Talk:Onychectomy/Archive 1

Article Name

The common English-language name is 'declawing', not 'Onychectomy'. I doubt many but veternarians would even recognize the term. As such I propose the name be changed as per wikipedia policy on naming conventions. 128.243.253.114 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I've tried to clean this article up a bit, but there's a lot more that could be done by editors more knowledgeable than me. I've tried my best to keep to NPOV, but I'm conscious of the fact that I might not have succeeded, since declawing is something I really strongly dislike. The External links section could probably do with a mention of a pro-declawing site, but I'm not the person to add that.

One thing I would say, though, is that I am not exaggerating when I say that declawing is "almost universally considered cruel" in the UK; I've never seen a declawed cat, and never heard it spoken of positively by any cat owner here. Finally, it may be relevant that the great majority of cats in this country (90%, perhaps) are "outdoor cats"; unfortunately I have no hard figures, just as I have no hard figures for the prevalence of declawing in the US. Loganberry (Talk) 21:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Added "Canada" to the sentence stating that onychectomy is rather commonplace in the United States. That is also unfortunately true in Canada.Ramdrake 20:05, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

An Argument for Declawing

I find myself in agreement with the people who think this procedure is cruel. And I don’t have much sympathy for the people who subject their cats to it to protect the furniture – there’s other ways to deal with that and if you aren’t willing to take a cat on his terms, perhaps a cat is not the pet for you. But I did recently have one of my cats declawed. This particular cat was an extremely proficient and active hunter. On a daily basis she would bring in anoles, gekkos, small snakes etc in various stages of disassembly. Nothing like stepping on an eviscerated lizard in your bare feet when you get out of bed in the morning. Less frequently, but at least once a week, she got a bird. Her favorite trick would be to bring them in, still alive, through the cat door and spend a nice afternoon while the family was at work slowly torturing the animal to death. After the third or fourth time of cleaning up the blood and feathers, I’d had enough. In my judgment, the cruelty inflicted on this cat by amputating her fingers is offset by the cruelty NOT inflicted on the local wildlife over the next dozen years or so. For this reason, I would not support a law banning declawing. BTW, I have another cat who is a hopeless hunter and she can keep her claws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I assume, although you don't say, that you had already ensured that it had a loud bell on its collar? <sarcasm> It is amazes me that briton still has any wildlife. </sarcasm> I suppose it is only like amputating theifs hands... the US is a scary place. 83.244.153.18 (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cause, you know, the last digit on a cat's paws is comparable to a person's hands. They are unable to perform the most basic required functions to live, such as eating, excreting, manipulating things, supporting oneself, etc. Oh, right, a cat can do all of those things still. Side note: if you've actually watched a cat hunt with a bell on (assuming they don't know how to take the bells off - our cats do), the bell doesn't ring when they stalk. By the time it rings, it's too late... They've already pounced.

Hunting is not cruelty. Just because the predator is a cat doesn't make it any less an animal. Declawing, however, is. Especially when the cat has a relationship of trust with you. And then you go and do such a thing. In short; you don't like the fact the cat has instincts, so you proceed to mutilate it. Bu cutting away it's most communicative devices, no less. There are no two ways about it; no ifs, no buts, no nothing; that was a very, very cruel act you did. Further, it does reflect on your character. If there was a hypothetical vote in re, I'd put mine in for you to never to have any pets. Ever. Not cats, not bird, not anything. You might be a swell person in other respects, but I'd never let you even near any animal if I could help it. Oh, I do agree; the US is a scary, sick and twisted place. 82.181.201.82 (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, anyone who would declaw a cat is worse than Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.67.79 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL If there was a hypothetical vote in re, (whatever the hell re stands for) I'd put mine in for you to never be allowed any pets because you obviously let them have the run of your life. Rights come with responsibility, and you can't have responsibility without fear of punishment, which is something of which cats are incapable.

The US certainly is scary... except for any small animal a cat would like to eat. so the question is... Where does your cat's rights to kill begin and their prey's rights to live end? Cruelty isn't just what you do, it's what you allow to happen. You know that your cat murders instinctively (when you kill for anything but survival, and we feed them, it's murder). You know your cat tortures animals before killing them because he's bored. And yet you justify this by, essentially, "he's gonna do it anyhow." And yet, when you go to the zoo, you lock up the poor things in cages because you don't want to get hurt. After all, a bear killing you is instinct as well. Slippery slope you're skating there. Personally, I don't agree with declawing cats without compelling reason (and furniture isn't one of them). But you're not being morally superior, you're being morally smug while handing out your own decrees of who should live or die so your cat can keep his claws, which are primarily used only for violence. (Yes, they are used to communicate, but in a tertiary manner at best... and that people don't WANT, as it includes destroying furniture. Yes, they are used for defense... but you don't want that usage in your house for dog or cat. Yes, they are used for balance, but not nearly as much as their muscles, tails, ears, etc.) 130.76.96.152 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think all cats should be declawed. I should set up a free declawing clinic at some point, so that more people will take advantage of having animals that can't ruin furniture, mutilate other animals and escape out of the yard as easily.207.196.190.232 (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Godwins law67.111.137.227 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

An alternative is either to keep the cat from going outside (unless on a leash) or to put the cat's lethal paws in booties that keep the cat from using its murderous claws on other creatures.

