Do you like this story?
Just because you can doesn’t mean you should
By David S. Greene
January 11, 2010
Loyal Pet Connection reader Mary Mary sent me a fascinating posting, and asked if I thought it was legitimate. The owner of a German Shepherd is offering $2000 plus expenses for someone who would be willing to donate their German Shepherd’s healthy kidney to replace the failing kidneys of his dog Orso. Orso is suffering from kidney dysplasia (a genetic, irreversible disorder). Without a new kidney, Orso will die. With an organ donation, there’s still no guarantee — organ rejection syndrome works the same way in animals as it does in people, but a small chance is admittedly better than none.
It appears the listing is most likely not a hoax. Organ transplantation for animals does exist, though it’s prohibitively expensive ($11-13,000 plus post-surgical immuno-suppressive medication costs that can reach $2,000/month for the rest of the recipient’s life) and entails risks on both sides. The man is understandably hoping against hope that a miracle donor of the same bloodline as his dog is out there, and could save Orso’s life. Whether it’s legitimate or not, I can’t help.
However, even if Cami or Harry were shepherds, and were from the same bloodline, I still wouldn’t do it. In people, organ donations happen one of two ways. Either a living person who matches agrees to donate, or it’s done post mortem, presumably by a donor who agreed to donate while they were still using the organs in question. Neither scenario is possible with pets. Neither a cat nor a dog can say “sure, I can live on one kidney. You can have the other one”. Additionally, post mortem donation isn’t done. The technology doesn’t exist for that, and even if it did, an elderly pet’s organs are generally not useful for young ones.
But my central point is that I would be violating my responsibility as a conscientious pet owner to allow such a donation. Cami and Harry can’t give consent, and I have no right to agree to donating their perfectly healthy body part, unnecessarily risking their health (or their life) on behalf of any other animal. My responsibility is to care for them to the best of my ability, to promote their health and welfare their entire lives. Most of all, to borrow a line from the Hippocratic Oath, I promise to do no harm. Although I’m their “owner”, their organs aren’t mine to donate. Selling or donating [insert body part here] is intentionally doing harm, no matter the justifying rationale. Seems to me I’d be demonstrating myself to be an irresponsible dog owner, and I’d rather cut off my own right arm than break faith with my best buddy.
I love animals. I wouldn’t be writing this if I didn’t. My own pet’s health and safety will always be far more important than that of any other animal, without exception or hesitation. My heart truly goes out to Orso’s owner. Watching his beloved dog suffering from progressive renal failure has got to be a pain like no other, and I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy (well, maybe my WORST enemy, but nobody else). Nevertheless, my pet can’t be their putative savior. I wouldn’t bet my pet’s health (and life, perhaps) on the speculative gamble that might, perhaps, still not save Orso (the success rate for canine renal transplants is only 40%). Even if the success rate were better, to me that still wouldn’t be sufficient justification for causing intentional harm.
So what do you think? For purposes of the discussion, let me stipulate three assumptions.
- The reward money wouldn’t make you or break you. Of course $2,000 is great to have, but it won’t make the difference between keeping your house or homelessness, food or starvation. The money doesn’t constitute a critical need.
- You are a responsible pet owner. You aren’t going to steal another dog for the reward. You love your animal(s), you treat them as your children, and you do whatever is best of them. In other words, you’re not Michael Vick.
- Your pet won’t die in the process of organ donation. There are the usual, customary risks of anaesthesia, surgery and recovery, but not more than normal. Otherwise, they’ll live and eventually be ok, minus one organ.
If you had a pet who matched the breed, bloodlines, age, size and all other relevant parameters, and were faced with the prospect of $2,000 plus expenses to donate your otherwise healthy pet’s organ to a complete stranger, would you? Please comment and check back to follow. I’m interested in your opinions.
Photo Credit: Orso: pedigreedatabase.com. Surgery: flickr creative commons
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
I wouldn’t ask someone to donate an organ to my pet and I would not take money to donate one of my pets organs. So no on both accounts for me.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 11, 2010 @ 12:35 pm
I would not. Not just to avoid intentional harm, as good veterinary care does sometimes involve the deliberate infliction of harm. However, in those cases the harm is balanced against the potential benefit for that particular animal. In this case, that’s just not so; even given the assumption that my pet would suffer no lasting harm other than the absence of a redundant kidney,* the potential benefit is all for another animal.
*Although, y’know, I’m not convinced that the removal of a kidney really would be okay in the long-term - not given that most animals suffer some loss of kidney function as they age. It seems to me that it may well be that the redundancy is not merely a neutral trait, but a beneficial one.
Comment by Eucritta — January 11, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
I know dogs who are blood donors, and I haven’t heard any ethical complaints about that, so to me the difference is one of degree.
Parents can and do have their minor children donate organs or marrow, and a child is in a similar place as a pet, in that they really cannot make informed consent, so the parent makes the decision for them. If done with the knowledge that your pet is healthy and able to recover, and that adequate pain meds will be available, I don’t really see a problem.
If my dog was youngish and healthy and a good match, I would allow an organ donation. I should also say that my father and my brother both received kidney transplants: one a cadaver and one from a live donor. While donating is difficult, dying of kidney failure is much, much worse. And the discomfort of the donation is over in a few weeks…renal failure is generally forever.
I can’t choose death over discomfort.
Comment by Darlene — January 11, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Personally, I wouldn’t do it.
