https://www.vetsurgeon.org/f/clinical-questions/2739/human-health-vs-ebm As a response to a number of forums on this site, I have been shocked by some practitioners&#39; (or non-pratcising vets) logic regarding certain matters. There is a view point amongst vets (and the VMD) that any new &#39;science&#39; must be proven to be betteren-USTelligent Community 10https://www.vetsurgeon.org/thread/22425?ContentTypeID=1Fri, 13 Aug 2010 17:38:59 GMT146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:d87e6ec1-b1b0-4c1e-b8c6-2c940146e9daMark Holmes<p>[quote user=&quot;alex gough&quot;] <p>I totally agree. I would go further, and although not everyone may agree with me, I think that even an intervention that has some risk to an animal should be considered if it reduces the risk to a human. This will be a case by case point, Im not advocating removing all animals teeth to avoid the risk of dog bites. However, as an example, I would suggest that the risk of vaccinating animals against rabies in endemic areas is greatly outweighed by the reduction in risk to their owners, hence why it is often the law in these areas. I wonder if there are any examples of procedures or medications that are done purely to reduce risk to the owner that has no benefit to the animal, and entails some small risk, and I wonder how the RCVS would view this? There are certainly some interventions that are performed that are more for the benefit of the owner than the animal, but are convenience factors/cosmetic rather than reduction of risk to the owner &nbsp;eg prostheses after enucleations, tail docking, neuticles, devocalising and declawing. I dont agree that anything in that list is ethical btw.</p> <p>Alex</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <div style="CLEAR:both;"></div> [/quote]</p> <p>There is an alternative, for example if you cannot live with the risk of being scratched (or having the furniture wrecked)&nbsp;don&#39;t get a cat get a goldfish (unless drowning as equally high on your list of concerns) </p> <p>People should avoid owning an animal if it poses a risk to them that they cannot live with rather than modifiying said animal to suit them.&nbsp; Descenting skunks for example.&nbsp; </p><div style="clear:both;"></div>https://www.vetsurgeon.org/thread/5731?ContentTypeID=1Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:27:11 GMT146601cc-3922-4be7-9974-7e1d4e45a66b:117b6c7a-3457-4167-bbb5-1757caab9dbbAlex Gough<p>I totally agree. I would go further, and although not everyone may agree with me, I think that even an intervention that has some risk to an animal should be considered if it reduces the risk to a human. This will be a case by case point, Im not advocating removing all animals teeth to avoid the risk of dog bites. However, as an example, I would suggest that the risk of vaccinating animals against rabies in endemic areas is greatly outweighed by the reduction in risk to their owners, hence why it is often the law in these areas. I wonder if there are any examples of procedures or medications that are done purely to reduce risk to the owner that has no benefit to the animal, and entails some small risk, and I wonder how the RCVS would view this? There are certainly some interventions that are performed that are more for the benefit of the owner than the animal, but are convenience factors/cosmetic rather than reduction of risk to the owner &nbsp;eg prostheses after enucleations, tail docking, neuticles, devocalising and declawing. I dont agree that anything in that list is ethical btw.</p> <p>Alex</p> <p>&nbsp;</p><div style="clear:both;"></div>