You wouldn't declaw a dog, would you? It's claws are arguably more dangerous to people.--Paul from Michigan (talk) 00:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

A: Declawing a dog is much more difficult and much more damaging, with almost no benefit. B: A dog's claws are not razor sharp. C: A dog's claws are not generally used offensively or defensively. They do not immobilize or cut. They are secondarily used, mostly accidentally. More often than not, they're used to dig or gain traction while running. D: There are a few huge breeds of dog that could conceivably administer far more damage with their claws, but the potential damage from the claws is miniscule compared to that of the teeth... or even the weight of the dog! E: Dogs are far more easily trained than a cat. Aggressive behaviors can be trained out. A cat will always want to hunt. F: Cats can be kept indoors. Dogs can't, as they need to go out to eliminate. Bottom line, you may argue that a dog's claws more dangerous to humans, but they clearly aren't and that's clearly a statement to garner an emotional response through misdirection.

I adopted a cat from the SPCA four years ago and said cat was declawed when I adopted him. I love him dearly but there is no question that he has "personality issues". When he is angry he uses his teeth and I cannot always figure out when and why he is angry; I have owned several cats before and was always able to understand this household pet's moods. In short, I think that declawing a cat is barbaric and extraordinarily inhumane. I think that when one owns a cat one has to figure that furniture may be damaged. Otherwise--don't own a cat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rparadi1 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

By the same token, my wife adopted a cat with claws. He clawed and bit everything in sight, scarring her legs and parts of her hands and arms. Her furniture, drapes, and clothes were shredded. Neutering didn't help much. While the cat lived with her mother, he did the same thing. She had him declawed without consulting my wife first. Eight years later, he still bites and "claws", but his clawing is nice and soft. He still bites, but it doesn't damage instantly and grievously as claws do. He still dominates the other two cats, despite the fact that they have claws and are younger and more athletic. So now I've added the same type of anecdotal evidence, but in this case, mine has a before and after. Do you know what your cat was like before he was declawed? Maybe he was just as mean as before, and you're assigning his behavior to this trait (like saying all black cats are mean, etc) without actually knowing the real issue. Assigning a negative trait to a particulr group without it necessarily being a commonality is often called prejudice. It may or may not be correct, but it's clearly wrong to do without evidence. 130.76.96.152 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

pro-wildlife campaigners

I noticed the additional mention of "pro-wildlife campaigners " who support declawing. I hope somebody can find a source for this. I think most opponents of declawing bans, aren't actually for declawing, they just don't support a law against it (many oppose animal legal rights), or want exceptions allowed for. I can't recall a specific organized group that actually lobbies *for* declawing. I would like to know their name. Generally, I think wild-life groups are more likely to call for cats to simply be kept indoors. If this perspective exists, we should show it. But, I'm not sure it exists in any organized way. --rob 13:53, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The only mention I found is at [1], but maybe that may give us a lead to find out more on that topic. Lupo 14:02, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Yah, I found a lot of copies of that article with Google. It's the "defanging" part that seems utterly bizarre to me. I think there are some hunters who are violently hostile to cats. But those people usually resort (sadly) to killing cats, and don't take them to veterinarians to perform surgery, so they can be returned to the outdoors defanged and declawed. --rob 14:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How to File their Nails

Overfeed them on day of filing, then play with them using catnip & honeysuckle. When they become exausted from playing on a full stomache, they put up far less resistance to having their nails filed down with a regular nail file (wich is done by having them sit between your legs if they're struggling). When done, talk to kitty in sweet tone, pet profusely, & let them go to sleep.

It is possible to teach your cat not to scratch your furniture. Soft Claws [2] are nail caps for your cats, so that they keep their precious nails and you don't have to worry about them scratching your furniture, Dionyseus 01:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A mixture of banana extract, orange extract, anise, cilantro, & oregano with watercan be sprayed on furniture and houseplants too to discourage scratching.:::

I have to wonder, however, whether we are to believe that it is more cruel to adopt and then declaw a cat or leave it to possibly be euthanized in a shelter. I payed a hundred extra bucks to have the vet declaw my cats using a laser, which supposedly causes less pain and a shorter healing period. Was I wrong to choose to declaw my cats rather than return them to the shelter or let them loose outside? Or should I have left my cats at the shelter to take their chances on being adopted by someone who would never declaw them, no matter how destructive they were? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.245.247 (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Since you ask, yes you were wrong. I'm thinking of adopting some children, but I don't want them to mess up my home. Would it be wrong for me to have their hands amputated, or should I leave them in the children's home to take their chances on being adopted by someone who won't amputate their limbs no matter how much trouble they cause? Sound familiar?86.144.145.48 (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Declawing perserves furniture, protects children, and prevents nasty scratches. But this isn't a forum to discuss our opinions. MafiaCapo 16:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

At least 99 times out of 100, when a cat scratches a child it's because the child provoked it. FergusM1970 Hmm. So all the times I've been scratched as an adult while being responsible with the cat... For example, the most common time I've been scratched is when the cat who begged for a belly rub is done accepting your touch and that's their way of telling you so... A child wouldn't get scratched for that? 130.76.96.152 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an amputation which is WIDELY RECOGNIZED to be debilitating and painful. The fact that a declawed cat is happy doesn't prove that all declawed cats are happy or that he would not have been happier clawed. Statistically, declawed cats live shorter, more painful, and less natural lives than other indoor cats. My source is the American Humane Society.

