Is compulsory desexing ethical?

Not only do many in animal welfare support mandatory desexing – many are of the belief that the forced removal of the reproductive organs of every owned pet is a morally superior mission that any animal lover should immediately support. After all, they argue, with thousands of pets killed every year in pounds and shelters, anyone who fails to be a responsible pet owner by desexing their pet is simply contributing to the problem. And undesexed animals get cancer don’t they?

This August’s ‘Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals’ article “Inconvenient Desires” asks should we routinely neuter (desex) companion animals?

In Australia the question is even more significant; should we allow government to choose if and when we desex our pets?

I personally have three dogs who are all desexed. I have desexed two community cats. I would recommend desexing for the pets of my friends and family, as my experiences have been nothing but positive. And I so strongly believe that rescue pets should be desexed before rehoming that it is core to my work and the PetRescue philosophy.

But it isn’t without risk. From ‘Inconvenient Desires’;

Influential parts of the veterinary profession, and notably the American Veterinary Medicine Association, are promoting the routine neutering of cats and dogs that will not be used for breeding purposes. However, this view is not universally held, even among representatives of the veterinary profession. In particular, some veterinary associations in Europe defend the view that when reproduction is not an issue, then neutering, particularly of dogs, should be decided on a case-by-case basis.
….
In large parts of Europe, for example, veterinarians are traditionally much more reluctant to neuter, particularly to neuter dogs. In Sweden, for example, it was illegal to castrate a male dog until 1988, unless there was a specific medical reason for doing so. And the official view of Swedish veterinarians is still much more restrictive than that of their American counterparts. It’s claimed that in Sweden, despite that only about 7% of bitches, and an even smaller percentage of male dogs, are neutered, any problem with unwanted stray dogs is insignificant.
….
In other parts of Europe the position is somewhere between that expressed by the American and the Swedish veterinary associations. In Britain, a position paper developed by the Ethics and Welfare Group of the British Veterinary Association, and policy statements issued by the British Small Animal Veterinary Association unanimously recommend neutering of male and female cats and of female dogs, but argue that decisions about castration of male dogs should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

In Denmark, where one of the authors of this paper is located, common practice has traditionally been much like that in Sweden. However, the Danish Veterinary Association has no official policy on the issue, and some of its members seem to be increasingly influenced by the American attitude.

But will it stop the pounds killing?

In Australia we have a huge animals-killed-in-pounds issue so therefore we need to not only make desexing standard, we need to legislate that every owned pet is desexed. Right?

The truth is only a tiny fraction of Australia’s owned pets end up in shelters each year. Of the 1.1 million owned dogs in NSW, around 50,000 enter pounds each year (around 5%). Around half go home, leaving just 2-3% needing rescue.

In the same period, 30,000 cats enter NSW pounds. 764,000 owned cats live in the state, making intakes just 4% (and this is ignoring the evidence that 80% of cat intakes are from the unowned cat population).

So if it’s not ‘overpopulation’ that is the major driver for compulsory desexing – then surely it is the overall health of our pets. That is, will the costs to the animal be outweighed by benefits in terms of welfare?

Surely it’s healthier

Neutering involves surgery. Any surgical procedure involves stress to an animal: the stress of being taken to the veterinarian, being left in unfamiliar surroundings with strangers, undergoing general anesthesia and surgical trauma, and enduring some degree of pain. Most potential pain can be avoided by means of anesthesia and subsequent use of pain-killers, but there will inevitably be some, relatively short-term, pain from surgery. Additionally, all surgery can have negative unintended side effects. These can be minor (e.g., inflammation at the site of the incision) or major (e.g., bleeding, wound breakdown, infection, or death). Complication rates vary with the procedure, but Pollari et al. (1996), in a study of 1,016 dogs and 1,459 cats undergoing elective surgery, reported post-operative complications in 6.1–19.4% of dogs and 2.6–12.2% cats, most of which were minor.

Female dogs

The studies finds when it comes to female dogs (bitches), that they traditionally not only have their ovaries removed, but also the uterus (an ovariohysterectomy). Complications include bleeding and infections of the uterine stump. Neutering prevents pregnancy and its potential complications and it also eliminates potential diseases of the ovaries and uterus like pyometra (which occurs in 23% of bitches by 10 years of age). It also significantly reduces the risk of mammary tumours. There is a reduction in serious hormonal and reproduction related diseases and desexed female dogs are likely to live longer. However the negatives can include post-neutering urinary incontinence, increased aggression and a possible increase in ruptures of the cranial cruciate ligament.

However, on balance, the welfare of bitches in terms of longevity and avoidance of suffering may, in the long term, be enhanced, or at least not reduced, by neutering.

Female cats (queens)
When it comes to female cats (queens) desexing eliminates the risk of pregnancy and its complications and this is important as pregnancy is more likely in non-desexed cats than in dogs. Female cats are usually desexed using ovariohysterectomy and complications may occur. Intact female cats have a 7x greater risk of developing mammary tumors than desexed ones. Desexing cats before 6 months of age results in a 91% reduction in the risk of developing mammary carcinomas. In contrast to bitches, neutering female cats has not been associated with an increased incidence of any urinary tract problems, and neutered, free-roaming queens showed reduced aggression compared with intact cats. However, neutered cats have a 2 to 8.7-fold increased risk of becoming diabetic and obese.

