Neutering

Wizard01

Hi guys,

Not a scare tactic but anyone considering neutering should look into pro's and cons.

Basic information dog was taken to vets to have his male bits removed,
left him in vets happy and healthy, received a phone call later to say say dog had passed away.
He was only 18 months old and their treasured family pet, they are naturally heartbroken over it

Please go over all information before you consider it, any op is a risk but they never thought it would happen, they thought they were doing the best for him:(

DBB

Ah c'mon Wizard01!
Not a scare tactic? That's exactly what your post is!
Awful as it is that this dog died, you can hardly blame the neutering on it!
There is a risk with anaesthesia, and a risk of human error (if it wasn't the anaesthesia which resulted in his death), no matter what the procedure, and owners are (or should be) made aware of this prior to any procedure, and they should also sign a form to reflect that they understand the risks.
Please don't scaremonger like this wizard01, it is utterly unfair to blame the death of this dog on the actual procedure that was being carried out!

fatmammycat

Agreed, this isn't a pro/con about neutering, but a con about anaesthesia, which, as upsetting as it can be, is a risk for human and animal alike, and the reason why we must sign a waiver in a hospital or vet's office before any surgery.
My own vet is extremly careful, weighing the animals and keeping them under for JUST the right amount of time, ( and bringing them around quickly) but I'm sure accidents have happened to him too and I'm sure he is gutted over it.
I"m sorry to read about your friend's dog and I imagine they feel terrible, but these things can and do happen, as awful as it is.

borderlinemeath

Wizard, I'm so sorry for your loss but your post could be just as easily about the risks of a dental cleaning, as dogs have to go under for that too.

A castration is a very straightforward procedure, and it's very unlikely (given the time frame also) that the procedure was to blame. Anesthesia is a powerful drug and there can be complications. There's certain ones that cannot be used on certain breeds, brachycephalic breeds fare badly due to their respiratory restrictions and need smaller doses and there's certain GAs that should not be used. Boxers in particular fare badly as a breed under anesthetic. Greyhounds can suffer too.

Did you sign a waiver in the vets? Did they give you the option of blood test beforehand to ensure your dog was healthy and strong enough to go through surgery? Sometimes if a dog has an undiscovered organ condition it shows up and it could be a lifesaver.

Bullseye1

Sorry for your loss OP.

I'm probably in the minority here but this is a procedure which is unnecessary in most male dogs. It's especially unnecessary in the "six month recommended period " for large to giant dogs as the dogs need to be intact to fully develop. Since you waited 14 months was this the case?

What breed was your dog and why did you feel it necessary to have it neutered? Was it having behavioural issues?

As with every operation there is a risk so why take the risk unless absolutely necessary. There can be some inconvenience with intact dogs but that is the responsibility we take on board when we take in family pets.

borderlinemeath

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Sorry for your loss OP.

I'm probably in the minority here but this is a procedure which is unnecessary in most male dogs. It's especially unnecessary in the "six month recommended period " for large to giant dogs as the dogs need to be intact to fully develop. Since you waited 14 months was this the case?

What breed was your dog and why did you feel it necessary to have it neutered? Was it having behavioural issues?

As with every operation there is a risk so why take the risk unless absolutely necessary. There can be some inconvenience with intact dogs but that is the responsibility we take on board when we take in family pets.

I don't want to drag the OPs post off topic but..

I agree with pretty much all of your post. I really do. But the majority of dog owners out there that don't neuter are the irresponsible ones. There's a fine line between getting the message out to people that neutering isn't necessary, but it has to go to the right audience. There's still so many 'accidental' litters out there of every breed and cross breed that until the message is fully across to all dog owners, and rescues aren't full to the brim that neutering and spaying is the way forward.

Bullseye, what is your opinion on spaying? It's a far more invasive procedure, but so far research has shown that older female are more at risk from cancers if left intact. Also the risk of pyo with every heat?

Bullseye1

borderlinemeath wrote: »

I don't want to drag the OPs post off topic but..

