Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 264 posts

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#181

Post by stephenitis »

It wasn't mentioned there is a 23andme for Dogs called Embarkvet (Austin, TX the DNA is sent to Canada for processing strangely enough) We got our dog from craigslist due to timing and waitlist issues with purebred breeders. At first we were worried and got a DNA test. She's a mutt and now that I know I am happier albeit lucky there is nothing identifiably wrong with her. I think many prospective owners are afraid because there is a higher risk of uncertain behavior and characteristics from mutts. The DNA tests took 2 months however, most people buy puppies at 8 weeks and no breeder wants to shell out $150-$200 dollars and puppies are harder to sell the older they get sadly. I think the cheaper and quicker these DNA test are the more the dog community will be able to open their eyes in a more transparent light. I've sadly met owners who want returns/discounts for defects in their purebred huskies which leaves me with mixed feelings.

https://embarkvet.com/dog/eevee2 (my dog's public results)

- 74.7% Siberian Husky - 7.7% German Shepherd Dog - 11.4% Alaskan Malamute - 6.2% Doberman Pinscher - clear of 160 genetic conditions

- https://embarkvet.com (non referral link) - http://fbuy.me/e2c-9 (my referral link for $30 off)

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#182

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jkaunisv1 wrote: post #161
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be honest - "in dogs, its a matter of course". Lets not paste human social constructs on an animal.

Maybe I'm ignorant but my understanding was it's not really a social construct for us, it's often rooted in the understanding of genetics that makes inbreeding a bad idea.

Mostly myth. The first million years nobody cared. Inbreeding over time is a bad idea, if the gene pool is too small. But line breeding(?) like done with dogs (and cattle and pigs and ...) is not a death sentence, nor even a very bad idea unless taken to extremes.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#183

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #177
Nursie wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And responsible vets and veterinary associations are now starting to publicly say that there are problems with these breeds. It's not even the ethics of purebred ownership in general - it's the ethics of selecting for known harmful traits, and people buying them in droves due to little more than fashion.

You see how your argument has now forced you to second guess our veterinarians? You're now making a special pleading: the veterinarian in the advocacy piece you just read in The Guardian is honest, and all other veterinarians aren't. And, yes: that is also a rhetorical weakness of the Guardian piece itself: it attempts to generate authority in part by invoking a narratively compelling worldwide conspiracy of cruel ve…

I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets?

I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK.

You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#184

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #175
Nursie wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternate solution - don't breed dogs with extreme anatomical features that mean if they get overexcited in hot weather they can suffer organ damage.

You're begging the question. I think I can speak for the entire thread when I say we all agree that one downside of the pug breed is that their genetic defects prevent them from performing in hot weather. My question to you is: so what? Surely we all agree that it would be cruel to buy a pug and then put it into circumstances that exacerbate its defects. But the person you're arguing with is a responsible pug owner,…

The problem is far beyond that for many/most and if you read the article you might have picked up on that.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#185

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #179
tptacek wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since nobody is obligated to care for a dog of any sort, the bar is somewhat high for the claim that owning breeds with genetic defects is unethical. If you can support with evidence the claim that no matter how carefully the dog is kept, its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence, then you've made a powerful argument against those breeds. Otherwise, you probably have…

Nobody is obligated to create a creature that will suffer for its entire life either. I'm not sure one needs to prove that its existence will be defined by suffering that overwhelms all the benefits to its existence - merely that a sufficient amount of suffering is likely, and the benefits are equally obtainable from a dog without these problems. It is unethical to bring into existence a dog that will suffer pain eve…

We own a rescue and a brachy purebred. We acquired the brachy dog due to the temperament and exercise requirements of the particular breed. Had our only option been to acquire a mixed-breed dog with typical dog exercise and attention requirements, our choice would almost certainly have been to acquire no new dog at all.