Interesting, because I just checked the website to the American Humane Society, and they said something completely different. They do condemn the practice if done solely for the benefit of the owner, but say nothing about debilitation (although they mention possible behavioral or physical effects). They also say nothing about the length or quality of life after the procedure. Perhaps you should go to their website and search for "declawing". There's a page specifically on it. They also say: "People who have a cat that is declawed, or who are considering having a cat declawed, are not necessarily inhumane and may make excellent guardians. However, because the act is irreversible, every effort should be made to explore alternatives to this procedure." That also does not agree with what you just said. Please check your sources. 130.76.96.152 (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=980DE0DB1530E233A25756C1A9639C946196D6CF

Apparently going suddenly crazy over the loss of her five kittens which had been drowned, a large gray cat early yesterday morning attacked the three-months-old baby of Mr. and Mrs. David Sauer, who live on the fourth, floor of a tenement at 555 Ninth Avenue, and inflicted injuries from which the child may die.

Is almost killing a kid good enough proof? 207.196.190.232 (talk) 10:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of people living very happy lives who have lost limbs, but I'm sure you'd find it hard to find any who wouldn't wish they hadn't lost them.83.244.153.18 (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

There are also a lot of convicted felons that lead happy lives, but I'll bet most of them wish they could buy a gun. You have to think in terms of cost/benefit, not just throwing out one loss without benefits and drawbacks to that loss.

---

Get funiture made of materials that are comfortable, but the cat can scratch and not ruin. For those that are complaining about cats getting declawed, I'll say this; "WHO CARES!?!" It's not like they are coming into your home and declawing YOUR cats without your permission, so let them declaw their own cats and you just worry about your cats O.K.? 24.118.227.213 11:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had a cat that had a bad habit of scratching people in play, I would try everything to correct it, but if negative and positive reinforcement didn't work and it easily took off the Soft-Paws, I might consider declawing as a last resort. Please, before you post something obnoxious, please consider the other side of the story :) B katt 500 01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

If they could find a humane and/or reversible means of declawing cats, then this problem would be solved. However, it seems unlikely that anyone will bother to find such a procedure, just as unlikely as North America actually outlawing declawing.24.118.227.213 04:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

They have. It's called Soft Paws, or merely nail clipping.B katt 500 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I was going for more of a permanent yet humane solution, rather than merely the temporary solution that soft paws and clipping provide. If a solution does not remove the problem forever, it is not actually a real solution.24.118.227.213 06:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

When my kitten and my dog started to play, and the claws come out, and my dog's eye was almost scratched several different times - sometimes less than a centimeter from her eye, drawing blood - something had to be done.

If it's for protection, then yes. I don't want my dog to get her eye clawed out. All these countries that ban declawing, almost all cats are outdoor/indoor cats. My friends in the UK have never met a solely indoor cat. And yet here in America, the number is something like 75% of all cats are indoor. And even if /somehow/ she did gey out, she has back claws.

I knew if this wasn't done, I'd either have an injured dog or have to get rid of the cat and drop her off at a shelter to never be adopted and possibly be put down.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.201.60 (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Animal Welfare Bill (UK)

I wrote to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month to ask them whether declawing for non-medical reasons would be outlawed by the Animal Welfare Bill which is currently making its way through Parliament. Here is the salient part of the response I received today:

At present, no Act specifically makes the declawing of cats an offence. However, Defra is not aware that it is carried out within the UK for anything other than therapeutic reasons.

However, the Animal Welfare Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, contains a provision to prohibit the mutilation of an animal. The declawing of cats is classed as a mutilation and therefore it will be explicitly banned under the Animal Welfare Bill, exept where it is done for therapeutic reasons.

I've added a short paragraph to the article reflecting this official position, which will of course need to be updated when and if - as seems almost certain - the Bill becomes law. Loganberry (Talk) 14:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

POV-check template

Much as I personally dislike this practice, this article reads as being very critical of it, and may not conform to WP:NPOV. --Ginkgo100 03:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The article states the facts. The facts don't support the practice being an acceptable one. NPOV isn't about giving one argument for for every one against, it's about giving the relevant facts without bias of reporting or language. There are simply very few facts on the 'pro' side. Rsynnott 22:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

That's BS, Rsynott. This page is completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.95.150 (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New external links

I see that two new external links have been added. The "American Veterinary Medical Assocation Statement on Declawing" is a solid one, and should definitely be kept, but I was less than happy with the other (listed as "Is Declawing Really That Cruel?"). For one thing it repeats the tired old statement that it is legal under certain conditions for an Englishman to shoot a Welshman in Chester. This sort of casual assertion does not imply a well-checked and reliable source - while that law has not technically been repealed, it no longer offers any protection against a prosecution for murder, and so is effectively moribund. "Legal" is meaningless.

Secondly, and more importantly, it's a self-published Geocities site from an anonymous author, and the guideline at Wikipedia:Reliable sources says that "self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". (This may also apply to some of the anti-declawing sites, of course.) I think we should have a link to a pro-declawing (or indeed anti-anti-declawing) site, but I don't really think that one is a very good choice. A bit of searching dug up this page, which is also generally positive about the operation:

Declawing is probably the single most important surgical procedure (other than neutering/spaying) that will help insure a satisfactory relationship between the cat and its owner.

This site is from a named veterinary hospital, rather than an anonymous individual, and as such I think it is a more acceptable link for a Wikipedia article. Notwithstanding my personal views, it's a clear description from a verifiable source with checkable, relevant expertise, and as such I've substituted it for the less satisfactory Geocities article link. Loganberry (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This one has got it backwards, an anonymous individual would be a more reliable source because, unless the hospital he's talking about doesn't perform declawing procedures, would have monetary incentive. Such a hospital would say declawing is good regardless of whether it is or not.24.118.227.213 11:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Other countries?