I agree with pretty much all of your post. I really do. But the majority of dog owners out there that don't neuter are the irresponsible ones. There's a fine line between getting the message out to people that neutering isn't necessary, but it has to go to the right audience. There's still so many 'accidental' litters out there of every breed and cross breed that until the message is fully across to all dog owners, and rescues aren't full to the brim that neutering and spaying is the way forward.

Bullseye, what is your opinion on spaying? It's a far more invasive procedure, but so far research has shown that older female are more at risk from cancers if left intact. Also the risk of pyo with every heat?

Hi B, I have a female RR and had her spayed before her first heat as that seemed to be the advice i was given. I don't know if it stunted her growth but she is within the breed standard. I now have a male RR and do not plan on neutering him. He has not shown any behavioral reason too and I want him grow to his potential.

I had not noticed any change in behavior with her at all. She was always a lovely mannered girl. Having an intact dog and female would be difficult I am sure. Both get on very well as she is spayed and I never intended to breed anyway as there was a restriction put on her by her breeder.

borderlinemeath

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Hi B, I have a female RR and had her spayed before her first heat as that seemed to be the advice i was given. I don't know if it stunted her growth but she is within the breed standard. I now have a male RR and do not plan on neutering him. He has not shown any behavioral reason too and I want him grow to his potential.

I had not noticed any change in behavior with her at all. She was always a lovely mannered girl. Having an intact dog and female would be difficult I am sure. Both get on very well as she is spayed and I never intended to breed anyway as there was a restriction put on her by her breeder.

It's actually the other way around. If you neuter too early the absence of testosterone means the growth plates remain open for longer. The dog gets bigger and taller, and the risk of osteosarcoma increases. Your ridgeback would be at the taller end of the scale.

fatmammycat

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Hi B, I have a female RR and had her spayed before her first heat as that seemed to be the advice i was given. I don't know if it stunted her growth but she is within the breed standard. I now have a male RR and do not plan on neutering him. He has not shown any behavioral reason too and I want him grow to his potential.

I had not noticed any change in behavior with her at all. She was always a lovely mannered girl. Having an intact dog and female would be difficult I am sure. Both get on very well as she is spayed and I never intended to breed anyway as there was a restriction put on her by her breeder.

Bullseye, I understand your position. My GSD is unneutered ( and will remain so bar medical necessity), and is approaching full maturity ( 2 in March) with no behavioural problems. I too am a big believer in allowing large breed dogs to grow with ALL their hormones in place. However, and this is a big however, as Borderline says, it's pretty obvious that many owners of unnuetered males allow their dogs to roam, and breed with bitches willy-nilly, resulting in the vast overpopulation of unwanted litters we see. With that in mind I understand why there is such a spay and neuter message pushed the whole time; it must be particularly galling for pounds and rescues to faced with another deluge of pups this year, the result of idiotic dog owners.

borderlinemeath

It's not just people letting dogs roam, I had an online debate/argument with a person who lives in my locality when she was selling puppies on a local facebook page the week before christmas. She was the typical eejit that let her bitch get pregnant, did nothing about it, she said that they took in a stray that arrived at their door and stayed in their porch for a few nights and they eventually took him in, lo and behold 9 weeks later her dog has pups :rolleyes:. They had no idea their dog was in heat. Even though an intact male had moved into their porch. Honestly, that's the kind of stupid that's out there.

Karlitto

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's not just people letting dogs roam, I had an online debate/argument with a person who lives in my locality when she was selling puppies on a local facebook page the week before christmas. She was the typical eejit that let her bitch get pregnant, did nothing about it, she said that they took in a stray that arrived at their door and stayed in their porch for a few nights and they eventually took him in, lo and behold 9 weeks later her dog has pups :rolleyes:. They had no idea their dog was in heat. Even though an intact male had moved into their porch. Honestly, that's the kind of stupid that's out there.

fatmammycat

borderlinemeath wrote: »

It's not just people letting dogs roam, I had an online debate/argument with a person who lives in my locality when she was selling puppies on a local facebook page the week before christmas. She was the typical eejit that let her bitch get pregnant, did nothing about it, she said that they took in a stray that arrived at their door and stayed in their porch for a few nights and they eventually took him in, lo and behold 9 weeks later her dog has pups :rolleyes:. They had no idea their dog was in heat. Even though an intact male had moved into their porch. Honestly, that's the kind of stupid that's out there.

