An owner’s reluctance to have her female dog spayed

In the past few days, we have been communicating with a reader on the case of an owner who has not got her female dog spayed. The dog, who is allowed to roam, gave birth to her first litter, and the owner only kept one male from it. The rest of the puppies were “thrown away”. Then, the son mated with the mother and subsequently, the mother has given birth to three more litters of which ALL the puppies had been “thrown away”.

Our reader came across this case and have tried persuading the owner to get her female dog spayed to prevent further production of puppies, but the answer was a “no”.

Thinking that the reason was a financial one, the reader asked if we would be able to fully sponsor the spaying of this dog and include boarding charges as well since the owner would not be able to confine the dog after the operation (as she is allowed to roam). We sought a sponsor to pay for the spaying charges (since it is a pet) and the sponsor also agreed to cover the entire boarding charges until full recovery.

This offer was communicated to the owner and her family yesterday. The owner was willing to consider it but her brother (who seems to have a full say on everything) disagreed. He wanted a “guarantee” that nothing untoward will happen to their dog in the surgery. In other words, he wanted a guarantee that his female dog will not die on the table. Of course even the best vet in the world will not be able to give such a guarantee. We also do not know if the dog has any underlying medical problems that could result in complications.

This morning, our reader spoke with the brother again, but he again refused to give his consent.

The owner has told her brother that she will not be throwing the next litter when it is born; she has asked her brother to do the throwing as she is tired of throwing puppies away.

The owner and her brother has also been informed of the advantages of getting their dog spayed, ie. prevention of certain cancers, better health, etc., but their answer is still a “no”.

Apparently, we were also informed that the owner’s brother went to cancel the appointment at the vet’s himself and cautioned anyone from interfering with his dog’s wellbeing.

So yes, we are well aware that sometimes, good intentions can be misread, misunderstood, ignored or even perceived as offensive.

For such cases, there is only so much that we can do. And we must respect certain boundaries and know when to step back.

There is also another family who is keeping about 20 dogs, all un-neutered and they keep reproducing. We have previously offered our neutering sponsorship for these dogs but the answer is also a “no”. Their reason was a religious one.

It is therefore no wonder at all that a friend who had been doing rescue work for decades told me recently that the BIGGEST CULPRITS who contribute to the stray population problem is not the presence of stray animals but PET-OWNERS who refuse to get their pets neutered. This results in their pets giving birth and the owners throwing the young animals away. Their reasons are manifold:

1. Genuine ignorance – this can be easily rectified by informing the owner and they will then get it done.

2. (a) Lazy (b) No time (c) Don’t care (d) Who cares?

3. (a) No money (b) Plain stingy.

4. The fear that their animal will die due to the neutering.

5. A belief that we cannot interfere with Mother Nature and her natural processes. So, let them go forth and multiply.

6. Religious reasons, but (a) Jakim has declared that neutering is a good practice and as far as we know, none of the other religious teachings (major religions, that is) object to the practice of neutering animals. It is all people’s own interpretations of what they THINK their religions teach. (b) Sorry to be so blunt here, but I have personally encountered many people who fear that by getting an animal neutered, they will be born impotent or infertile in their next life because of “karma”. To this, I tell them that “karma”, as I understand it, isn’t about “I hit you with a slipper this life, you will hit me with a similar slipper in our next life” or that if karma is so simple, gynaecologists who do hysterectomies on female humans might also be born without a womb in their next life and surgeons who perform vasectomies will be born with empty scrotums in their next life? And what about surgeons who remove gall bladders, appendices, kidneys, amputate a limb, etc. Karma is about INTENTION, ie. We do something with good intentions, we will be rewarded with something good and vice versa. And no need to wait until our next life, it can happen this life too and it usually does! So, what is the INTENTION of getting an animal neutered? To prevent future suffering – now, how can that be a bad thing?

That said, let us continue helping those who allow themselves to be helped.