I'm intending to do a bit of cleanup on this article when I have a moment, and one of the things I certainly think would be sensible would be to have separate sections for North America and for Europe, since there's a clear split there in terms of atittudes to, and laws regarding, declawing - in North America there's a heated debate; in Europe hardly anyone is in favour. But does anyone have any information regarding the situation in other countries? Australia, Japan, South Africa, Brazil etc etc... it would be a valuable addition to the article if so. Loganberry (Talk) 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We now have a short list of countries where it's banned, but in most of those cases no sources have been given. WP:V requires better than a simple assertion; we need sources, otherwise those specific countries will have to go. Loganberry (Talk) 15:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor notation

"Many European countries prohibit or significantly restrict the practice, as do Australia, Brazil, Israel, New Zealand...." Israel not quite in Europe. Should it be rectified?

It reads all right to me - none of the other listed countries are in Europe either. The statement is partly about European countries and partly about other countries. -Joelmills 22:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Laser declawing

I notice this article is missing any information about laser declawing, wherein the nerve is killed by a laser, eliminating the need to amputate the claw itself. howcheng {chat} 16:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

If you know about it and can provide sources, then by all means add it. It's not a type of declawing I know about, though I'm fairly sure it would still be illegal under the new legislation in the UK, since that prohibits "mutilation" rather than the specific act of amputation, and I suspect killing a nerve would count. Loganberry (Talk) 13:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer reviewed studies indicate laser declawing results in no less post-operative pain than declawing with a blade. I can cite if needed. 24.118.227.213 11:58, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

That is not an accurate description of the laser surgery. A quick internet search will show anyone images of laser declawing. They will show that a laser is used in the same way a scalpel is used to removed the third pahalnx and the attached claw from each toe. Drmnunez (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Image request

Is it possible to find an image, preferably a side-on cutaway illustration of a cat's toe bones and claws - which would indicate exactly which portions of the anatomy are amputated and which remain? Even better would be an illustration that could demonstrate the change in stance required by the amputation. Kasreyn 04:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor rewrite

Does anyone else think it would be a good idea to move the information on risks and side effects of declawing, found under the "Alternatives" section, to their own section? The stated purpose and "benefit" of the procedure - stopping scratching - is already clearly explained. I note that in the articles on other controversial surgeries and non-therapeutic procedures, there is usually a section detailing possible risks and drawbacks to the procedure. The information would probably belong in such a section more than where it is now. Kasreyn 05:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Drafts of new sections: Purpose and benefits, and Risks and drawbacks

I submit these here for discussion. I feel that most of the points here will be easily sourced, as I have read them in a great many places, so I'm not worrying about sourcing yet. (Thus for the time being, they are full of weasel words, so don't bother telling me that. Sources later.) First I want to hash out language and topic coverage. Feel free to make any comments needed.

Full disclosure: I work at a county Humane Society no-kill shelter, where I am responsible for about 70 homeless cats at any given time; I personally am adamantly opposed to the procedure and feel the United States should follow the EU's lead. Please let me know if you feel I violate WP:NPOV at any time. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Purpose and benefits

The stated purpose of declawing is to prevent injury to pet owners and other pets, and to prevent damage to furniture through sharpening behavior. As the procedure involves the permanent removal of the claw, third phalanx, and connected tendons, it is highly effective at preventing scratching.

Benefits of declawing mostly accrue to the pet owner: prevention of injury to humans and other pets by cat scratches, and prevention of damage to furniture from sharpening behavior.

It is also stated, by supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians, that a secondary benefit of declawing is that it makes the cat more likely to remain an "indoor" cat for life (due, supporters claim, to the reduced frequency of declawed cats being relegated to "outdoor" status). It is widely recognized by both supporters and opponents of the procedure that "indoor" cats live longer, healthier lives due to decreased exposure to disease, accident, theft, and predators.

Risks and drawbacks

Opponents of the procedure claim that while onychectomy is effective in preventing scratching, there are long-term negative repercussions to the cat's health, as well as possible behavior changes which may result in the cat becoming unacceptable as a pet. Opponents also variously maintain either:

• that there are sufficient alternatives to declawing that render the benefit (eliminate scratching) moot, and that therefore concern for the cat's safety should be the chief concern; or
• that the benefit of preventing scratching behavior, even if there were no alternative methods, should never outweigh concern for the cat's health and happiness. Typically, these opponents believe that scratching behavior is fundamental to the cat's happiness and quality of life.

Opponents claim that while some veterinarians performing the procedure describe it as a minor operation, it is in fact a major one, involving ten (or more - see polydactyly) seperate amputations.

Among the various possible negative health and behavioral consequences claimed by opponents of the procedure are:

• Possibility of wound infection, death under anaesthetic, or other complications such as regrowth of vestigial claws and wound abcessation. Opponents of the procedure claim that onychectomy has a high complication rate.
• Chronic and recurrent pain, such as Phantom pain, which some believe the cat is unlikely to give any outward sign of.
• As cats are digitigrade (walk upon their toes rather than their soles), poor posture may develop (due to missing distal phalanges), leading to possible arthritis and other joint problems.
• Greater vulnerability to harm due to inability to protect itself in an outdoors environment (inability to climb or scratch). Even if a declawed cat's owner keeps it indoors, it may escape.
• Difficulty hunting prey in an outdoors environment (as claws are used to grasp and restrain prey for the killing bite).
• Difficulty or discomfort with using a litter box, leading (according to opponents) to a higher chance of the cat being abused, abandoned, or becoming an outdoor cat, where its declawed state makes it more vulnerable.
• Increased chance of biting behavior due to lack of other defensive means and/or loss of trust in owners or humans, again leading (according to opponents) to increased risk of abandonment, including euthanasia in a shelter.
• Decreased quality of life due to inability to perform natural stretching, scratching, kneading, and climbing behaviors. Animal behaviorists believe scratching also serves as a form of communication between cats, in the form of territorial marking and display, which would become unavailable to a declawed cat. Inability to balance (due to inability to grasp with claws) also prevents the cat from walking along ledges or high places safely.

