Showing posts with label avma. Show all posts
Showing posts with label avma. Show all posts

Wednesday 25 November 2020

American Veterinary Medical Association 'condemns' declawing of wild cats but 'discourages' it for domestic cats

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) take different positions with respect to the declawing of wild cats and domestic cats. This point has been highlighted by The Paw Project in a tweet on Twitter. You can see it below. They ask why there's a difference in policy. They don't explain therefore I will provide my reasons.

Declawing of domestic cats

The AVMA wants their member veterinarians to be allowed to declaw domestic cats because it provides a very good income for them. In order to not rub their members up the wrong way they argue that their veterinarians should have the option to declaw based upon their discretion in conjunction with a consultation with the client. 

The problem is that often American veterinarians quietly or overtly promote the declawing of domestic cats. And we don't know what goes on in these conversations between themselves and their client. There's no doubt in my mind that they do not discourage the declawing of domestic cats as advised by their association. Often they do the opposite. I repeat: the vast majority of American veterinarians do not discourage declawing and they do it for monetary reasons. This is obvious because millions of these operations are carried out annually. It is impossible for there to be a reason for it other than the cat owner wants it.

It is a very cruel procedure and completely against the veterinarian's oath in which they state they will only do surgery in the interest of an animal's welfare. Declawing is done at the convenience of the animal's owner not in the interests of the animal's welfare.

Recently declawed cat. Horor and a vet did this legally. Shame.

Declaw exotic and wild cat species

The AVMA condemn the declawing of wild cats because they say there's no reason to do it. They allow it for true medical reasons, of course, which is extremely rare but they argue that there "appears to be no justification for performing the procedure in this population of cats". Of course, I completely agree but exactly the same assessment applies to domestic cats!

They argue that sometimes domestic cat owners need to be protected from the claws of their cat companions. But this is exceedingly rare and in any case those people who are perhaps vulnerable to being scratched can take measures to avoid it. That's part of being a good cat owner. If they can't do that then they should not have a cat in the home. That's the ultimate solution and the best solution because it avoids animal cruelty. To try and find a feeble and brutal compromise by modifying the anatomy of a cat to fit in with the mentality of humans who do not have the attitude necessary to be a cat owner is completely immoral.

Monday 25 November 2013

Veterinarians can do more to educate cat owners about declawing

Veterinarians don't do enough to educate their clients on the difficult matter of declawing. Specifically, they can underplay the severity of the operation and can even deliberately mislead the cat's owner.

Some veterinarians call a cat's claws "nails" for example. This hints at human nails. They are largely made up of the same substance "keratin" but they are attached to the digit in a completely different way. Then they say "removing the nails" when describing declawing is no big deal especially if the cat is very young. Poor kitten, I say.

This sort of talk is hightly misleading. Even advocates of declawing, the people at the AVMA, cannot deny that this is neither ethical nor does it adhere to the AVMA policy on declawing.

I say the AVMA are advocates of declawing. They would deny this and state that declawing is a last resort. Yet, they stand by and do nothing when vets mislead clients and declaw cats when it is obviously not a last resort but for the convenience of the cat's owner; to protect furniture. The AVMA's passive, accepting behavior of their vets obvious breaches of the guidelines supports declawing.

The human nail is not attached to the hand or foot by a bone. It is attached by tissue: the matrix and nail bed. You may have had the experience of losing a nail because it was hit by something. It just falls off.

Human Nail showing that it is not attached to bone

The claw (not a "nail") of the cat is embedded into the last phalange of the cat's toes. This phalange is a complete bone structure that is very similar to the last bit of bone after the last joint of our fingers. The claw has to be attached to the toe so solidly because it is used very vigorously. An example is climbing. You may have seen cats climb brick walls using their claws and hanging from curtain poles and such like by their claws.

Cat Claw showing how it is attached to solid bone,  a part of the toe of the cat. The picture shows an actual claw+bone that was declawed. You can see the blood.

A vet cannot remove the claw without removing all of the last phalange of the toe. Declawing is an operation that is an amputation and it is done ten times in one go (five toes of each front paw). No surprises, therefore, that the cat would be in agony but for a ton of painkillers.

So, when vets write stuff like this:

The claws of animals, like the fingernails of people are modified hair. When the front claws of cats are removed at an early age (less than six months of age) it is a minor procedure. No worse than circumcising a baby.

He is lying and misleading. My words are strong but they have to be because this vet is in breach of his duties.  A vet is in a position of trust towards his client and let's remind ourselves that the client is the cat. The cat's owner is also a trustee, a guardian and an agent on behalf of the cat. Misleading the cat's owner is a breach of trust.

I have heard other vets use the word "nail" in place of "claw". I can only conclude that it is a deliberate ploy to underplay the severity of the declawing operation that is called: Onychectomy.

The quote is from Dr Hine's website. He is a well known vet with a website that gets lots of visits. Therefore he is misleading a lot of people. There is no doubt in my mind that he has caused a lot of cats to suffer unnecessarily. He should be ashamed of himself and someone at the ineffectual AVMA should have reprimanded him by now.

Featured Post

i hate cats

i hate cats, no i hate f**k**g cats is what some people say when they dislike cats. But they nearly always don't explain why. It appe...

Popular posts