Removing dew claws

Re: Removing dew claws

KMurphy — Fri, 04 Apr 2014 12:05:37 GMT

Okay, it took a bit of time but I eventually got this reply from the Kennel Club on Feb 26th. They did misunderstand my query and seemed to think I was asking if it was okay or if I was allowed to do it, which wasn't the thrust of my question at all. I was asking them to remove the requirement from any or all breed standards so that there was never any pressure to remove front dew claws and to ensure that no dogs were penalised in the show ring for having them. In fact, I asked them to make it undesirable to not have them. I think we're halfway there.

"We have issued this statement on our website regarding the removal of dew claws:

‘It has been brought to the Kennel Club's attention at times that some vets are of the view that the removal of dogs' dew claws is illegal under the Animal Welfare Act.

While it is illegal under the mutilations clause of the Act to carry out a prohibited procedure which involves interference with the sensitive tissues or bone structure of a protected animal otherwise than for the purpose of its medical treatment, permitted procedures are listed in the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (England) Regulations 2007.

Schedule 1 of the regulations lists the removal of the dew claws of dogs as a permitted procedure. Schedule 9 goes on to clarify that anaesthetic must be administered except where the dog is a puppy whose eyes have not yet opened as per the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Therefore legislation in relation to dewclaws remains unchanged and a layperson or veterinary surgeon may continue to remove the dewclaws of puppies whose eyes have not yet opened.’

Further to the above we removed all reference to front dew claws (first digits) from the breed standards and that it is therefore a matter for the breeder and their vet to decide upon i.e. if the breeder wants the digit removed and the vet refuses then they may go elsewhere to find a vet that will do it but there is no requirement under our breed standards to have dew claws removed. "

Progress??

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 12:27:57 GMT

The best possible outcome.[quote user="KMurphy"]

[quote user="Christina Smith"]What is going on?[/quote]

Sorry, I maybe should have updated before! Puppies are all intact! In a remarkable turn of events the breeder agreed to disagree and accepted my refusal to remove the claws. She didn't march off to another vet as I had expected her to so I have a new level of respect for her. It all worked out very well in the end.

I have contacted the Kennel Club and so far all I have received by way of reply is that my comments have been passed to their veterinary advisers. I am continuing to hound them so hopefully they'll be good enough to reply soon. I will update any response.

[/quote]

Re: Removing dew claws

Bob Russell — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 11:40:38 GMT

[quote user="KMurphy"]

[quote user="Christina Smith"]What is going on?[/quote]

[/quote]

I bet the breeder has a new level of respect for you as well!

Good for you and the breeder!

Re: Removing dew claws

KMurphy — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:58:35 GMT

[quote user="Christina Smith"]What is going on?[/quote]

Re: Removing dew claws

Thomas Johnson — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:30:47 GMT

[quote user="Christina Smith"]

As Marie Antoinette said 'Let them eat cake'. What happened to her?

[/quote]

Except she didn't say it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 10:18:35 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

Most people that perform these 'dubious' procedures are less barbaric dinosaurs and more money orientated IMO. They come in all shapes, sizes and ages but generally it is the dosh that drives them!

Some of us 'dinosaurs' do have ethics!

[/quote]

As Marie Antoinette said 'Let them eat cake'. What happened to her?

Re: Removing dew claws

Bob Russell — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 09:25:42 GMT

Most people that perform these 'dubious' procedures are less barbaric dinosaurs and more money orientated IMO. They come in all shapes, sizes and ages but generally it is the dosh that drives them!

Some of us 'dinosaurs' do have ethics!

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Thu, 03 Oct 2013 03:12:02 GMT

Wide awake due to a hungry mosquito. What is going on? Just wondering if the puppies are intact or if they fell into the hands of some barbaric old dinosaur. Please let me know so that I can sleep

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:56:42 GMT

This has changed me to a new thread. Personally speaking I think the above has alot to do with the high suicide rate in our profession especially in those vets that have 'been around the block'. We aid and abet all these cases of neglect/cruelty. I think I could report 50-75% of my owners for benign negligence. In the good old days we could dock and castrate, anaesthetise without intubation, pain relief was non-existent and drips/blood samples were specialist areas but it was all done with a clear conscience and of course everyone respected the vet who worked 24/7!