That's actually kind of depressing to read.

borderlinemeath

fatmammycat wrote: »

That's actually kind of depressing to read.

I could go on. I looked after 2 dogs last year, an 18month old intact male and a 10 yr old female. The previous year when the male was about 6 months old they went on hols and left the dogs in kennels, stating they were both intact, but the kennels said that he was too young and she was too old. Yet when they came home their dogs had been housed together and mated. She had pups but they all died. She was spayed shortly afterwards.

Then there was the dog that gave birth here last year. It wasn't her first litter . Dumped in a shelter when pregnant, probably because her original owners realised after the first litter that there's no money and too much effort in having pups.

I can really understand why rescues have blanket neutering and spaying policies. I barely see the tip of the iceberg of the reality that they have to deal with everyday

Wizard01

DBB wrote: »

Ah c'mon Wizard01!
Not a scare tactic? That's exactly what your post is!
Awful as it is that this dog died, you can hardly blame the neutering on it!
There is a risk with anaesthesia, and a risk of human error (if it wasn't the anaesthesia which resulted in his death), no matter what the procedure, and owners are (or should be) made aware of this prior to any procedure, and they should also sign a form to reflect that they understand the risks.
Please don't scaremonger like this wizard01, it is utterly unfair to blame the death of this dog on the actual procedure that was being carried out!

As I said in my post it is not to scare people!!
It is to educate and let people know what CAN happen!

Tbh I was completely shocked and heartbroken when I heard about it so imagine if it was your pet, I want other pet owners to consider their options, if they are happy to go ahead, choose a vet they trust, discuss everything until they are 100% happy and discuss it some more!

How many people bring their dog into the vet for any op, leaves it there in safe hands not expecting to receive the phone call of their pets untimely passing?
If it does happen, what can you do?

I don't under stand your point - it was having this procedure done that caused the death of this dog!

Wizard01

fatmammycat wrote: »

Agreed, this isn't a pro/con about neutering, but a con about anaesthesia, which, as upsetting as it can be, is a risk for human and animal alike, and the reason why we must sign a waiver in a hospital or vet's office before any surgery.
My own vet is extremly careful, weighing the animals and keeping them under for JUST the right amount of time, ( and bringing them around quickly) but I'm sure accidents have happened to him too and I'm sure he is gutted over it.
I"m sorry to read about your friend's dog and I imagine they feel terrible, but these things can and do happen, as awful as it is.

The anaesthesia had nothing to do with this boys death

As I said I am neither for nor against neutering, I am not looking to get involved in the whole debate, each owner makes their own choice, I just wanted to get this out there
Does anyone know how many deaths are caused by dogs being neutered? Either it is very rare or no one speaks about it??

borderlinemeath

.

Aru

Wizard01 wrote: »

The anaesthesia had nothing to do with this boys death

As I said I am neither for nor against neutering, I am not looking to get involved in the whole debate, each owner makes their own choice, I just wanted to get this out there
Does anyone know how many deaths are caused by dogs being neutered? Either it is very rare or no one speaks about it??

if the anaesthetic wasn't a problem what was Op? its incredibly unusual to have deaths post castration.
its more common to have issues under anaesthetic or a reaction to the drugs thenselves....and with modern anaesthetic drugs and the reversal agents available its getting less and less common to have issues.

also im so sorry for your loss it must have been a horrible shock.

thegreatgonzo

You'll have to explain this a bit better. What did the vet say killed the dog?

andreac

Sorry, but what exactly killed the dog?

It is not the actual neutering that caused it, it was obviously the drugs or complications arising from the procedure so you cannot say it was the actual neutering.

What did the vet say was the cause? The dog could have had an underlying medical issue so to say neutering caused it is a bit silly as you dont know the full story by the looks of it.

tk123

I'm sorry that your dog died but the thread title is misleading. What was the cause of death given by the vet?

DBB

Wizard01 wrote: »

How many people bring their dog into the vet for any op, leaves it there in safe hands not expecting to receive the phone call of their pets untimely passing?
If it does happen, what can you do?

