Background : Surgical neutering has been commonplace in practice for many years. It is performed in healthy animals as a preventive procedure (eg, to limit reproduction) and as an intervention for certain conditions (eg, testicular tumours). This once accepted routine procedure is currently under the spotlight and is the subject of much debate. It has been suggested that routine neutering may be ‘wrong’ or ‘bad’, but like many complex interventions it is not this black and white. It is important not to forget all the benefits of neutering when the harms are discussed as any intervention, whether it be a medicine, device or surgery, has both potential harms and benefits. Anything that has an effect has the potential to also have an adverse effect – this includes neutering. The population of dogs we see in practice is very diverse – they are complex and variable, as are the people who own them, meaning decisions about neutering are not clear cut. We must take a holistic approach to each individual animal, assess the evidence base and consider other factors that could influence our decision making. Aim of the article : To show how evidence from published literature can inform decision making around neutering but must be combined with client priorities and clinical expertise to achieve the best outcome for an individual animal's physical, emotional and cognitive health.
Scobie et al. (Fri,) studied this question.