That said, I can think of one instance in which donation might benefit the donor animal… and that would be the case in which the donor also required a costly procedure that his/her owner could not afford to provide. If that extra $2000 would make it possible to perform that procedure and offer the donor a better quality of life / second chance at life, I don’t know that I would necessarily view the swap as unethical.
Comment by 3 Fabulous Felines — January 11, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
My gut reaction is no… Given the right circumstances (personal friend rather than a stranger, my dog is otherwise healthy, Vet agrees to it being okay [still a risk, but not life threatening]) I would consider it, but I still think my end decision would be no.
Comment by Dani — January 11, 2010 @ 2:01 pm
When my shepard was about two, and we were training in schutzhund, I was offered unreal amounts of money for him, before he was even titled. My answer was always the same. ” My brother is not for sale.” Same concept applies.
Comment by cyndi — January 11, 2010 @ 2:18 pm
A dog can have his perfectly healthy testicles removed without consenting, and a bitch can have her perfectly healthy uterus and ovaries removed without consenting. We make these decisions to incur health risks for our pets, when in most cases the main benefit is mere convenience for us in not having to be careful to prevent unwanted breedings.
How can we say it’s ethical to make a decision to remove healthy reproductive organs from our pets, yet then say it’s not ethical to remove a healthy kidney to help another dog in need? Isn’t the dog in need of a kidney a more compelling ethical driver than our convenience re: spay/neuter?
I choose not make my own dogs kidney donors, but I don’t think anyone else who chooses otherwise is unethical.
Comment by LauraS — January 11, 2010 @ 2:25 pm
I could be mistaken, but I had thought that there was a program via one of the teaching hospitals involving feline renal transplants.
In the program, owners opting for renal transplant for their cat agreed to adopt and provide a life time home and care to the donor cat. The donors were healthy cats chosen for the program from shelter situations, presumably they were considered to be at high risk of euthanasia at shelters with high kill rates, at least from what I can remember.
Not saying that shelter animals deserve any less compassion or a lower standard of ethical treatment or care, but it’s an interesting twist.
I was contacted as a breed rescue volunteer by some one with the same breed who was searching for a kidney donor for their dog. They also offered to adopt the donor. Our fosters generally are older, infirm or just not great candidates. Plus same breed does not equal a match automatically.
More importantly, our dogs are already “saved”. It may take some time, but we do have enough homes for the breed numbers at least for now. I would not feel comfortable volunteering one for this sort of a procedure. But if I had to walk past 10 and only pick two to save because there was inadequate resources locally? Then maybe volunteering on of those who might otherwise not find a home might make sense.
With the gaining momentum of No-Kill in more communities, maybe that potential donor pool will vanish one day.
Now, for my own dogs, if I had one who was suffering renal failure and another who had two good kidneys and I could afford it? I would seriously consider donating one’s kidney to the other. Parents make these choices for young children, sometimes no, sometimes yes.
We already put dogs through painful, major surgery to remove otherwise healthy organs when we spay or neuter. And yes, the removal of a uterus may prevent some nasty complications later in life, but we also now know that spay/neuter is not completely benign and may set some animals up for increased risks of serious health issues. And might even shorten lifespans in some cases.
So I am not certain that I would not donate one of my dogs organs to save another. But I would not wish to profit from such an act. And personally, I do not think I could even begin to consider it unless it was a dog and family I knew well.
Comment by JenniferJ — January 11, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
Ditto LauraS.
Comment by Rori — January 11, 2010 @ 2:38 pm
LauraS,
That is a very interesting point.
I guess I would argue that if my dog has eight puppies, there is high risk that these eight puppies would displace eight shelter dogs who are then euthanized for space. So potentially eight dogs that might die as a result.
I know some will argue that there are plenty of homes for pets IF ONLY the shelters were better at matching homes with dogs. But that is not the reality where I live. So if a dog has a litter here, many other dogs might die as a result.
As for convenience, I think a lot of dog owners are just clueless. Or not very OCD about keeping an eye on their females.
All that said, I do not have dogs. I have rabbits, which are hyperfertile. They can get pregnant WHILE giving birth (one documented case). And I believe in pairing them up; they are very social. Plus there’s the uterine cancer thing. So the minute I rescue them I schedule the surgeries.
So, that’s my .002.
Comment by Mary Mary — January 11, 2010 @ 2:45 pm
“A dog can have his perfectly healthy testicles removed without consenting, and a bitch can have her perfectly healthy uterus and ovaries removed without consenting. We make these decisions to incur health risks for our pets, when in most cases the main benefit is mere convenience for us in not having to be careful to prevent unwanted breedings.
How can we say it’s ethical to make a decision to remove healthy reproductive organs from our pets, yet then say it’s not ethical to remove a healthy kidney to help another dog in need?”
Good point, LauraS. When I read the article, my first response was ‘No way!’ but… you’re right, I think.
Comment by Pai — January 11, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
So many healthy dogs are euthanized one can only imagine the profit that could be made by harvesting their organs - profit for the organizations doing the euthanizing and also profit to the pet owners who turn the animal over.
I can just imagine that a new wave of organ shuffling can, could, and would be done all in the name of saving a sick pet - and in the meantime healthy animals are butchered. I suppose some might think this morally acceptable since the animals will be put down anyway - but - I can imagine - more animals will be put down for profit than would ordinarily be put down - why? Even though the average person may not think $2,000 is worth the life of their pet, or organs of their pet, there probably are plenty of people around that would think it just fine to profit from organ harvesting and don’t care if their pet has only one kidney or undergoes the operation.
