Sicker with parts intact?
Moderators: emmabeth, BoardHost
Sicker with parts intact?
Hello: I wondered if anyone could explain why it is that dogs develop cancers BECAUSE their sexual organs remain intact? This is not a political question--I'm not debating whether dogs should be spayed or neutered--please don't respond on this issue. This is an anatomical question. I've just wondered why it is that if an animal is born with all parts it needs, how is it possible that the parts suddenly turn on the body? It doesn't make sense. Have any studies been done on wildlife, whether wildlife develops as much cancer when their sexual organs remain intact as compared with domestic animals? Thanks.
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
I guess the same reason women can get breast cancer or ovarian cancer or uterine cancer. Cancer's just abnormal cell growth--a switch gets flipped and the cells can't stop dividing. I guess by being there it makes it possible for the abnormal cell growth to happen.
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
This is the age old question with cancer really - if you have a body part, potentially you can get cancer in/of that part - certain things can increase or decrease the chances of that happening.
There are so many things that are thought to have an effect on the likelyhood of cancer, and of cancer of a specific area it is something of a minefield.
I don't know of any studies on wild animals and cancer - I would think they show less of it for a number of reasons though.
Firstly, they eat a diet far more appropriate to their species than humans do, or our pets do.
Secondly, thinking specifically about reproductive organ cancer - they use theirs as soon as they are able to do so, until they die. We do not, and nor do our pets and there is evidence to show that for example mammary cancer is much less likely in dogs (and I believe people) bred early and bred frequently as nature intended.
Thirdly - wild animals have a much shorter life expectancy and will die of a multitude of causes, way before they show the signs of cancer.
In all honesty - we neuter and spay pets for our convenience, because neutered/spayed pets are easier to live with on the whole than entire ones. They require less attention and less careful planning to live with, and these days the world is not really geared up to cope with certain entire animals - for example stallions - not many people keep stallions because proportionally, not many people own their own land and so keep horses at livery yards/barns - and not many of these have appropriate housing/fencing/handling skills.
As a result, those stallions that are kept outside of the stud world are often kept badly adn treated like public enemy number 1, as a result they ARE badly behaved and a nightmare to have around and it perpetuates the myth that 'all stallions are evil and hard work' which is in fact not the case at all.
Similar can be seen with entire dogs - so few pet owners keep entire dogs, some who do, do so without care or forethought and so their dogs are a pain in the rear and give entire dogs a bad name... so the myths surrounding entire dogs continue and less people keep them.
Over the years we have come up with various bits of evidence that show neutering has some beneficial effects - because we have a vested interest in proving that this is the case. Some of these bits of evidence are not as rock solid as they may be made out to be, some are a bit misleading, others are plain just not true.
Clearly a dog cannot get cancer of a body part he no longer has, so thats ok - but until fairly recently no one has particularly been interested in the negative side effects of spaying/neutering - no one asides from the individual pet owners affected by these side effects, has a vested interest in finding out more about these.
There are so many things that are thought to have an effect on the likelyhood of cancer, and of cancer of a specific area it is something of a minefield.
I don't know of any studies on wild animals and cancer - I would think they show less of it for a number of reasons though.
Firstly, they eat a diet far more appropriate to their species than humans do, or our pets do.
Secondly, thinking specifically about reproductive organ cancer - they use theirs as soon as they are able to do so, until they die. We do not, and nor do our pets and there is evidence to show that for example mammary cancer is much less likely in dogs (and I believe people) bred early and bred frequently as nature intended.
Thirdly - wild animals have a much shorter life expectancy and will die of a multitude of causes, way before they show the signs of cancer.
In all honesty - we neuter and spay pets for our convenience, because neutered/spayed pets are easier to live with on the whole than entire ones. They require less attention and less careful planning to live with, and these days the world is not really geared up to cope with certain entire animals - for example stallions - not many people keep stallions because proportionally, not many people own their own land and so keep horses at livery yards/barns - and not many of these have appropriate housing/fencing/handling skills.
As a result, those stallions that are kept outside of the stud world are often kept badly adn treated like public enemy number 1, as a result they ARE badly behaved and a nightmare to have around and it perpetuates the myth that 'all stallions are evil and hard work' which is in fact not the case at all.