There are, then, some welfare reasons in favor of neutering queens, especially if they are allowed to roam outdoors, though in terms of avoiding serious disease, these seem considerably weaker than reasons to neuter bitches. Fewer complications result from neutering queens than bitches, though there are rising concerns about increased levels of obesity and health problems following from neutering.

Male dogs (dogs)
Male dogs are typically desexed by surgical removal of the testicles. There is rarely complications and over the lifespan dog, the welfare consequences of castration may be significant. Castration removes the possibility of testicular cancer, and it reduces the risk of perineal hernias and adenomas (old dog lumps and bumps). However, castration increases the risk of prostate cancer and increases the risk of bladder and bone cance. Desexing male dogs can result in a greater risk of cardiac and splenic cancer.

One common reason for desexing male dogs is to limit aggression and other behavioral problems, however the effects seem variable. Some studies have shown desexed dogs are more likely to bite, but that they may be more trainable. It can reduce urine marking.

… in welfare terms, the costs of neutering dogs, in terms of the increased risk of very serious diseases, may well outweigh the benefits. Justification for routine neutering of confined male dogs, then, does not follow from claims about the dogs’ own welfare

Male cats (toms)
In male cats castration is the only practiced form of desexing. Testicular and prostate disease is very rare in male cats, so neutering has little positive impacts on health. However, male cats are often neutered to eliminate behaviour problems like urine spraying and aggression, and risky outdoor behaviours like fighting, and roaming. Desexed male cats have a lower injury/mortality rate and overall make better pets. Obesity and diabetes continue to be a welfare issue however.

On balance, though there are some (behaviour) welfare reasons for neutering toms, the overall (veterinary) welfare benefits are not clear.

In conclusion, from a veterinary/health point of view, the report finds the following;

In summary, with the exception of bitches, where the benefits of neutering in terms of avoiding serious disease seem significant, there doesn’t appear to be a clear welfare case for routine neutering of companion animals that are kept confined; and in the case of male dogs, the welfare evidence seems to weigh against routine neutering.

A further factor to consider here concerns the nature of the experiences that flow from the human–companion animal relationship. Are neutered companion animals generally treated better by their owners than entire animals? If so, then they are likely to live happier lives if neutered. Answering this question is difficult, and surely contextual (and may depend on sex and species). There will be cases, as mentioned above, where better treatment ensues with neutering, because ”inappropriate” animal behaviors (such as urine spraying) that evoke negative human reactions are likely to be removed. But neutering may increase aggression (in bitches) and does not clearly decrease it in male dogs; and while male urine spraying may decrease with neutering, incontinence in bitches is likely to increase. So, the effects of neutering on human–animal relations in this sense is likely to vary.

But it’d definitely more ethical to have compulsory desexing

The study looked at three different ways of thinking about the ethics of neutering companion animals:

Consequentialist approach
On this view, only the consequences of our actions/practices matter directly, not our intentions. Performing painful medical procedures on animals for no benefit, would clearly be unethical. In some instances – as in for female dogs – averting pain from disease later in life may be sufficient to outweigh the pain of desexing now. However, since this isn’t applicable to ALL pets ALL of the time, routine desexing (and in Australia’s case, mandating desexing) cannot be supported as an ethical position.

Animal rights approach
Would neutering infringe on any animals’ rights? As desexing surgery is primarily done for the convenience of the humans who care for it, not for the animal’s benefit (as in having a tumour removed), surgery could be considered unnecessary injury. The fact desexing may bring about better consequences for animals overall cannot itself justify the violation of the rights of the particular individual to not be injured.

Relational approach
This deals specifically with improvements in the relationship between animal and owner. We could describe desexing as a way of enhancing the bond between humans and their companion animals. Or it may be seen as a human promoting domination over their companion animals and to make animals more docile, and less habitually offensive. The language of companionship, it might be argued, desexing serves to conceal the ways in which such animals are actually coercively manipulated to meet human preferences.

It it very, very difficult to argue that compulsory desexing is a superior ethical proposition.

Our overall conclusion is that routine neutering of companion animals, and notably male dogs, is not morally justified. This conclusion is based on the following two arguments:

Firstly, the view of the American Veterinary Medicine Association does not seem to be justified even if one only looks at the kind of evidence-based veterinary arguments that this organization seems to take as the main basis of its policy recommendations. Rather it should, in the case of companions where uncontrolled reproduction is not an issue, recommend that decisions on neutering should be taken on an individual and case-by-case basis. Particularly in the case of male dogs, given the long-term health risks involved, specific reasons are required to recommend castration.
…
This leads on to the second argument, which is that even though the three ethical approaches differ regarding many specific issues, they do seem largely to converge on the view that routine neutering of companions where reproduction is otherwise under control is not justified.

In short, desexing is good. It it a key to the improvements we have seen in animal welfare and companion animal care in this country. But desexing is also a serious operation with important considerations, complications and potential outcomes which need to be discussed in a case by case basis with your vet. No matter how vehemently animal welfare groups support compulsory desexing, there is absolutely no health, ethical or welfare stance which justifies their position.

Fight for your right – and your vet’s right – to make medical decisions for your pet.