I don’t know if it is true that a kidney transplant or havesting is just as safe as a spay/neuter. Someone else will have to answer that question, but it makes me shudder to think of the abuses that will and probably do arise from this practice.
The ultimate question would be - are we being kind and fair to our pets by permitting their organs to be harvested even if and when they are destined to be euthanized? The idea gives me the creeps. A callous person dragging their pet into a shelter to be offed and then wanting to make a few bucks from its organs - the poor animals are at our mercy and selling off their vital body parts seems wrong to me.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 11, 2010 @ 2:57 pm
LauraS creates a strawman that isn’t within a zip code of this scenario. Suggesting that spay and neuter policies exist solely for our convenience is like saying that food safety policies should be optional, since you could grow your own food, and therefore control your personal diet intake.
Spaying and neutering exist to benefit not *that* pet or one other, but society writ large. There isn’t a comparison between the two, and believing there is wildly misses the point.
I’m totally ok with your saying you’d support donation. I’m not ok with comparing apples to heads of lettuce.
Comment by David S. Greene — January 11, 2010 @ 3:07 pm
I don’t even think it is okay to donate your pets organs to help another pet. Let the dog have only one eye or one lung or one kidney - after all if the owner thinks nothing is wrong with it, then what is the objection? A dog or pet doesn’t need two eyes - they can get by with one just fine. (I am being sarcastic.)
If there isn’t a law against such practice, there should be.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 11, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
David … I actually agree with Laura. In fact we DO make decisions that are purely for our own reasons, with little to no benefit to the individual pets aside from making them more to our liking AS pets or doing something for the greater good.
Her argument isn’t a straw man. The core issue is: Do we or don’t we make decisions for our animals that wouldn’t be their choice? And if it’s OK to spay-neuter for “the greater good,” isn’t it OK to remove something else for the benefit of another?
Yes, we do, and spay-neuter of healthy animals is a good example. Declawing, debarking is another.
I do choose (mostly, but not always) to spay-neuter (for my convenience, because health is a mixed bag and I am not having oops litters even WITH intact animals), but I would never declaw or debark. Nor would I choose to donate my dog’s kidney.
But I *do* get to make those choices, by law and by tradition. Where to draw these lines is the very core of the animal rights discussion. Spay-neuter POLICIES, by the way, are forcing the “greater good” argument to the possible detriment of individual animals, since studies have shown that spay-neuter are not solely benign procedures.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 11, 2010 @ 3:17 pm
LauraS creates a strawman that isn’t within a zip code of this scenario. Suggesting that spay and neuter policies exist solely for our convenience is like saying that food safety policies should be optional, since you could grow your own food, and therefore control your personal diet intake.
If you are going to accuse me of creating a strawman, please refrain from misquoting me. I didn’t say s/n exists “solely for our convenience” but rather that in “most cases the main benefit is mere convenience for us in not having to be careful to prevent unwanted breedings”. I stand by what I said.
Main benefit in most cases does not equal sole benefit.
I also said nothing about s/n “policies”. Where did that come from? You compare these to food safety “policies” being optional or not which I take to mean food safety laws and regulations. If you click on my name at the bottom of this post you might get a sense of what I think about s/n laws and regulations.
There are other reasons why people s/n their dogs besides owner convenience — to attain real or perceived health and behavioral benefits, or to treat specific health problems.
Dogs in a number of European countries have far lower rates of s/n and yet they have far lower rates of shelter dogs. Preventing an intact dog from having unplanned breedings is not rocket science. Millions of us have done so.
For those who do not wish to take the precautions to prevent unplanned breedings, it is an owner convenience to s/n their dogs. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with those who decide to do so for that or for other reasons. I support voluntary low cost and free s/n services for those who wish to make this choice but are deterred by cost.
Comment by LauraS — January 11, 2010 @ 4:06 pm
I was reading up about the transplanting of dog kidneys - it seems that there is on ongoing risk of rejection, even if a good match exists, and regular bloodwork on the receivers end and also biopsy done every 6 months. It simply is not the same type of surgery as a spay/neuter or blood transfusion. The risks are higher and the animal that receives the organ has to take anti-rejection drugs and be subject to treatment for life.
Of course UC Davis has an optimistic take on this - they would - and an animal rights site as a more negative impact take on this.
I’m not sure that cutting edge vets who do surgeries would be against the procedure.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 11, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Out of compassion for another animal, it’s difficult to just shrug this one off as “no way”. The money is a distraction from the base problem, and could potentially be a ‘decider’ for many.
Let’s say I have Orso’s brother and he’d be the best match one could hope for. My first concern would be to get the brother tested for the same genetic condition. Then to find out: if he is negative now, can he become positive later? If so, this seems a no-win situation.
Let’s say the vet says he’s unlikely to develop it later as he shows no indicators for the disease.
I’d consider it. I would need a strong belief that Orso’s owners won’t continue Orso’s life as long as possible (with little regard to his quality of life). And then I’d have to determine if I really want to put mine through the risk.
I would find either answer difficult to live with. If both dogs died, I will feel that I made the wrong decision. If Orso thrives and mine recovers just fine and leads the rest of his life to its normal, long-aged conclusion, then I’d feel I made the right decision.
But you can’t really determine the right/wrong-ness of a decision based upon the final outcome.