Unless the owner can prove negligence, nothing, because I don't know too many vets who do not get owners to sign a pre-op form on which the owners agree that they know the risks of anaesthesia, and that there is a small risk that their pet may die because of the operation.
If a vet does not offer the owner an indemnity form, they're leaving themselves wide open to litigation.
In any case, every day in this country, hundreds of animals undergo surgical procedures. I know it's horrible, just horrible to be the one that doesn't follow the stats, but the chances of your pet dying on the table are very small, and you need to be very careful about scaring the bejayzus out of people with tales of rare anomalies.

I don't under stand your point - it was having this procedure done that caused the death of this dog!

But this is nonsense. It was not the neutering that killed the dog. But that's what you're trying to allege. It was the anaesthesia, or if it wasn't, then it was human error/negligence... you are yet to come back and clarify precisely what you mean, you have not given us a cause of death.
If it was anaesthesia, and this dog was to go under anaesthesia to have his nails clipped, it is quite possible the same would have happened. The procedure is immaterial. I'm all for people being made aware of risks, but this complete misrepresentation is not on.
If this dog died under anaesthesia, the owner presumably signed a consent form to say they were okay with that risk.

Bullseye1

I think the point the OP is making is if the dog was not brought in for the procedure the dog would still be alive. So the procedure whether it was the operation, negligence, anaesthesia has resulted in the dog loosing its life according to the OP.

The very fact that a vet gets his client to sign an indemnity clarifies there is a risk no matter how small of death. Not sure if that is the case with humans, are we expected to sign indemnity forms also before going in for serious operations?

There is an alternative to neutering and spaying.

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I think the point the OP is making is if the dog was not brought in for the procedure the dog would still be alive. So the procedure whether it was the operation, negligence, anaesthesia has resulted in the dog loosing its life according to the OP.

But if it was anaesthesia, then it was anaesthesia that killed the dog.
If it was negligence, then it was negligence that killed the dog.
The problem here is that the OP has squarely blamed neutering itself. It's immaterial what the procedure was.

Not sure if that is the case with humans, are we expected to sign indemnity forms also before going in for serious operations?

Humans do sign indemnity forms before undergoing any anaesthesia. It is an absolute standard procedure for all medical professionals. Any medical professional who by-passes this form would want their head examined.

There is an alternative to neutering and spaying.

Yes, there is. But for some people, neutering is a very important option to take. Take a simple example: a guide dog, a search and rescue dog, a sniffer dog, or any number of other dogs who are employed to do a job. If left unspayed, females doing these jobs would be missing from work for a minimum of 6 weeks every year.
Also, as borderlinemeath has said, if you ran a rescue you would look at it in a completely different light... you just can't send entire dogs off to the four winds and hope for the best. We try our best with home visits, and getting to know the owners before we place the dogs... but I can categorically tell you that neutering is a seriously important cornerstone of rescue that affords the dog substantial protection from ending up in the wrong hands, and/or being used for the wrong purposes.
As you may know, I am a strong advocate for not neutering at the drop of a hat, and giving dogs a chance to mature before going for it. It think it is really important that owners are allowed to give due consideration to the decision, armed with the facts. But I don't feel anyone should be browbeaten into making a decision either way.

Bullseye1

If people are seriously interested in rescuing a dog but do not believe in spaying or neutering would they seriously be refused permission to rescue even if they show they are responsible dog owners? I understand that rescue centres have to deal with unwanted litters and the effects of poor decisions made by owners, back hard breeders etc so I can see where they come to the conclusion to neuter. But if a good owner who can prove the need to neuter is not required they shouldn't be prevented from adopting.

It's a bit like the adoption of children. You have all these irresponsible parents who can have as many kids as they can produce regardless if they can afford to have them and you have couples who can afford to have kids but biologically they cannot. The hoops they have to jump through with no guarantee of ever adopting.

boomerang

The dog may have a had a clotting disorder that went un-diagnosed.