The Cat Fanciers' Association (CFA) "perceives the declawing of cats (onychectomy ) and the severing of digital tendons (tendonectomy) to be elective surgical procedures which are without benefit to the cat. Because of the discomfort associated with any surgery and potential future behavioral or physical effects, CFA disapproves of routine declawing or tendonectomy surgery in lieu of alternative solutions to prevent household damage."[3]

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) takes the position that: "Cosmetic or non-therapeutic surgical procedures or amputations, such as ... declawing in large and domestic cats ... are inhumane. The suffering and disfigurement they cause are not offset by any benefits to the animals."[4]

Four-Paw Declawing

While it is much less common than the typical front-paw declawing, some veterinarians will perform declawing upon the hind paws as well. Opponents of declawing claim that this merely doubles the drawbacks of the procedure while adding no effective benefit to human or cat, as the hind claws are almost never used to damage furniture or scratch humans. Some veterinarians who will declaw the front paws refuse to declaw the hind ones.

Comments

Please make any comments here, to keep the section readable. Kasreyn 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Firstly, thank you very much for that excellent work. I want to stress that first because now I'm going to nit-pick a little! Though really I think the only significant problems I can see with what you've written are in terms of possible US (or at least NAm)-centricism, and I'm not sure that can be avoided. For example, your draft mentions "supporters of the procedure including some veterinarians". That statement would be misleading if applied to British vets, since the number here who support the procedure is negligible if not actually zero, and so the phrase would be meaningless. I'm also not sure (though I will happily stand corrected) that there is anything like enough consensus in Britain that indoor cats are healthier than outdoor ones for a phrase like "widely recognised". Most cats here are at least partially outdoor cats, and the lack of any natural predators probably counts for something. (Cars of course are another matter.) Loganberry (Talk) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, but question whether it is true that "most cats here are at least partially outdoor cats", my personal experience as a cat owner in central London is rather that most cats here seem to be indoor cats. Statistics are needed. 86.178.49.230 (talk) 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the comment above, I'd like to see this text added. At the moment the article is almost entirely based around limited legal reference with respect to a few countries. Since North America's legal and social perspective with regards to the subject is clearly in the minority, it shouldn't be the basis or main subject of the main article. As long as the rest of the world's opinion is the majority and essentially de facto stance, as should the article's be with a nod to alternative points of view such as the US (Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view).

In addition to the above excellent contribution, the main Cat#Declawing article is considerably cleaner and more informative than the main article. Ideally if there's going to be a main article at all, the Cat content should be moved or at least replicated in some fashion on this page and at least some of the above suggested content added. The legal aspect should not be the predominant subject of the article. TygerTyger 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to the above discussion, I wonder if the best course might be to create a seperate section for "North American Declawing Practices", to keep things clear and NPOV, with some of the information in the forgegoing suggested section. I would be careful about sourcing, though, as many of the so-called "benefits", and well as some of the risks, are not clearly bourne out by research. I think it is important to also address the profit motive involve in declawing. Some would say the only "benefit" of declawing is to the vet's bank account .WatchCat87 14:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal: A cat it more prone to mutilate itself with its rear paws than with its front paws.

Also, from the AMVA,..."# Scientific data do indicate that cats that have destructive clawing behavior are more likely to be euthanatized, or more readily relinquished, released, or abandoned, thereby contributing to the homeless cat population. Where scratching behavior is an issue as to whether or not a particular cat can remain as an acceptable household pet in a particular home, surgical onychectomy may be considered.

1. There is no scientific evidence that declawing leads to behavioral abnormalities when the behavior of declawed cats is compared with that of cats in control groups."

They also say vets should always discuss alternatives.

Additions to the "alternatives to declawing" section

I note that an anon editor has added quite a bit of material about tendonectomies. The added text certainly needs some editing: for one thing, it's not the "main alternative to declawing" in many countries, certainly not in the UK. (As a non-medically necessary surgical procedure, it, like declawing itself, is prohibited by the Animal Welfare Act.) I don't know enough about the procedure, though, to know whether the pros and cons listed are otherwise NPOV: it feels a bit too "pro" to me, but then I'm personally very "anti" so can't be sure whether that personal bias is getting in the way of a neutral assessment. Loganberry (Talk) 12:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the AMVA does NOT recommend tendonectomy as a surgical alternative to declawing. To my knowledge, tendonectomy is not genernal practiced in the US. I'm going to edit to main page to reflect this. WatchCat87 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Why I reverted

I have reverted this edit on the following grounds:

• The additions are a copyright violation: much of the added text was copied word-for-word from this page with no assertion, let alone proof, that permission had been given to use that material. (Note that even some typos, such as "do not loose their litterbox instinct", were preserved in the added text.)

• On top of that, the added text is not written in an encyclopedic manner: it is, unsurprisingly given its origin, more of an advice guide for cat owners. It was also added as one huge paragraph, which would only be a minor problem on its own but adds to the sense that this text was not suitable for addition.

Loganberry (Talk) 23:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting, Loganberry. In addition to the copyright violation, there is also the question of POV. One important think to keep in mind, which may not be intuitive, especially to non-US users, is the US veterinarians must be considered financially interesting vendors of this "service " rather that unbiased sources of information on it. I hope to post something some about how much money they make from it. (In the billions of dollas per year nationwide; tens of thousands per vet.)

