|
|
|
Countering arguments for de-clawing
Despite frequent discussion, feline onchyectomy (declawing) remains a source of confusion for many.
This article will examine this controversial procedure and the implications facing a cat, on which
it is performed.
Scratching behaviour is a normal and natural part of a cat's existence. It is used to condition the
claws, as a territorial mark and as a mechanism for stretching and toning the back and shoulder
muscles. A cat's claws are also their primary defence and provide good traction, allowing rapid
acceleration and sharp turns while running and bestowing climbing ability.
To best examine the issue of declawing it is
essential to understand the procedure as it is applied in practice. First, the cat is given a
general anaesthetic and the fur surrounding the cat's paws is shaved off. A tourniquet is
placed around the leg, and the nail area is rinsed with alcohol. The actual amputation is
performed by making a cut across the first joint (possible involving the foot pad) using a
guillotine type nail cutter. The area is then tightly bandaged to prevent haemorrhage. The
bandaging can be removed two to three days after the surgery.
Two fundamental statements provide the basis for this discussion. First, that it is morally
wrong to surgically alter any being, without his/her consent, unless for medical
necessity, or to provide a health benefit when consent is impossible. Second, that all
species are equal in their right to be treated with respect and compassion, thus obligating
us to provide this respect and compassion to anyone under our care.
a stance...
Since scratching is a natural behaviour of cats we must be prepared to accept this behaviour
along with the cat. Despite the fact that most cats will use designated
scratching posts when provided, we must accept that occasional damage to our material belongings
may result. The solution to this is not to mutilate the cat but to learn acceptance. If
scratching is a problem for people, it is their problem and not the cat's.
Proponents of declawing defend this procedure with several common assertions:
1. "Declawing does nothing to harm the cat".
The failing of this argument is that without question, declawing certainly increases the risk of
long term harm to the cat - and most definitely causes short term harm. Phallangial amputation of cats is used
by pharmaceutical companies to test pain killers as it is one of the most painful procedures that can be
performed. Just consider that it has been (and still is, in some places) used as a form of torture with humans.
The surgery, if not performed correctly, can result in many detrimental effects. Any general anaesthetic puts
a living organism at risk. If the bandages are put on too tightly the foot can become gangrenous and
necessitate amputation of the leg. In many instances one or more claws will begin to regrow causing extreme pain, or
if either the trimmer is dull or the cat's nail is brittle, the bone may shatter. This is called a "sequestrum"
which becomes a sight for irritation and continuous drainage from the toe. This can only be corrected by
another surgical procedure.
Some chronic, physical ailments including cystitis and skin disorders have been traced to the
period immediately following this surgery. Theories also suggest possible effects to the cat's weight bearing and
movement kinetics.
There is no evidence either way as to the long term behavioural effects a declawed cat may or may
not experience, and much anecdotal evidence exists to support both viewpoints. However, as they have
been deprived of their primary source of defence - their claws, declawed cats often resort to biting when they
feel threatened. Many groomers and veterinarians agree that they are far more difficult to handle, both because of
the increased incidence of biting and due to a lack of self confidence resulting for the loss of their favoured
defence mechanism. Shelters are also often forced to euthanize declawed cats that have been surrendered because of
this type of behaviour.
With all these risks, one would like to compare them to the benefit that the cat experiences -
unfortunately there are none.
2. "If I do not declaw the cat I would have to surrender it and it will likely be euthanized."
This argument is used by many, but when considered in depth is simply countered with the
old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right." Amputating a cat's toes is just a wrong as surrendering a cat
simply because he/she no longer fits in with his/her person's lifestyle or having a cat euthanized because it was acting
as a cat should. It is easy to justify one inhumanity because is may be better then another inhumane option, but
both are unnecessary, and neither is justifiable.
3. "How do you justify neutering if surgical alteration is supposed to be so bad, it is only
done for human convenience - to avoid spraying and annoying heat periods anyway."
When approached form a purely logical standpoint, this becomes a difficult question. First,
one must accept that keeping companion animals is not inherently bad in itself. If this is
taken as a truth, then we as humans, become responsible for the wellbeing of their species.
This includes providing birth control as is necessary to preserve the health of that species.
For cats, two possible birth control options currently exist: castration (neutering) for males,
ovariohysterectomy (spaying) for females, or forced abstinence. Castration and ovaiohysterectomy
provides birth control, but it also shapes a cat through a surgical means to fit better into
our human society as the entire reproductive organs are removed and the hormone flow, which
governs sexual behaviour, is ceased. Forced abstinence should only be chosen as a short term
solution. Intact tomcats are compelled by physiological changes to mate. Forcing them not to
mate causes them undue stress and discomfort. The eggs of an intact queen who is not permitted
to mate, and therefore can not ovulate, become encysted in her ovaries, which may lead to
cancerous tumours. Unlike declawing any form of sterilisation provides a net benefit for the
feline species' and is therefore justifiable.
For many cat lovers declawing is unconscionable, many veterinarians will not perform the procedure, it
is outlawed in some countries, and there is currently no animal welfare organizations that condone the
practice. Despite the nonsurgical alternatives that exist, many people still view this as a preventative procedure that
is necessary for a cat to be a "good pet." It is this last viewpoint that so many cat lovers find infuriating.
Cats are already wonderful companions. They do not require any surgical modifications to become the
loving companions they are known as worldwide.
As many, who have authorized having their cat declawed, will freely admit, it was done to
prevent damage to their furniture. Cats represent a living, thinking, feeling, entity; how can we ever place
their welfare on the same balance as that of our furniture.
Declawing is inhumane. Although, scientifically, there have been no decisive long-term studies
to research the behavioural effects, declawing represents a clear and undisputable risk to the cat.
No one has the right to mutilate another, for their own personal gain.
|
For further reading:
"The Cat Who Cried for Help"
by Nicholas H. Dodman, BVMS, MRCVS,
chapter Nine, page 139 - The Rebel Without Claws -
|
 Inquiries about re-posting/printing rights
|
|
