?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19732047

Okay, sorry about being Linky McGee here, but very interesting study that was shared on one of my Irish Wolfhound discussion groups.

(I want to say, first and foremost, that the findings of this study *do not* mean we should all decide to not spay our female dogs! Unfortunately, I simply do not trust most Americans to be smart about their dogs' reproductive capabilities, and until we as a public get a better grip on such things, routine spaying is still a very good thing in my opinion. [If you are confused by what I mean, consider this: altering pet animals (specifically dogs) is not as common in the UK and EU as it is here in the US, yet they have lower shelter/"unwanted" litter rates. The basic truth underlying this is that they tend to be better about keeping their dogs from producing unexpected/unwanted litters...now, there are tons of theories as to why this is, which I won't go into at the moment. Suffice to say, I still think it is wisest for most Americans to alter their pets...] Ahem. Sorry, rant.)

What I find most interesting in this study is that it was performed to shed light into what effects procedures like ovariohysterectomy and "precautionary" oophorectomy (i.e. removing the ovaries as a step to prevent ovarian cancer in women with high risk factors) surgeries may have long term on female life expectancy. I admit I am biased in posting this: I have been against precautionary/preventative removal of women's reproductive organs since I first heard of it several years ago.

Still, take the findings as you will. I, for one, think they are the beginnings of a study women in general should become familiar with.

Comments