In any case, we already have a link to a "generic" version of this text (from a database of articles for US vets to use on their websites) in the Links section.

WatchCat87 22:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to put things in perspective... There are not billions of dollars per year spent in the US on this procedure. I know that you're anti-declawing (I am too unless there are some severe problems with the claws). However, you have to be a little more accurate with your numbers. In 2 minutes, I found the average cost for declawing seems to be about $100. (Actually, most places I saw were going around $50, and people in the US tend to use the cheapest provider.) There are around 82 million cats in the US. Around 25% of those cats are declawed. Average lifespan for an indoor cat is 12-15 years. There is no evidence I've seen for shorter lifespans for declawed indoor cats, so we're using apples to apples here. That makes for less than $175M total spent... unless you're declawing your cats almost once a year, you can't hit "billions". Also, since there are 59,700 vets in the US, that makes less than $3000 per vet. Even assuming that half the vets won't do it (which I highly doubt, considering how common it is), that's $6000 annually. To make tens of thousands per vet per year, you would need to declaw your cat once every three years.

Sorry, but expansive statements with no research and a definitely bias have no place in an encyclopedia.

130.76.96.156 (talk) 15:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy

There are lots of redundant points in the intro and the text that follows after the "contents" box. I'll try and see whether I can correct some of it... --130.92.9.56 10:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I hope this version is easier to read than the previous version. The contents have not changed, but some redundancies have been eliminated. --130.92.9.56 10:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Why I deleted from "Veterinary Aspects"

I just delete or moved quite a bit from the "Veterinary Aspects" section. I moved some down to "Legal status, North America" because they spoke to the ethical, not medical, question. The rest I deleted because is was unsourced or poorly sourced and seemed to be trying to present "standard" declawing practices. Sounder sources will tell you there are none, which I've stated in the article. I'd like to see this section be filled out again, this time with sound sources and coverage of the variety of practices. For example, there are at least three types of cutting tools in common use and two or three cutting techniques. Post-op pain control (or not) is all over the map. Some vets only declaw kittens; other vets never declaw kittens. Etc. I'm willing to add this material myself as my wiki time allows. 01:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I've been meaning to address the poor sourcing this article had, and it is much better now. I did alter the formatting of the references a little. --Joelmills 02:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly has the prevalence of declawing in North America to do with "Veterinary Aspects"? IMO, this section should discuss indications, surgical techniques, risks etc, but not geographical distribution, which has a remote relation to veterinary science at best. --130.92.9.57 12:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from the top, an anti-declawing userbox

I'm not sure that this is really appropriate to have on this talk page at all, but for now I'm just going to move it to the bottom. It was previously at the top, making this whole talk page appear to be against declawing. I assume it was added so people could add it to their user pages if they wished. Frankly, there is a lot of discussion on this page unrelated to improving this article, and it needs to be cleaned up. I'm not sure what policy is on this, however. --Joelmills 01:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it altogether. You're quite right--it's completely inappropriate. WP:CSD#T1 was created to keep opinionated userboxes out of template space, but advertising them on article talk pages is worse. If it reappears please remove it or let an administrator know at WP:AN/I. Thanks. Chick Bowen 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletions of opionions not supported by peer-reviewed literature

I have deleted certain statements from the section Delclawing Practices: United States because they promoted certain ethical opinions, not legal aspects as is the topic of the rest of this section. POV comments were rife in this article. I have also deleted the {{Fact}} tag from a statement that there is no literature to support a claim by onchectomy opponents, since one can never prove a negative. --Zeamays (talk) 02:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• One - You've deleted cited ethical opinions/arguments. There is an argument to move them to say a section on 'Ethical arguments against declawing' but deleting them wholesale is not appropiate.
• Two. My version "Although the practice continues in North America, declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty in other countries (see "Legal Status" below)." vs yours "Although common in North America where it is widely accepted, declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty in certain other regions (see "Legal Status" below)." - where is your evidence that the practice is "common" and "widely accepted"? - these statements are totally inappropiate - they are weasel wording and unsourced. If you want them to stay you must provide sources documenting these claims.
• Three - removing the 'citation needed' tag saying you can't prove a negative doesn't hold water. You need to cite a source saying there is no scientific evidence - the article readers can't just accept that as gospel.
• I will restore and move the ethical arguments to their own section and add 'citation needed' tags to all the controversial statements, but will not otherwise revert your edits for the moment. Let's see if we can resolve this editing dispute. Exxolon (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You have edited my comments while I was still making changes. I hope that the following statement is still clear: I have deleted certain statements from the section Delclawing Practices: United States because they promoted certain ethical opinions, not legal aspects as is the topic of the rest of this section. POV comments were rife in this article. I have also deleted the {{Fact}} tag from an introductory statement that there is no literature to support a claim by onchectomy opponents and have provided a reference. --Zeamays (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Re you point #2: Since the article already provides a citation that only a few out of 1000s of legal jurisdictions in the USA have a problem with this surgical operation, and since 25% of the housecats are declawed, also documented, your point is invalid. --Zeamays (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• Add the reference to the sentence with the tag as well then. I'd dispute that 25%=common/widely. That still makes 75% un-declawed - that's "common" and "widely" in my book. The legal status doesn't really demonstrate it. The fact that few jurisdictions have a law against something does not automatically equal that the practice is common in said jurisdictions. Exxolon (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
  • More widely - we should summarise all relevant sourced and cited ethical arguments for and against this practice. WP:NPOV does not mean we can't include POVs, only that all POVs are fairly represented in the article. There is no reason not to and plenty of precedent for including sections on 'Arguments for delclawing' and 'Arguments against declawing' with neutrally worded summaries of the positions of various groups with proper sourcing and citations. Exxolon (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you not consider that this article is not about declawing in the United States. It is read in many English speaking counties - the population of which far outnumber the population of the United States. So to try and make a point by solely citing the practice in the United States in parochial at best and could be conceived as racist. So the statement should be "Declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty and banned in most countries, including the European Community, however the practice continues in the United States".