Dogs are known to put their own lives at risk in defense of another. In a pack situation, the probability is that they’d work to save each other despite the personal risk. So can we determine that - given a true understanding - our dogs would say no? Or yes?
I don’t see how this decision can be anything - at this point in time - other than a truly heart-wrenching, gut-feeling response, carefully-considered and measured answer, based upon the individuals and their dogs, and weighed individually in each case. And no answer is either right or wrong.
Comment by Perri — January 11, 2010 @ 4:12 pm
I was reading up about the transplanting of dog kidneys - it seems that there is on ongoing risk of rejection, even if a good match exists, and regular bloodwork on the receivers end and also biopsy done every 6 months. It simply is not the same type of surgery as a spay/neuter or blood transfusion. The risks are higher and the animal that receives the organ has to take anti-rejection drugs and be subject to treatment for life.
True, but the alternative for the dog receiving the donated kidney is death.
Anyway, I believe the question here is the risk to the dog who is the kidney donor, not the risk to the dog receiving the kidney.
Is having a kidney surgically removed significantly more risky to a dog than having a uterus and ovaries surgically removed? I dunno, perhaps Dr. Becker or Dr. Johnson could weigh in.
Comment by LauraS — January 11, 2010 @ 4:28 pm
I could not find anything about when a dog loses a kidney surgically - only about when he/she receives one - even receiving one there are lots of problems and it is very expensive.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 11, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
We keep pets for our pleasure and convenience, and it could be argued that everything we do for and to them is without their consent. So?
Also, while the initial post did not raise the issue of risk:benefit to the pet receiving the kidney, I think it’s fair to consider it as part of the calculations.
Comment by Eucritta — January 11, 2010 @ 5:56 pm
I thought about this, and thought about this, and you know what? There are circumstances in which I *might* do this. Or at least, consider it.
My dog Heather (who died last fall at almost 13) was part of a phenomenal litter, in which the owners of the dogs became friends. Four of the people who had dogs from that litter are again “dog-in-laws,” with a puppy from the litter I raised last spring.
If one of my dog-in-laws asked to have saved the life of either Heather’s littermate or Faith’s (or McKenzie’s, for that matter, because I’m friend with the “dog-in-laws” there, too) I would be hard-pressed to say no, frankly.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 11, 2010 @ 6:43 pm
Now me, I’ve been thinking about this:
Parents can and do have their minor children donate organs or marrow, and a child is in a similar place as a pet, in that they really cannot make informed consent, so the parent makes the decision for them. If done with the knowledge that your pet is healthy and able to recover, and that adequate pain meds will be available, I don’t really see a problem.
… and I think I’d better add a bit to my living-will, to include refusal of any organs or blood-marrow from minor family members. Because, good grief. I cannot imagine. I do not want.
Comment by Eucritta — January 11, 2010 @ 6:53 pm
U of Pennsylvania had a donor program for cats,you got a donated organ from a stray & ended up with 2 -1 kidney cats. I tried to do it for my Patches,but she was too old to qualify. I don’t know the ancestry of my current dogs,but if I did & had a relationship with other owners or the breeder I would probably do it. I do however have a brother with kidney problems ,so always knew I might need to donate 1,& a sil & cousin who both had transplants. I think when you have had family need a transplant your attitude towards it changes.The surgery for animals is not cheap ! Plus all the after care & meds,if you have both animals can get very steep.They usually need anti-rejection drugs forever.They are also more prone to infections afterwards.
Comment by Leslie K — January 11, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
If my dog was dying and was young and I could save her life, I would do almost anything as long as I was being fair to the donor dog - maybe take care of the donor dog too.
Comment by sandrafox — January 11, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
“…Parents can and do have their minor children donate organs or marrow, and a child is in a similar place as a pet, in that they really cannot make informed consent, so the parent makes the decision for them…”
I’m not so sure about this. Far as I know, parents can consent to having a minor child donate marrow to a minor sibling (maybe only up to a certain age). Bone marrow is replaced by the body - like blood, though not as readily. And I’m not sure that parents can just decree that Child A will be a marrow donor for Child B - don’t medical ethics require that there be a review by the court, including appointment of a guardian ad litem for the donor? And if Child A is over the age of —?, though still a minor, I believe the court would say the prospective donor could give or refuse consent. I doubt there are any circumstances when a parent could decide, independent of a court, that one minor child must give up a kidney, a lung, or part of a liver for anyone else.
At least some states allow minors to declare when they receive a driver’s license whether they would like to be organ donors in the event of death. Parents might be able to veto that, but I doubt they could compel such a declaration (making that decision for a child of any age unable to consent is a different matter).
I guess I said all that to get to the issue of anthropomorphizing - “What would Mitzi/Max want me to do for her/his buddy? Or for a dog that’s a stranger?” There is simply no way of knowing, and I don’t believe that’s a consideration anyone should try to make about donation of an animal’s organ to another animal.
I think the only situation where I would be comfortable with an animal organ donation is if my animal is hopelessly injured, say HBC, and euthanizing is the humane course of action. IF in that circumstance, a transplantable organ could be harvested to benefit another animal, I could support that.
elaine
Comment by elaine — January 11, 2010 @ 7:28 pm
I would have to agree with Elaine. That is the only circumstance under which I would consider it.
I don’t feel that it would be responsible to risk my dog’s life for the situation described. I would never ask anyone else to do such a thing for him, either.
