn't be responsible I guess...

Missikiwi67,

I didn't realize you were a vet!   I don't know if my current vet would vasectomize. It's a group practice and where one vet is all convention, anothe vet would be happy to help you design a more wholistic approach to your dog's mast cell tumor care (from my own experience). I guess if I wanted it done otherwise I'd go to the place that did Yoshi's dermoid sinus surgery when he was 4  1/2 months old. They did laser and it improved is recovery a surprising amount. Everything I'd read and heard from other ridgeback people about dermoid sinus recovery I'd prepared for, and most of the preparation turned out to be unecessary. 

Paula

oWell, perhaps John Q Public (translate- the average idiot) should neuter his dogs, but I'm not going to. And low and behold, I have shared my home with dozens of dogs and I have never had an accidental breeding. My dogs do not ever mark in my house, even when a bitch is in season. They have never bitten anyone. They are obedient. They don't act obnoxious, hump other dogs at the dog park, or fight. They are not dog aggressive. They're not all Golden Retrievers, either, so it's not just the breed. Either I'm a genius, or it's really not that difficult to maintain an animal without hacking its reproductive organs off/out, a practice that I think it is deplorable to perform on another sentient being to make up for human stupidity and laziness.

For the record, I am decidedly NOT male.

Jenna

I am not attracted to intact dogs specifically- I simply like DOGS- and I don't have to cut their parts off to like them, just like I don't have to pretend my dog is Lassie. I find it ironic anyone could be anti cropping and docking and PRO spaying and neutering. LOL

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

Missikiwi67,

I didn't realize you were a vet!  

I'm not a vet... just a student! 15 months to go!!!

I find it ironic anyone could be anti cropping and docking and PRO spaying and neutering. LOL

That is a poor analogy, you cannot compare a procedure with you health benefits to those with many, it's like comparing breast augmentation to prophylactic mastectomy in someone with BRCA I/II.


1. reduced wandering
2. no chance of testicular cancer
3. decreased prostate problems
4. greatly reduced mammary cancer
5. no chance of pyometria
6. not contributing to pet overpopulation


Pet health insurance statistics also show spayed females live considerably longer then nonspayed. I find it ironic that someone in rescue would not be pro spay/neuter. I won't even address the comment about having a bitch in heat with no accidental breedings, we have beat that dead horse on another thread within the last several months.

Wowza

ORIGINAL: WindridgeGoldens

I am not attracted to intact dogs specifically- I simply like DOGS- and I don't have to cut their parts off to like them, just like I don't have to pretend my dog is Lassie. I find it ironic anyone could be anti cropping and docking and PRO spaying and neutering. LOL

I think it's an EXCELLENT analogy - one that I've considered myself.

Paula

Good for you Misskiwi67!

Paula

1. reduced wandering
2. no chance of testicular cancer
3. decreased prostate problems
4. greatly reduced mammary cancer
5. no chance of pyometria
6. not contributing to pet overpopulation

"I find it ironic that someone in rescue would not be pro spay/neuter"

Well I'm in rescue and I'm pro sterilization not necessarily pro castration. I don't see male as a pathology. My only interest, as I've stated before, is to prevent unwanted puppies.

Paula

1. Strong fence.
2. Yes; by cutting your dog's nuts off you garauntee he will never die horribly of cancer. Because all cancer originates in the balls.
3. Great. Maybe I should convince my old dad to have a preventive prostatectomy. After all he's done having kids.... and I should have a preventive mastectomy.
4. See 3.
5. I have no position yet on spay - I don't konw what the risk of pyometra is for each heat, how easy or difficult it is to detect and how easy or difficult it is to treat.
6. Vasectomy - sterile and with balls.

Paula

ORIGINAL: paulaedwina

1. Strong fence.
2. Yes; by cutting your dog's nuts off you garauntee he will never die horribly of cancer. Because all cancer originates in the balls.
3. Great. Maybe I should convince my old dad to have a preventive prostatectomy. After all he's done having kids.... and I should have a preventive mastectomy.
4. See 3.
5. I have no position yet on spay - I don't konw what the risk of pyometra is for each heat, how easy or difficult it is to detect and how easy or difficult it is to treat.
6. Vasectomy - sterile and with balls.

Paula

1. Yep, everyone should have one. Excellent suggestion.
2. No, but several of the most common and most deadly cancers do. If you suggest avoiding POSSIBLE carcinogens in food, why would you not avoid a well documented carcinogen, testosterone??
3. If a prostatectomy was a simple surgery, I think it would happen all the time. Its no different than having your tonsils or appendix removed. They serve no purpose... unless you're EMOTIONALLY attached.
4. Again... weigh the pros and cons. If you support avoiding mild carcinogens in any other area, you are a hypocrit.
5. Pyometra is uncommon early in life, but the immediate seriousness of the condition as a surgical emergency is similar to that of GDV. As large dog owners I'm sure you're familiar with that terrifying condition.
6.Vasectomy... sure, why not. If you like your carcinogens all-natural.

Fair enough. So basically it comes down to what another poster said; risk assessment.
 
"2. No, but several of the most common and most deadly cancers do. If you suggest avoiding POSSIBLE carcinogens in food, why would you not avoid a well documented carcinogen, testosterone??"

Because testosterone is not a poison it's a hormone. Maleness is not a pathology. I am not interested in making them either.  And as for cancers - I can think of a couple good and juicy cancers especially pertinent to my breed that doesn't start in the balls. Like mast cell, squamous cell and osteosarcoma.

"3. If a prostatectomy was a simple surgery, I think it would happen all the time. Its no different than having your tonsils or appendix removed. They serve no purpose... unless you're EMOTIONALLY attached."

That is not quite accurate. As I've stated before, your hormones have other physiological interractions than your ability to have sex or maintain an erection (in this case). Your prostate is NOT an appendix.  Interestingly  I recently wrote a paper on the ethical implications of some researchers advocating male circumcision as a protection against HIV.  Same wrongheaded thinking.

"5. Pyometra is uncommon early in life, but the immediate seriousness of the condition as a surgical emergency is similar to that of GDV. As large dog owners I'm sure you're familiar with that terrifying condition."

Thank you for the information on pyometra. Regarding GDV some go as far as to have preventive gastropexy. Hmm...I don't know about that at all. I do follow all the data on raised feeding vs ground feeding, meal size, etc. But again; preventive surgery? Risk assessment.
 

Paula