"Did you not consider that this article is not about declawing in the United States." No, it isn't... But since declawing the practice in declawing is primarily performed in the US [citation - this article], perhaps it really IS about declawing in the United States. You can't document a practice where it doesn't happen! "It is read in many English speaking counties - the population of which far outnumber the population of the United States." Really? Wikipedia numbers say that there are less than 310.5 million native speakers in the world (I did not count pidgen English, as they are not mutually intelligible). That makes nearly 70% of all native speakers American. Add in that this is more about North America, as the practice is the same in Canada (citation - this article), and you have another 17.7 million... That makes it nearly 75%. "So to try and make a point by solely citing the practice in the United States in parochial at best and could be conceived as racist." Parochial? Sure, though I think I've taken some of the wind out of that assertion... But racist? Really? Do you know what racism is? For racism to be an issue at all, the "racist" has to be aware of the "victim's" race (NOT nationality), and act a certain way because of that information, generally in a more negative way. A broader definition might include racism through lack of care (such as systematic economic grievances based upon a structural issue, such as one race getting a less desirable education due to their geographic distribution). This is neither. In fact, the US has one of the more diverse populations on the planet (at 72% "white", compared to the "other" big English speaking country, the UK, at 91% "white"... and China and India not even counting race in their census data because it's based on tribal and proto-national ethnic differences that are not based on race). Perhaps you are more racist than we are by assuming your demographics are more diverse than ours, and that Americans have similarly racist proclivities? "So the statement should be 'Declawing is considered an act of animal cruelty and banned in most countries, including the European Community, however the practice continues in the United States'." Really? Do you have data on that? Or are you really saying that "At least seven nations (of 28) in the European Community considers declawing to be an act of animal cruelty and ban the practice. Aside from The United States doesn't ban the practice and may not widely consider it animal cruelty. Aside from Brazil and Australia, of course." Replacing the parochial POV of the US, with that of at least some of the EU doesn't solve anything. 130.76.96.156 (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm wondering if that lead photo is really required. After all, since cats' claws are retractable, a declawed paw looks pretty much the same as a fully-clawed paw at rest. Besides that, the image is kind of small and blurry. Someone earlier suggested a diagram showing what gets removed during the procedure that would probably be far more helpful. howcheng {chat} 01:24, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading/NPOV issues, starting from the first paragraph.

The first paragraph ends with this: "After healing, cats that have been declawed show no evidence of abnormal behavior."

Which is fine, but may be misleading. No evidence of abnormal behavior may be true, but if you're looking for a summary of the article, this may be a bad way to end the first paragraph. Does behavior imply health? Is this statement really necessary? I'm having a bit trouble articulating my concerns, but given apparent controversy over this topic (look at the rest of the discussion page), potentially misleading statements (or misinformation of any kind) should be avoided... Pritchard (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved it down and reworded it. Puting it in the lead gives it undue weight since it doesn't represent an accurate summary of the main article content.

Anyone wanting to expand the health and behavior section can see here for a general overview of related studies. My addition is somewhat disjointed, but the article is sorely lacking in factual info on post-op complications, behavioral changes(if any) etc. The draft above has some good info and should be added if sourced. Might need a new article structure though. --165.21.154.89 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

EL cleanup

Removed two products website and multiple links that are duplicates of the references. The unused link below could be worked in as a ref. --Dodo bird (talk) 05:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

• Australia's National Animal Welfare Bill 2005.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "JAVMA_Apr03" :
  • [http://www.avma.org/issues/policy/animal_welfare/declawing.asp AVMA position statement on the declawing of domestic cats - April 15, 2003<!-- Bot generated title -->]
  • <ref>[http://canadianveterinarians.net/ShowText.aspx?ResourceID=28 Canadian Veterinary Medical Association<!-- Bot generated title -->]

DumZiBoT (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Islam

Can someone add to the article that it is not permissible under an islamic ruling to declaw a cat? http://www.islamweb.net/ver2/fatwa/ShowFatwa.php?lang=E&Id=91806&Option=FatwaId —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.54.199 (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

This is very interesting, but I could not tell how authoritative the website was. I would love to see this from a prominent Isalmic source. WatchCat87 (talk) 04:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Joke

"However, by qualifying and limiting the "scientific evidence" to only studies using "control groups," the AVMA is able to ignore the studies that do clearly demonstrate that declawing causes behavior problems, notably biting and litter box avoidance"

If it doesn't have a control group, it's not a valid study. 216.6.128.244 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant, Opinionated Discussion

The discussion sections here headed 'An Argument for de-clawing' and 'how to file their nails' appear almost totally irrelevant to the article in question. They contain anecdotes, debate material and in some cases, material bordering on flame - and almost nothing about the article itself. What should be done about them?

On this note the following statement:

Some privately owned apartment buildings in the U.S. ban cats unless they have been declawed, but in 2007 Congress enacted legislation that forbids public housing authorities from having such rules for publicly subsidized housing [3].

