Abortive castration using a rubber band
Keywords: castration, feline, tomcat, surgical, non-surgical, ethicsA colleague was asked to consult on this case briefly and took this photograph.
The image shows the result of an abortive attempt to castrate a tomcat with a rubber band. It was not clear if the rubber band was the type used for small ruminants i.e "Weebander TM" or "Elastrator TM" or another form of elastic band. Only the left testicle was affected, the right testicle remained its scrotal position. This image was obtained approximately one week after the procedure. The necrotic scrotum was removed and castration was completed surgically. No follow-up was available. The cat was surrendered to the SPCA.
Notes
For food animals, the AVMA policy on the humane aspect of castration is brief and its effect on practice is unknown i.e.
"The AVMA supports the use of procedures that reduce or eliminate the pain of dehorning and castrating of cattle. These procedures should be completed at the earliest age practicable. Research in developing improved techniques for painless, humane castration and dehorning is encouraged. In addition, it is recommended that viable alternatives to castration and dehorning be developed and applied.”
AVMA guidelines for companion animals generally presume the use of general anesthesia and do not appear to address non-surgical castration in companion animals, including the use of the Elastrator TM or Budizzo TM crushing.
Perusal of lay publications internet shows that non-surgical castration using the Elastrator TM in cats and dogs by lay people is not rare. Apparently this is extrapolated from the fact that lay people castrate farm animals by any means available and usually in the absence of anesthesia. It is ironic that pain perception is viewed differently in different species (even by professional veterinary organizations) and that non-surgical castration in the absence of anesthesia should be commonplace in lambs, calves and piglets yet frowned upon in companion animals. A 2002 case in Ontario Canada where a woman castrated her adult dog using an Elastrator TM device from a farm supply store illustrates that statement:
Geraldine Teeple, 45, of Arden, was fined $300 yesterday by Mr. Justice Paul Megginson in the Ontario Court of Justice. He called the use of castration rings to block the flow of blood to the testes, causing them to rot and drop off, “abominable.”
Definitive studies on pain perception after castration have utilized cortisol, behavior, food intake and daily gain as indicators of pain. Results suggest that no single indicator is useful on its own. However when viewed collectively, there appears to be some consensus that surgery is perhaps the most painful method that can be used for castration, especially in older animals. Therefore, all forms of castration should be exercised when the animal is as young as possible, especially in ruminants and pigs where anesthesia is seldom used. When drugs have been approved for the species being castrated, they should be used to prevent suffering. Apart from general anesthesia (commonly used in horses and companion animals) ketamine epidural has been used for burdizzo castration in dogs and local anesthesia in farm animals. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and local, intra-testicular anesthesia have been suggested by some in farm animals. However, in a farm setting, the use of any form of anesthesia is usually considered to be too time consuming too expensive or even too stressful to be used.
The preceding leaves one with the question: Was the plight of the animal in this image as repugnant as it appeared to be? In farm animals, castration by an Elastrator TM can cause tissue necrosis similar to that seen here. Rather than hinging on the subjective assessment of this being “abominable.” because this was a companion animal, a decision should perhaps be based on other factors i.e. was this worse than if an elastrator had been used on this animal at a young age i.e. as a kitten? Also was this repugnant because some form of analgesia could have been used and was not i.e. as is usually the case in farm animals? Finally, do veterinarians find this objectionable because a lay person has performed the procedure on a companion animal, when the same would be acceptable for a farm animal? These are ethical questions, general standards and dual standards than must be addressed by thinking veterinarians.
The author thanks Dr S.H. Cheong for submitting this image to LORI.
References:
Fell, L.R. et al 1986. Stress in calves castrated surgically or by the application of rubber rings. Aust Vet J. 63:16-18
Molonya, V. et al. 2005 Reduction in pain suffered by lambs at castration. The Vet J, 153: 205-213.
Capucille D.J. et al 2002. Castration in Cattle: Techniques and Animal Welfare Issues. Compendium. 24:S66-s73
Ortega-Pacheco, A. et al. 2006. Evaluation of a Burdizzo Castrator for Neutering of Dogs. Reprod Dom Anim 41:, 227–232
Anderson, N. 2007. Ontario minstry of agriculture and food guidlines for castration. ISSN 1198-712x. Agdex# 420/26