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Wed, 02 Oct 2013 07:05:33 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]Why are people such tossers, "delighted" that they have a dog with a congenital deformity

[/quote]

I prefer to focus on the tailless dogs. The huskies living in top floor city flats, poor little deformed munchkin/pixie/ragdoll whatever they're called cats, rabbits/chinchillas starving due to overgrown molars etc etc are too much for my poor brain

Re: Removing dew claws

Mark Holmes — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 21:16:50 GMT

Why are people such tossers, "delighted" that they have a dog with a congenital deformity

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 19:58:18 GMT

For those interested I have just vaccinated another 'genetically docked' boxer pup. This one was a much better looking specimen and didn't have a heart murmur. On the other hand it was cryptorchid [just] and was predominantly white in colour.The owners have been told that it carries corgi genes for it's tail although it looked all boxer to me.The tail itself was very short with a slight corkscrew but better than most bulldog tails ie it was clear of the body.The breeders sell these pups at a premium and the owners were very pleased with their purchase. To add to the dew claw debate I have since my last post seen two more avulsed dew claws [one collie, one english springer spaniel] both easily and swiftly dealt with in routine consults. The collie was sedated to remove the nail. That is nine in total over 8 weeks and I only work 3 days per week!

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Tue, 01 Oct 2013 00:08:04 GMT

[quote user="Matt Hilary"]

Not sure I agree with this:

[quote]I think it's as well established as any of these proposed neutering risks/benefits.[/quote]

(pyometra, BPH etc.) but appreciate that wasn't the main point of your post.

[/quote]

You're right - that was a bit of a sweeping statement!

Pyometra and BPH are bound to be better documented benefits of neutering than this.

I was thinking more of the frequently cited, but less well documented, ones such as perineal hernia perhaps or mammary neoplasia (I'm not saying that a reduced risk of these is not the result of neutering - just that it's probably not any better documented than the prostatic carcinoma risk one?)

Re mammary neoplasia for example, there's evidence out there to support this, but as usual the evidence is not great:

"Spaying bitches before the first or second season, or before the age of 2.5 years, may be associated with a reduced risk of developing malignant mammary tumours later in life. This reduction in risk appears to be most marked in the bitches spayed before their first season, followed by those spayed before their second season. However, the evidence is relatively weak, and this should be taken into account alongside other considerations when recommending whether and when to neuter." [emphasis mine]

Source: http://bestbetsforvets.org/bet/144

Of course, most of us are fairly convinced anyway re mammary neoplasia and don't really care whether there is strong published evidence or not.

As an aside, there's very little evidence for much useful in vet medicines I tend to find.

That quote is from a website produced by the Centre for Evidence-Based Veterinary Medicine at Nottingham. I can't help but feel they will have a bit of an uphill battle if to be taken seriously! Generally, something's either pretty obvious already or there's no decent evidence to go on. Here's what they've found from searching the 'literature' w.r.t. dogs and cats so far:

There is some evidence that dogs with MVD live longer with pimobendan compared to benazepril.
It is unknown whether prednisolone or interferon is preferable for chronic gingivostomatitis in cats.
No reason found to favour midline or flank cat spay.
No evidence for Feliway helping with FLUTD.
Carprofen is superior to glucosamine/chondrotin for alleviating signs of osteoarthritis.
No evidence that azathioprine+pred is better than just pred for IMHA.
Renal diets improve survival time in cats with CKD
Insufficient evidence that asymptomatic dogs with MVD benefit from benazepril.
No evidence to support pentosan polysulphate as treatment for FLUTD
No evdidence that interferon improves clinical signs with FeLV (but might improve haematology values).

Well I hope we all learned something useful there

Looking forward to reading that there's no decent evidence for a variety of other exciting treatments in the future

Re: Removing dew claws

Matt Hilary — Mon, 30 Sep 2013 19:34:10 GMT

Only just spotted your reply but thanks very much for directing me to the paper. That's more conclusive evidence than I've been told though as always you need to be careful re interpretation.

