A recent study conducted by the Alliance for Contracept
Do you think $75 million is too much to devote to chemical sterlizati
Edited by DVMnewsmagazine, 6 years ago
I don't think we are scared of the revenue loss as much as we are about the pain and ethics associated with the chemical sterilization process right now. If technology gets to a point that there is less risk, less potential side effects and less pain involved - then I don't think it's altogether a bad thing. EXCEPT - the whole idea is to stop the hormone production to help them stop getting hit by cars to get females, to stop being territorial, etc... The last time we looked into it as a practice - the results were varied and it didn't appear to be the most humane option.
To me, this discussion is very closely related to chemical abortions. There are some ethical grey areas.
Overall, I am not opposed to chemical castration - I would just like to see the procedure improved significantly before we would use it in our practice. I support the studies and the progression of the procedure. Because it is so much less invasive, perception to the client would be better, and it could actually be a huge money maker for a practice.
Yes i do think devoted so much money to this is crazy. There are so many things out there that could use the money and research. I mean I am all for progress but....
I cannot speak for all private practices but it sure would not affect us any. Even if it would, so what. There is always an upside to better medicine and the progress we can offer to our clients and their pets.