While I don’t know all the details of the specific situation in question, I’m uncomfortable with what seems to sometimes be a “life at any price” attitude that our society has, both towards animals and humans.
It’s not my place or desire to judge what choices people make for medical treatment for themselves, their families or their pets, but Americans overall live in a state of denial about death, which is after all a natural part of the scheme of things, and that is almost certainly a factor in some of these issues.
Comment by Susan Fox — January 11, 2010 @ 7:48 pm
So the objection to donating is that your pet can’t give consent, which I completely understand. However, it’s more than disingenuous to claim lack of consent over organ donation (which hypothetically would not cause your dog to die) as a reasonable option to not do it if you don’t consider consent in any other venue that violates an animals body. And there are many.
The reasoning in this situation makes no sense.
Comment by J. MacPrue — January 12, 2010 @ 3:56 am
J. MacPrue,
I assume you are talking about using animals for research, for food, for breeding, etc.
I thought of that too. And I agree, there is selective reasoning in this. That is not really the right term …
One of the vets I use is amazing, very advanced in the diagnosis and treatment of “exotics.” I teach classes on rabbit care, and send rabbit owners to him all the time for second opinions when I feel their own vets have missed the mark. He often diagnoses major issues in two minutes that the other vets miss completely. I try not to think too much about how he acquired those skills (as the vet for a major research lab.)
I guess it all comes back to what means justifies what end.
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 6:59 am
“So the objection to donating is that your pet can’t give consent, which I completely understand. However, it’s more than disingenuous to claim lack of consent over organ donation (which hypothetically would not cause your dog to die) as a reasonable option to not do it if you don’t consider consent in any other venue that violates an animals body. And there are many.”
Comment by J. MacPrue — January 12, 2010
Well, on reading what I wrote by the light of day, it’s clear I didn’t do a very good job of saying what I meant to. I’ll try to clarify a bit on both “what parents can do with their child” and “whether pets can consent to - well, anything.”
For starters, I took exception to another person’s statement that parents can decide arbitrarily to use portions of the body of one of their children for the benefit of another child (or perhaps adult).
My biggest issue with the comment I responded to was the likening of pets to children. That troubles me a lot. And to then go on to ponder “what does Mitzi/Max want me to do” - uh, not for me. I care deeply for my pets, but they are not people. My dogs get choices about things like which crate they’d like to hop into for tendon time, and which toy they want to fling around or extract the squeaky from. I make the decisions about their health care, hygiene, diet, training, activities we do together.
I simply would not HAVE any notion of whether my pet “consented” to donating a kidney or anything else another dog might be in need of. That’s strictly my decision, just as it would be if the situation were whether to treat a catastrophic injury/illness or to let go. There would be a lot of factors to consider but it would really come down to what is feasible in MY circumstances, not any perception of my pet’s “wishes.”
elaine
Comment by elaine — January 12, 2010 @ 7:49 am
Excellent discussion - gets into all sorts of interesting ethical issues. Thanks for getting it all started, David.
I must say that I agree with Laura S. on this one as far as the ethics of removing a kidney go, but not as far as the need to help another dog. I think those 2 things are flip sides to this issue.
A spay can and does help the individual, as it will prevent complications from pregnancy and uterine cancer and infection - all very real issues. And - no consent. I think the scenarios are very similar. S/N also helps society too, but it is a split benefit to me. And - I think more weighted towards the individual. Neutered animals live longer.
Surgery wise, I think the procedures are pretty similar - risk of infection and bleeding. The only reason we think a spay is safe is because it is routine and most of the time nothing untoward happens. Neutering is much less invasive and, therefore dangerous (we still see complications, but they rare and usually just an annoyance). At their base, you are going in and removing a giblet - just a different one. I am sure in the annals of veterinary surgery some neophyte has done just that - went in for a uterus, came out with a kidney. Whoops!
My main concern is the risk of losing the kidney function - I see enough patients in kidney failure that I am concerned that it would hasten the onset in the donor. I would feel terrible if my pet the donor succumbed to renal failure in 5 years.
Now - would I do it? Money aside - probably no.
I don’t really know why - maybe the threat of the kidney failure, maybe the risk of an avoidable surgery, maybe the slightly greasy ethics of the whole thing. Probably simple selfishness - I wouldn’t want to impose an unneeded risk to my dog to help another. Charity starts at home.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — January 12, 2010 @ 7:55 am
I’ll go further than LauraS.
If I had a young healthy dog who was a good match, was not one of my operational or trainee SAR dogs*, and I was convinced that the risk was acceptable, I’d do it.
Right now I don’t own such a dog. Moe is not a SAR dog, but his chronic Lyme has almost certainly rendered his kidney undesirable. (And if it weren’t for the Lyme, he’d still be a SAR dog.)
Our animals don’t meet any legal threshold for consent for anything we choose for them, including euthanasia.
* Not because the SAR dogs are morally more important than a pet in and of themselves, but because I’d have a hard time justifying the time out of service, and unavailable for a potential human-life-saving mission, and because of the additional risk some kinds of SAR deployments could pose to a dog (or person) with only one kidney.
Comment by H. Houlahan — January 12, 2010 @ 7:59 am
I also can only see a few very limited scenarios where I might consider using a kidney from one of my dogs for another dog. Trauma or other problem requiring euthanasia is certainly one; the other might be in the case of one of my two huskies needing the kidney. They are so tightly bonded that it seems likely they will not survive each other for long when the time comes one must be euthanized; therefore, the risk to the donor dog seems less if he/she will probably choose to follow his/her packmate anyway. (These two have to go everywhere together; even twenty minutes of separation has both extremely anxious).