Not sure I agree with this:

[quote]I think it's as well established as any of these proposed neutering risks/benefits.[/quote]

(pyometra, BPH etc.) but appreciate that wasn't the main point of your post.

Re: Removing dew claws

Rob Loxley — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 23:27:41 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"]Half chances of osteosarcoma[/quote]

In rotties (who are more prone to OSA) I think you do need to think long and hard whether to neuter

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 20:21:46 GMT

[quote user="Matt Hilary"]I'd been told this (increased risk carcinoma) as a student. Later queried it with a specialist who said there was unlikely to be a link and that prostatic neoplasia was simply proportionally over-representated in neutered dogs (as BPH eliminated from differentials). Anyone have more up-to-date info?[/quote]

I think it's as well established as any of these proposed neutering risks/benefits.

The suggestion is that neutered dogs get more prostatic cancer rather than simply a higher percentage of prostatic disease in castrated males is neoplastic compared to prostatic disease in entire dogs. Obviously could be confounders such as:

Prostatic neoplasia being mis- or under-diagnosed in entire males.
Castrated males living longer.
etc...

Decide for yourself:

METHODS - Data were derived from recorded visits to North American veterinary teaching hospitals. The Veterinary Medical Databases (VMDB) were queried to yield male dogs with urinary bladder transitional cell carcinoma (TCC), prostate adenocarcinoma (ACA), prostate TCC, prostate carcinoma (CA), and prostate tumours. A second query yielded all male dogs over the age of 4 years without a diagnosis of urinary tract cancer. These populations were compared to determine relative risks for developing each disease, singly and collectively, associated with neutering status. Odds ratios were calculated for breed as a risk factor. RESULTS - Neutered males had a significantly increased risk for each form of cancer. Neutered males had an odds ratio of 3.56 (3.02-4.21) for urinary bladder TCC, 8.00 (5.60-11.42) for prostate TCC, 2.12 (1.80-2.49) for prostate adenocarcinoma, 3.86 (3.13-4.16) for prostate carcinoma, and 2.84 (2.57-3.14) for all prostate cancers. Relative risks were highly similar when cases were limited to those with a histologically confirmed diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS - Breed predisposition suggests that genetic factors play a role in the development of prostate cancer. The risk associated with being neutered is highest for TCC, supporting previous work identifying the urothelium and ductular rather than acinar epithelium as the source of these tumours.

A population study of neutering status as a risk factor for canine prostate cancer.

Bryan, J. N.; Keeler, M. R.; Henry, C. J.; Bryan, M. E.; Hahn, A. W.;Caldwell, C. W.

Prostate 2007 Vol. 67 No. 11 pp. 1174-1181

Re: Removing dew claws

Matt Hilary — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 19:24:35 GMT

[quote user="Birte Toft"]

One of our local practices actually refuses to do dog castrations unless there is a pressing medical reason, due to the potentially increased risk of prostatic carcinomas.

[/quote]

I'd been told this (increased risk carcinoma) as a student. Later queried it with a specialist who said there was unlikely to be a link and that prostatic neoplasia was simply proportionally over-representated in neutered dogs (as BPH eliminated from differentials). Anyone have more up-to-date info?

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 13:27:51 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Fleming"]

What about preventing pyometra? There are stats floating around (can't find the oringinal paper that they came from, unfortunately, only papers quoting the statisitic) that this affects 25% of bitches before 10 years old....

[/quote]

I think that's a reasonable argument in favour of spaying on medical grounds, and arguably the only decent medical argument for mature rescue dogs (say 5 year old or more)?

Even with that you're over-treating 3 out of 4 bitches (by the age of 10), and it could be argued that prompt treatment of the 1 in 4 when displaying clinical signs has a very high success rate.

Still, I agree it's a strong argument.

Re: Removing dew claws

Lucy Fleming — Wed, 18 Sep 2013 12:34:24 GMT

Re: Removing dew claws

Christina Smith — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:47:43 GMT

Now that the age of DNA profiling is here. We are going to be faced with a whole range of new moral and ethical dilemmas around preventative surgery.It will be a minefield I suspect.