To put things in perspective, here's a stat I have off the top of my head, although it's for cats, not dogs. The incidence of anaesthetic death in cats is about one in 800. Obviously the risk to a young, healthy animal is far less than for an older, debilitated or injured animal.

DBB

Bullseye1 wrote: »

If people are seriously interested in rescuing a dog but do not believe in spaying or neutering would they seriously be refused permission to rescue even if they show they are responsible dog owners?

I wouldn't refuse them because they didn't want to have their dog neutered, no. Because I don't have any entire dogs available for adoption.
The deal with me, and with many (not all) rescues is that the dog is already neutered before it is adopted out, so you adopt your dog already neutered. If you don't want a neutered dog, go to another rescue. But I'd be wary of the other things rescues like this don't do.

But if a good owner who can prove the need to neuter is not required they shouldn't be prevented from adopting.

I know quite a few seriously responsible owners, I mean the type of people who you'd give your children to, whose dogs were stolen from them. I have adopted dogs out to people who were super owners, and their dogs were stolen from them. It can happen to anyone. In some cases, the dogs were stolen from the garden, whilst the owner was in the garden. In other cases, the house was broken into and the dog taken. I know one woman whose 2 cavaliers were stolen from her as she walked along with them on-lead. She was mugged, and the dogs were taken from her.
In all cases, the dogs that were neutered were subsequently retrieved, dumped due to their being useless to the people who stole them. The owners of entire dogs rarely fared so well.
I would die if one of the dogs I adopted out was stolen and never retrieved. I'm not sure I would ever really get over the guilt. Because you see, as a responsible rehomer, I am responsible for every dog I rehome, for the rest of its life. I stand over every one of them, for life. That is my promise to every dog I rehome. I'm not blowing my trumpet here, this is what all good rescues do.
So, I hope the above helps to illustrate that a moment where someone else loses one of the dogs I gave them is my guilt to deal with. It's my problem. No thanks.
In any case, whilst a good rescue will vet people as thoroughly as we can, we simply don't have time to do a thesis on each owner. Now, if you feel you can, be my guest and start your own rescue. But until you walk in the shoes of a person who has the ultimate responsibility for every dog they give to a more-or-less stranger, I don't know if you can really understand why neutering our dogs is a simple, cheap way to protect the dogs.

Bullseye1

The above sound like you think all dogs should be neutered or spayed because of the risk of being stollen. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Are your rescue dogs neutered and spayed when they are brought in immediately to reduce the risk of being robbed? Or when they are about to be adopted?

borderlinemeath

Bullseye1 wrote: »

The above sound like you think all dogs should be neutered or spayed because of the risk of being stollen. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Are your rescue dogs neutered and spayed when they are brought in immediately to reduce the risk of being robbed? Or when they are about to be adopted?

Most rescues will get dogs spayed or neutered ASAP, health depending. I've a little foster here at the minute, she's due her second set of vaccs at the end of next week and as soon as she's given a clean bill of health she'll be spayed. When she's recovered from the OP she'll be advertised for adoption.

Bullseye1

I've read in recent months of dogs being robbed from kennels I guess there is the same risk to rescue centers.

Wizard01

Bullseye1 wrote: »

I think the point the OP is making is if the dog was not brought in for the procedure the dog would still be alive. So the procedure whether it was the operation, negligence, anaesthesia has resulted in the dog loosing its life according to the OP.

The very fact that a vet gets his client to sign an indemnity clarifies there is a risk no matter how small of death. Not sure if that is the case with humans, are we expected to sign indemnity forms also before going in for serious operations?

There is an alternative to neutering and spaying.

This is exactly my point, had the dog not been taken in he would still be here today.

Many owners don't consider it an option at all when they leave their pets in to be neutered, it seems like an ordinary, easy op and no one expects this to happen to them but sadly it has and does

tk123

Wizard01 wrote: »

This is exactly my point, had the dog not been taken in he would still be here today.

Many owners don't consider it an option at all when they leave their pets in to be neutered, it seems like an ordinary, easy op and no one expects this to happen to them but sadly it has and does

You could say that about any procedure though it's like saying a dog died while under for X-rays so you should never get your dog x-rayed.

Is there a reason why you're not going into the actual cause of death?