Comment by Maria Shanley — January 12, 2010 @ 9:08 am
A spay can and does help the individual, as it will prevent complications from pregnancy and uterine cancer and infection - all very real issues. And - no consent. I think the scenarios are very similar. S/N also helps society too, but it is a split benefit to me. And - I think more weighted towards the individual. Neutered animals live longer.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — January 12, 2010
Neutered animals live longer on average when considered from a herd management approach. For an individual dog or cat, the benefits are far less certain. In fact, there are studies that suggest not spaying or neutering or delaying both can be a better plan, taking purely on medical or behaviorial grounds.
Dr. Tony, I’m certain from your point of view as an experienced ER doc, anything that reduces the hit-by-car or pyo you see could only be a benefit. But those emergencies are more the result of bad management, no training and/or no socialization and ignorance than the presence of gonads.
A responsible, alert and informed pet-owner is likely not going to let their male dogs roam looking for action and will notices an infection in their female dogs before it becomes critical. These people have already gained the benefit of spay-neuter because they are good care-takers.
Why is this distinction important? Simply because we have people going around trying to force ALL pets to be spayed or neutered, based on information that is scientifically incorrect, as well as on assumptions of outcomes that are also in error. Public policy is being made on wrong information.
All medical procedures for any pet should be made on an individual basis in consultation with a good veterinarian. These decisions should not be made by well-meaning but ignorant animal advocates and lawmakers.
I understand the desire to withhold the full story to get more pets spayed and neutered. I admit to not telling the whole story myself in the past to get some idiot to spay-neuter for population control and behavior problems. (The pet … the pet … even though the people would be better off kept from reproducing themselves as well, in many cases.)
But I no longer believe in “white lies.” They have a way of coming back to bite you. Now, I give the pros and cons, and often suggest that in my opinion the pros usually outweigh the cons.
Usually, but not always. And not, ever, by legislative mandate.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — January 12, 2010 @ 9:47 am
Can we have a law mandating responsible and alert (and caring) pet ownership instead? That would be a piece of legislation I could stand behind.
I agree with you, Gina - let’s not blame the gonads, let’s blame the true source of the problem: irresponsible and careless pet owners. Mind you - I am NOT saying ALL pet owners are irresponsible, just a fraction that would allow an intact animal to reproduce without intending to, or allow an intact male to fight or roam. Those are the ones that sterilization can help - the pet, not the owner. But to mandate it for all pet owners is to shove laws down the throats of the responsible along side the irresponsible.
All too often, I see the end result of an intact pet suffering from their owner’s ignorance. A good pet owner with an intact pet is a beauty to behold, and it is my personal opinion (and not backed up by research to my knowledge) that some intact pets are actually in better condition than their neutered cohorts.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — January 12, 2010 @ 10:11 am
“let’s not blame the gonads, let’s blame the true source of the problem: irresponsible and careless pet owners.”
Or how about a third category. Unlucky? Trusting? Multitasking? Travelling?
I was — in general — a very vigilant, trustworthy, responsible 21-year-old, watching my friends’ lab. I stayed at their house one weekend when they were out of town.
I let her out into the fenced yard, as I had done many many many times before. I went back outside MAYBE five, ten minutes later. She, and her intact uterus, were gone.
A while later, after driving around frantically, I found her lounging beside a huge German Shepherd. So, because of MY (?) irrensponsibility or my friends’ irresponsibility (?), the region was “blessed” with 8 or 10 more shepherd-lab mixes. I wonder how many dogs were PTS because I didn’t have the sense to stay outside with her for those 5-10 minutes, or because my friends were stupid enough to trust their intact, in heat dog with an adult who had NEVER given them reason to believe she would be careless.
And every day there are so, so many dogs lost in this city. You see desperate ads on Craigslist and postings at the animal shelters. How on earth do so many dogs escape their owners? And what if all if these dogs were intact?
I am not am not am not arguing for mandatory spay neuter. I am suggesting that until all dog owners can recite the basics of dog reproduction / contraception like they can the pledge of allegience, then I will never trust that education will work well enough. I want to see educational signs plastered in vet offices, Petcos, animal shelters, etc. Whatever the key points would be. Repeat them until people understand and there is no such thing as “oops.”
PS: my friends spayed their lab after the puppies were gone. Well, d’uh.
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 10:40 am
A spay can and does help the individual, as it will prevent complications from pregnancy and uterine cancer and infection - all very real issues.
It can help the individual, but there are also short and long term downsides to the individual dog’s health associated with s/n
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs.....InDogs.pdf
Comment by LauraS — January 12, 2010 @ 10:47 am
Mary Mary, I doubt if any dogs were PTS on account of that oops litter. With few exceptions, the dogs PTS in shelters are adolescents and adults, not the young puppies that are in high demand.
Comment by LauraS — January 12, 2010 @ 11:02 am
LauraS,
It’s about displacement. I’m sure those puppies all found homes, at least until THEY became adolescent shepherd-lab mixes.
But maybe some of the people who adopted the puppies would have, instead, welcomed one of those shelter adolescents / adults who ran out of time.