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:37:34 GMT

New surgical technique - reported to:

Half chances of a cruciate rupture.

Quarter the chanes of TCC.

Quarter the chances of heart tumours.

Half chances of osteosarcoma.

Decreases incidence of hip dysplasia.

Virtually eliminates an otherwise high incidence (up to 30% in bitches over 20kg) of urinary incontinence.

Oh, and it really helps to prevent obesity too!

You've guessed it - it's the non-spay for bitches. Like the regular procedure, but no risk of pain or operative complications

(OK, so i clearly don't believe all those statistics either, but then the lifetime risk for mammary tumours is reported to range from 2% and 20% - that's quite a range - and what is the risk of malignant mammary neoplasia - ie how many prepubertal bitches on average need to be spayed to prevent one case of malignant mammary neoplasia?)

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 22:06:00 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]Bilateral mammary strip - really??[/quote]

just floating it out there.

if i came from a culture that didn't routinely spay bitches, and i suggested removing the ovaries routinely to prevent the future risk of malignant mammary neoplasia, then i might get funny looks there too?

if i then threw in reported complication rates of 12.5% of procedures requiring some, even if minor, medical treatment after, 1% requiring further surgery due to complications and 0.1% resulting in fatality (http://www.vetaudit.co.uk/POC%20Results%20January%202011.doc), then i might find my audience becoming further disinterested.

I have clearly never done preventative mammary strips in a prepubescent puppy (and never will!), but i do wonder if it would not be reasonably straightforward - perhaps as much so as ovariectomy if one was not already so familiar with that technique?? The mammary tissue would be small and the skin stretchy??

Re: Removing dew claws

Rob Loxley — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 21:47:03 GMT

[quote user="John Flynn"]If the reason you recommend spaying a bitch is to prevent mammary neoplasia[/quote]

A good enough reason?

[quote user="John Flynn"]then why not recommend mastectomy as a preventative instead[/quote]

Bilateral mammary strip - really??

Re: Removing dew claws

Birte Toft — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:06:34 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

[quote user="Birte Toft"]To my knowledge, spaying and castrating has never been legal in Norway except on medical or welfare grounds[/quote]

I'm fascinated. Do you have any issues with unwanted puppies? Are hormones like suprelorin and delvosterone popular?

[/quote]

I'm in a city, and dogs aren't allowed to roam, so unwanted pups are rare. Suprelorin we use occasionally. I know vets in other parts of the country who use delvosterone a lot, but I haven't had a request for it yet and I'm pretty sure we don't even stock it.

We do the occasional dog castration for behavioural reasons, and once in a blue moon a healthy bitch spay comes along, but most of the spays I've done here have been pyos or high risk candidates. I've been warned never to accept a booking for a castration without having a chat about medical issues first. One of our local practices actually refuses to do dog castrations unless there is a pressing medical reason, due to the potentially increased risk of prostatic carcinomas.

It has made me realise how much surgical experience I gained working in the UK, doing several bitch spays per week. I miss doing them, and I'm sure it must take my Norwegian colleagues a lot longer to gain surgical skills and confidence.

Re: Removing dew claws

John Flynn — Sat, 14 Sep 2013 00:06:52 GMT

[quote user="robloxley"]I don't recommend universal castration of male dogs. However the incidence of mammary neoplasia in unspayed bitches and uterine adenocarcinoma in unspayed does are both enough for me to recommend neutering.[/quote]

Playing devil's advocate a little here just to explore the issue with bitches (I'm generally unfamiliar with pet rabbits...) a little more:

If the reason you recommend spaying a bitch is to prevent mammary neoplasia, then why not recommend mastectomy as a preventative instead? This would not have some of the negative medical effects such as increased risk of sphincter mechanism incontinence and tendency towards obesity with all the detriments that holds?

Also I don't have the epidemiological studies to hand (I'm sure they're out there somewhere...), but does this approach only hold true for pre-pubertal bitches? Would you recommend the spaying of an adult rescue bitch in a similar universal fashion?