I think this statement should be considered for revision. For one the use of but is incorrect, there is nothing following the but in contrast to anything before it. They are two separate ideas and should be separated or possibly considered for a different conjunction. Secondly, I checked the reference and the appropriations committee made a recommendation by the use of a voice vote. Looking at the most current version of Section 960.707(c) I could find, I did not see any revision to the code prohibiting the PHA from requiring declawing. Lastly, the reference is also a .com site blog with no references attached. A more appropriate reference would be to the house vote or the legislation that actually forbids this practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.125.188 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

This article does not appear to have a neutral point of view. Instead, it seems to be biased against declawing. This bias is generally subtle, but it is clear. One way in which it is manifested is in the area of phrasing. For example, under the "Methods" section, the use of the phrase "cutting tools," rather than something like "surgical equipment," has the subtle effect of making the practice of declawing sound cruel. Similarly, in the section "Ethical viewpoints on declawing in the US," there is a statement that "younger cats are better able to adapt to life without claws post-surgery than older cats." In a subtle way, the phrase "life without claws" also seems to have the effect of making declawing sound harsh and/or draconian. Conversely, when referring to non-surgical alternatives (in the section "Alternatives to Declawing"), the article is more upbeat, using words like "popular" to refer to vinyl caps, and gratuitously pointing out that cardboard scratchers and scratching posts are "inexpensive."

I am also concerned that the article's summary of existing research on the effects of declawing (in the section "Recovery, health and behavioral effects") may not be neutral. For example, there are statements like "Eleven cats (4%) developed or had worse behavior problems post-operatively. Despite positive attitude toward declawing, 5 clients reported that their cats had developed litterbox and biting problems." However, there is no mention of a control group. In particular, there is no discussion of the percentages of behavioral problems, if any, including litterbox and biting problems, that developed among a control group of non-declawed cats. Perhaps there is a discussion of a control group in the primary source that is referenced in the footnote (which I do not currently have access to), but it does not appear in this article.

Moreover, given the overall tone of this article, which appears on its face to be somewhat biased against declawing, I have concerns regarding whether selection bias has occurred when deciding which primary sources to cite (seemingly, those showing adverse health effects from declawing), and whether primary sources showing little or no adverse health effects from declawing were omitted. Unfortunately, I do not have time to do a comprehensive survey of the available literature, so I cannot say with certainty whether or not this type of selection bias has occurred. I am, however, concerned regarding the possibility.

To point out where I am coming from, I am a mathematician and statistician with some experience writing articles and interpreting data, and I am also a cat owner and have seen many examples of successfully-declawed and apparently happy cats. However, my own experiences are certainly anecdotal and have no place in a Wikipedia article, I realize. Nonetheless, I am concerned that this article does not present the material on declawing in a neutral manner, for the reasons I have described in the above paragraphs.

I will further note that, on the discussion page, some of the contributors to this article have admitted their bias against declawing. For example, in the "Comment" section, a contributor states "declawing is something I really strongly dislike" and notes that she or he "tried my best to keep to NPOV, but I'm conscious of the fact that I might not have succeeded." At least this contributor was honest--I will give credit where it is due--however this and other statements on the discussion page do not bode well for the neutrality of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgordon2 (talk • contribs) 07:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. this article is currently highly POV. When you have scientists being cited in support of anti-declawing supporters saying the citations are misrepresentations and "cherry picking" of their data you know their is a problem.

The fact is the studies show the opposite of what is claimed here. Patronek, has specifically said that anti declaw movement is using his studies out of context. Indeed former versions of this article were used as citations that declaw led to behavior problems when his study showed the opposite. An editor notice that the study showed the opposite of what was claimed, and instead of creating a counter balance statement to the claim that declawing led to behavior issues, the study was dropped from that section of the article. The fact that studies unequivocally show that destructive clawing behavior is the number one reason for surrender to shelter and euthanization is still nowhere to be found this article. Also out of context is the issue of declaw ban in Britain. In Britain, where I lived for years, domestic cats are much more likely to be allowed outdoors. Studies indicate the estimated 9 million UK claw intact domestic cats kill some 150 - 200 million birds, rabbits and small animals per year (studies by Rebecca Dulieu). More to the point those cats in Europe, all more likely to be allowed to roam, and objectively by all studies having higher disease rates and lower life expectancies than US cats, are doing their scratching behaviors outside. :In short, declawing is less prevalent in Europe; but indoor/outdoor cats are more typcial there as well.

72.75.14.250 (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example under "Ethical viewpoints[...]" is "The American Veterinary Medical Association considers declawing acceptable under certain circumstances but states that it "should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively or when its clawing presents a zoonotic risk for its owner(s)."[10] Despite the clear ethical guidelines given by the AVMA, surveys suggest that 95% of declaw surgeries are done to protect furniture." Clearly, within the text itself, it contradicts itself. The "clear ethical guidelines" do allow for declaw surgeries to protect furniture ("only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively"). The writer is too biased to realize that their quotes invalidate their own argument. Also, surveys the poorest form of research, and this one isn't footnoted. I understand their POV, as I don't believe in declawing a cat unless absolutely necessary, but this is an encyclopedia, not a political stump. Also, those in favor of declawing have the same problem with meat-eaters and PETA... Although PETA is vocal and flush with cash from donors, there aren't many non-industry meat-eating activists, not because nobody eats meat, but because there's no need to protest being able to eat it. 130.76.96.155 (talk) 19:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

"Recovery, health and behavioral effects"

The cited research from Yeon et al.(2001) was misrepresented. The study only compared different declawing methods and there is no basis for using it to evaluate the behavioral effects of declawing. 99.6.60.38 (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)