Most of the dog owners in my circle of friends and neighbors adopted older puppies (9 months+) or adult dogs. But if a coworker of theirs had had an oops litter, they might have chosen a puppy instead. Passive acquisition.
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Mary Mary, your friends had plenty of time to spay their dog after she was exposed accidently to intact males.
And part of keeping an intact dog is making certain that you have very secure fencing.
I’m hitting two an on half decades with no escapes, and not because no one has tried!
I have solid fencing with wire mesh sunk below that. It was not cost prohibitive, just took some effort on my part. my friends who live in places where because of ccrs etc… they cannot do that, they always go outside with a bitch in season. If they are traveling, they either board a girl in heat with the vet or leave them with some one used to managing intact dogs.
Part of managing intact, in heat female dogs is educating yourself and others about the heat cycle. There are only about 5-7 days of fertility in a cycle, twice a year (three times for some, only once for others) General advice is to treat the whole cycle as off limits time, not let them outdoors unobserved or unattended, and if you can’t manage that or don’t want to, then spaying is a very reasonable option.
But people here and abroad do manage to keep intact females and male without any “oops” happening.
If it does, a responsible owner/breeder has the options of surgical spay or prostaglandin treatment (once a pregnancy is confirmed) to terminate the pregnancy. If they choose to bring that litter into the world, they need to treat it like a planned litter, making certain that the offspring will always be able to return to them, will be altered etc..
Frankly, unless a bitch was absolutely vital to my breeding program and possessed irreplaceble genetic diversity, I’d have her spayed to terminate the pregnancy. Thankfully, I have never had to make that choice.
Comment by JenniferJ — January 12, 2010 @ 11:29 am
I agree Mary Mary that mistakes just happen even with the best of intentions and aborting new pups might be morally objectionable to some people.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 12, 2010 @ 11:44 am
Snoopy’s Friend
Dog embryos do not implant and start to grow into pups until around 18 days after conception. Prior to that they are free floating.
That gives most people a two to three week window (some breedings take place well before conception) to choose to spay before there are any real signs of anything even being a puppy.
If aborting pups is morally objectionable to an owner, then they certainly should practice extreme diligence during their dog’s heat cycle, including canceling travel plans and only leash walking or, of course spaying her before the fact.
And yes, mistakes happen, but with care, you can reduce the odds of accidental pregnancies tremendously. Mary Mary was not at fault if she was not instructed to walk the lab on a leash only, she could not have known that the back yard was not secure. The owners also clearly had not had clear education on preventing accidental breeding or they were being cavalier about it. It IS the owners responsibility to educate themselves on proper management of a their pets. Turning a bitch in heat out without attending her is a mistake, but a totally preventable one.
Comment by JenniferJ — January 12, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
In the perfect work, JenniferJ, good owners would have no oops factor. In the world I live in, things just happen and not because of lack of leash walks or good fences. (even though I have no female dogs.)
Children leave doors open, a guest comes in and forgets to close the door properly, someone opens a garage door and at the same time someone opens the door to the house and out runs the dog - out past both doors.
A leash breaks - a dog slips out of a lead - an owner slips on wet grass and accidentally releases the leash to brace a fall. A snap from a good leash opens - a flaw. A firecracker scares a dog and it bolts in fear and the owner wasn’t prepared for the pull of their 100+ pound dog and the dog is gone.
Stuff just happens. Maybe all of my examples are preventable in a perfect world but we live in the real rub of life where good people make mistakes and equipment fails.
Probably owners think, well my bitch in heat got out once or away from me only for a few minutes and she is probably not impregnated.
I’m the type of owner who would run to the vet in fear my dog was with pups but I understand the owner who thinks that all is probably okay, just this once, and it isn’t. There’s lots of moral slack in this area and even with professional breeders who know what they are doing 99% of the time, stuff just happens.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 12, 2010 @ 12:24 pm
But it happens rarely if you are careful
Education and increased sense of responsibility decrease the chances.
No world is utterly perfect, but you CAN improve the odds of a good outcome.
What LauraS and myself and others object to is the implication that intact dogs WILL have puppies.
Many many intact dogs have lived their lives without ever producing offspring. I’ve known many of them.
In a better world, we would be helping owners to train, socialize and properly manage their pets, neutered or intact, so that they would keep them in their homes.
Then the occasional “oops” litter or relinquished pet would b much easier to rehome.
Instead we have a lot of finger pointing and onerous laws like BSL and MSN which seek to punish and succeed at nothing but making pet ownership more restrictive.
I do not want to tell pet owners what procedures they can or cannot opt for for their pets. Under some circumstances I could see donating one of my dog’s organs.
But I don’t want to be forced to have a healthy organ removed from my pet on the grounds that accidents happen. It’s a bit like saying you can’t have a driver’s licenser because you could some day have a car wreck.
Comment by JenniferJ — January 12, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
In a better world, we would be helping owners to train, socialize and properly manage their pets, neutered or intact, so that they would keep them in their homes.
Comment by JenniferJ — January 12, 2010 @ 1:22 pm
Who is “we?”
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 1:31 pm
Mary Mary, I do not believe that the adoption of young puppies in shelters displaces the adoption of adolescents and adults. Most people who have their minds set on a young puppy are not going to settle for an adolescent or adult dog instead. If they cannot find a suitable young puppy in a shelter, I think most will look toward other sources of young puppies.
For the most part, I believe the adoption of young puppies and the adoption of adolescent/adult dogs are two different “markets”. The young puppy adoption market has an inadequate supply to meet demand.