Similar can be seen with entire dogs - so few pet owners keep entire dogs, some who do, do so without care or forethought and so their dogs are a pain in the rear and give entire dogs a bad name... so the myths surrounding entire dogs continue and less people keep them.
Over the years we have come up with various bits of evidence that show neutering has some beneficial effects - because we have a vested interest in proving that this is the case. Some of these bits of evidence are not as rock solid as they may be made out to be, some are a bit misleading, others are plain just not true.
Clearly a dog cannot get cancer of a body part he no longer has, so thats ok - but until fairly recently no one has particularly been interested in the negative side effects of spaying/neutering - no one asides from the individual pet owners affected by these side effects, has a vested interest in finding out more about these.
West Midlands based 1-2-1 Training & Behaviour Canine Consultant
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
Yes, I read on my doctor's office wall that women who breastfeed for more than x amount of years (can't remember the number) can virtually eliminate their likelihood of breast cancer. And I found this from the American Cancer Society's website:emmabeth wrote:Secondly, thinking specifically about reproductive organ cancer - they use theirs as soon as they are able to do so, until they die. We do not, and nor do our pets and there is evidence to show that for example mammary cancer is much less likely in dogs (and I believe people) bred early and bred frequently as nature intended.
Breast cancer risk and lifestyle choices
Not having children or having them later in life: Women who have not had children, or who had their first child after age 30, have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer. Being pregnant many times and at an early age reduces breast cancer risk. Being pregnant lowers a woman's total number of lifetime menstrual cycles, which may be the reason for this effect.
Here's the link to the whole thing: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/conte ... ncer_5.asp
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
We/they can get cancer in any part we have - and obviously not in any part that isn't there any more.
As well as the very good answers on this topic so far, consider that some cancers are more likely in neutered dogs IF those dogs were neutered too early, because the natural hormones have, among other tasks, the job of capping-off the long bones of the limbs. So a dog neutered after maturity, or left intact, will have a different physical shape from one neutered before maturity. This is more marked in some breeds than others.
In those breeds, the legs are longer and the joints are comparatively weaker because the legs have grown on and not been capped-off by the hormones. Therefore there is more stress on the joints, and in susceptible animals eg Rottweillers, there is a high incidence of cruciate damage due to the lower leg bone being longer and putting more stress on the ligaments at the stifle joint (rear knee), and a higher risk of bone cancer.
So as we see, it is a very complex issue indeed.
As well as the very good answers on this topic so far, consider that some cancers are more likely in neutered dogs IF those dogs were neutered too early, because the natural hormones have, among other tasks, the job of capping-off the long bones of the limbs. So a dog neutered after maturity, or left intact, will have a different physical shape from one neutered before maturity. This is more marked in some breeds than others.
In those breeds, the legs are longer and the joints are comparatively weaker because the legs have grown on and not been capped-off by the hormones. Therefore there is more stress on the joints, and in susceptible animals eg Rottweillers, there is a high incidence of cruciate damage due to the lower leg bone being longer and putting more stress on the ligaments at the stifle joint (rear knee), and a higher risk of bone cancer.
So as we see, it is a very complex issue indeed.
A dog is never bad or naughty - it is simply being a dog
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
SET YOURSELF UP FOR SUCCESS
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
Most animals in the wild we do not know what exactly they have died of. In captivity, they do have cancer that we are able to diagnose and treat/observe. As an earlier poster commented women have breasts, which means they qualify to have breast cancer. If you have the body part I am sure it will be elligible for cancer. I am not sure if this answers your question, or if you are referring to the other types of cancers linked to intact animals?
Re: Sicker with parts intact?
I recently saw a news piece where a Dr. of some sort is studying 8 rotties with cancer & the rotties are 12-14 yrs old. The rotties are living with cancer as if it were just a nuisance disease. This Dr finds it fascinating that the rotties are not dead like so many others who die of cancer before age 10. He is studying them to find out if whatever is making them live with cancer can somehow be applied to humans in the future.
Nothing to do with your query but it made me think of this, Interesting, isn't it?
Nothing to do with your query but it made me think of this, Interesting, isn't it?