I am having trouble making your argument cohere. I can't tell whether you think our brachy dog should be put down immediately to end its suffering, or not. If not, I can't understand how you could arrive at the conclusion that providing the best possible life for a genetically compromised pet is worse than providing no life at all for any pet.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#186

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #184
tptacek wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're begging the question. I think I can speak for the entire thread when I say we all agree that one downside of the pug breed is that their genetic defects prevent them from performing in hot weather. My question to you is: so what? Surely we all agree that it would be cruel to buy a pug and then put it into circumstances that exacerbate its defects. But the person you're arguing with is a responsible pug owner,…

The problem is far beyond that for many/most and if you read the article you might have picked up on that.

Would you like to try rebutting again, this time with a civil argument? The one you just made is so on-its-face uncivil that it's actually called out in the site guidelines. I'm happy to delete or alter this comment when you do.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#187

Post by MarkMc »

tptacek wrote: post #169

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question: Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

No, were not obliged to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately. The reason is that the (a) desire for the dog to live and (b) emotional bond between dog and owner usually outweighs (c) the suffering of the dog.

But in choosing a dog to bring into the world, (a) and (b) have no weight, so (c) wins

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#188

Post by tptacek »

Nursie wrote: post #183
tptacek wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see how your argument has now forced you to second guess our veterinarians? You're now making a special pleading: the veterinarian in the advocacy piece you just read in The Guardian is honest, and all other veterinarians aren't. And, yes: that is also a rhetorical weakness of the Guardian piece itself: it attempts to generate authority in part by invoking a narratively compelling worldwide conspiracy of cruel ve…

I'm sorry, in what way did I second guess vets? I'm not making any special pleading here, the guardian piece is backed up by publications from the British Veterinary Association. I'm not impugning any vets, it looks like the entire profession is moving this way in the UK. You're reading things into my argument which just aren't there, and what's more it feels like you haven't fully read the article.

Once again: we discussed the issues of our breed in detail with our vet. Our vet, I think you can infer, does not agree with this advocacy piece. Your argument depends on the notion that only the veterinarians who agree with you are qualified to voice opinions. That's special pleading. It's not a complicated point.

Also: please stop suggesting that commenters haven't read the article.

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#189

Post by tptacek »

MarkMc wrote: post #187
tptacek wrote: post #169

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question: Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

No, were not obliged to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately. The reason is that the (a) desire for the dog to live and (b) emotional bond between dog and owner usually outweighs (c) the suffering of the dog. But in choosing a dog to bring into the world, (a) and (b) have no weight, so (c) wins

Putting aside the pain it would cause dog owners to have their pets put down --- which I agree is a meaningful concern --- would we still be obligated ethically to end the suffering of these dogs?

For instance, to refine the point: some decent number of brachy purebred dogs are currently in shelters (usually, specialized shelters). Those dogs have no owners and the human emotional pain that would be inflicted by euthanizing them is minimal. Should those dogs be put down, rather than rehomed? Bear in mind that it's actually pretty difficult to acquire a homeless purebred brachycephalic dog; they're in demand.

(We tried; our older dog is a rescue and we'd hoped to rescue an older purebred as well).

Re: Pugs are anatomical disasters. Vets must speak out–even if it’s bad for business

#190

Post by rdegges »

tptacek wrote: post #169

For those of you who believe it's unethical to own purebred dogs (or perhaps just brachycephalic purebred dogs) because their lives are defined by suffering due to genetic defects inherent in the breed, a question: Are we as a society ethically obligated to euthanize all these brachycephalic dogs immediately to end that suffering? If not, why not?

I'm as much of a dog lover as anyone, but this seems really extreme.

People have known for a long time that brachycephalic breeds have many health problems, but just like people: why shouldn't they have a chance to live their life? I don't think it's fair to say that society as a whole has a responsibility to completely remove a type of animal from the world by force.

Instead: it would be great if more people were educated about this stuff. The more dog owners that know about this, the better. When I first heard about this I told myself that if I ever had a brachycephalic dog I'd ensure they were fixed, and didn't reproduce. That way I can take care of something and ensure it has a good life, but also prevent future generations from pain.

Dogs are great companion animals. If anything, we have a responsibility to help them out as much as we can and reduce suffering long term through education.

Just my two cents.

Post reply on HN