I suspect that the oops litter you referred is more likely to have displaced the sale of puppies from pet stores, flea markets, newspaper ads, and similar sources than anything else.
I think the biggest problem with those oops litter puppies is that some fraction of them end up coming back to the shelter as unruly adolescent or adult dogs, because shelters don’t — and perhaps shouldn’t — screen owners as rigorously as hobby breeders do.
Comment by LauraS — January 12, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Royal, all inclusive, society as a whole “we”
Most of the folks on here are already engaged in these activities. :-)
My fervent wish is that all the energy, time and money going towards pushing punitive legislation would go towards education and low cost pet care including of course low and no cost spay/neuter, of which I am a huge supporter. Incentive is better than punishment, which should be reserved for those who are intentionally and/or habitually irresponsible or abusive.
I could have couched that better
Comment by JenniferJ — January 12, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
Can we have a law mandating responsible and alert (and caring) pet ownership instead? That would be a piece of legislation I could stand behind.
What happens to pets in homes where the owner did not or cannot pass whatever “tests” the brilliant minds in the legislature decided constitute responsible pet ownership? Yep, they are taken away from their owner and family, most likely to be killed in a shelter. Killed because their owner didn’t know that the “right” answer is “positive training” to a written question about dog ownership, or some other nonsense.
Even if the test questions are reasonable or only require sitting in on a class, the result is the same — many pets would be killed because of owner non-compliance.
That’s the thing about legal mandates related to pet ownership, they have a tendency to backfire.
Another thing I find puzzling — hopefully we can all agree that raising a human child is more difficult and has more important consequences to society than raising and owning a pet. Yet if legal mandates requiring demonstrated knowledge of or training about child rearing were proposed on penalty that you cannot become a parent otherwise, I believe these mandates would be strongly opposed by all of the politicians who are willing to impose mandates on pet owners.
Comment by LauraS — January 12, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
Keeping our pets in our homes is not so easy even under the best of circumstances. Maybe you have never had a pet go missing or get away, but it happens even when educated. I’ve had snaps break, halties slip off from large strong dogs twisting away, dogs getting lose in various ways but I have never lost a dog and was successful in retrieving my dogs within seconds. But I understand how it happens that pets, in tact or not, get lose. And simply educating people to be careful will not solve the problems of pets getting lose. Maybe some people are careless and need to do better but education has its limits.
Comment by Snoopys Friend — January 12, 2010 @ 2:06 pm
“Can we have a law mandating responsible and alert (and caring) pet ownership instead? That would be a piece of legislation I could stand behind.”
Seeing as how it’s impossible to get a group of dog people to even AGREE ON what defines ‘caring pet ownership’ such a law would be completely unrealistic (and frankly, dangerous — god forbid the ARs get to influence the legal definitions).
Comment by Pai — January 12, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
Another thing I find puzzling — hopefully we can all agree that raising a human child is more difficult and has more important consequences to society than raising and owning a pet. Yet if legal mandates requiring demonstrated knowledge of or training about child rearing were proposed on penalty that you cannot become a parent otherwise, I believe these mandates would be strongly opposed by all of the politicians who are willing to impose mandates on pet owners.
Comment by LauraS — January 12, 2010 @ 2:05 pm
If we were euthanizing millions of “excess” children every year, and if there were feral children running through the streets, those mandates might indeed be considered by those politicians.
[I write that despite myself ….. I really don’t think it’s productive to compare children and animals, parenting and animal ownership/guardianship.]
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 3:02 pm
Seeing as how most shelter dogs are young adults, not puppies, your argument is not exactly sound. What would be more comparable would be saying that ‘because homeless people exist in America, that childbirth should be regulated.’ Which exposes the over-simplification of an issue that is much more complex that just being ‘all about reproductive status’. And with pets and shelter populations, it’s also not so simple.
Comment by Pai — January 12, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
Pai,
You make a good point.
Comment by Mary Mary — January 12, 2010 @ 9:34 pm
“Can we have a law mandating responsible and alert (and caring) pet ownership instead? That would be a piece of legislation I could stand behind.”
I initially made this comment in jest.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — January 13, 2010 @ 6:07 am
Oops. Sorry Dr. Tony, my snark-o-meter needs recalibration. In the future, you might consider adding a tag at the end of your comment in jest. Even somebody as dense as me notices those :-)
Comment by LauraS — January 13, 2010 @ 10:55 am
hmmm, try again
/snark
tag
Comment by LauraS — January 13, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Even with the most vigilant pet owner, accidents can still happen. But there are plenty of people who own intact animals who suck at doing so.
Before my cousin got her dog, Marley was given up to a rescue because she got pregnant.
While I was working at a pet store, some lady came in and asked me about her dog’s heat cycle…. after she had already been through one! (at least she was trying to educate herself. Better late than never).
Another girl wrote in on a group on flickr freaking out because she thought her dog might be pregnant. She went out of town when her dog was in heat and left the dog with her mother. Problem? She knew beforehand that her mother leaves the dog out on a tie (unfenced backyard) unattended.
Education is super important for any dog owner, especially the owner of an intact dog.
Comment by Alex V — January 21, 2010 @ 10:32 am
No problem at all, LauraS. I think you are calibrated just fine - no kidding this time! Thanks for the great interaction and thanks to David for getting us started on this one.
Comment by Dr. Tony Johnson — January 21, 2010 @ 1:22 pm