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

191–200 of 264 posts

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

#191

Post by MarkMc »

tptacek wrote: post #189
MarkMc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 euth…

I'd say the desire for the dog to live should be considered. That is, even if (b) has zero weight, (a) can outweigh (c)

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

#192

Post by darod »

13of40 wrote: post #61
maxerickson wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are apes not monkeys. What if you sister called and said there was a safe, cheap and effective way to remove, say, the myopia from her spawn (in the case of dogs, stop inbreeding, in the case of humans, currently imaginary)? Would you tell her not to do it?

I had some in-laws at one point who had a kid with cystic fibrosis, and they decided to roll the dice and have a second one. (Murphy's Law won that round.) I can't imagine convincing those people to get their $1200 purebred pug[1] neutered for the good of the species. [1] https://www.reference.com/pets-animals/much-pugs-87fd8b209ca...

so their second kid had CF too?

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

#193

Post by [deleted] »

weavie wrote: post #46

Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing. Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed. I well never get a pure breed again.

[deleted]

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

#194

Post by mgarfias »

weavie wrote: post #46

Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing. Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed. I well never get a pure breed again.

My oldest is 12 and still runs around like the energizer bunny. She's a pure bred shepherd.

Be more careful when you buy.

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

#195

Post by tptacek »

MarkMc wrote: post #191
tptacek wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 euth…

I'd say the desire for the dog to live should be considered. That is, even if (b) has zero weight, (a) can outweigh (c)

Can you help me understand how an extant dog could have a desire to live so ethically powerful that it overrides suffering, while it being simultaneously the case that it is unethical to bring such a dog into existence? It seems to me that your (a) implies that a living dog suffering from these defects is generating some benefit from living. Isn't it: maximum benefit > some benefit > no benefit?

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

#196

Post by tdb7893 »

tptacek wrote: post #173
oxryly1 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the reduced quality of life for existing dogs isn't enough justification for euthanization (except maybe in extreme cases). I'd say it's probably unethical to breed more brachycephalic dogs, and by extension unethical to purchase those dogs from breeders (unless maybe the breeders have ceased to breed these dogs).

Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree. With that stipulated: If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any…

I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or else it would always be better to pick other dogs.

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

#197

Post by jacamat »

tomjakubowski wrote: post #157
lightedman wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "German Shepherd" today is nothing like the purebreeds from the WWII era. They were bred afterwards for looks, nothing else. The inherent intelligence remained and was left unchanged, everything else was selectively bred, so you get to enjoy cardiac failure and hip dysplasia as a result.

Is there some connection between the breeding of the German Shepherd and WWII? My impression is that the breed dates back at least fifty years before that.

It does, but Nazi control over Germany shaped and changed the kennels significantly. The Verein fur Deutsche Schaferhunde (the breed organization for the GSD at the time) was relinquished to Nazi control a few years before the founder of the breed, Von Stephanitz', death.

Nazi influence on breeding and the use of dogs for experiments (Hitler's "beloved" German Shepherd, Blondi, was famously fed a cyanide pill to test its effectiveness) had quite an impact. Many of the best bloodlines have vanished because of this (in Blondi's case, her puppies were shot and killed after her death) but because of the dogs military value, this was of course not the fate of all of them.

The ancestry of the "working line" dogs we have today can be traced back to these same dogs that fought alongside soldiers in WWII. What's left of them, anyway.

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

#198

Post by tptacek »

tdb7893 wrote: post #196
tptacek wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok. Can I assume we agree that nobody is obligated to own or care for a dog of any sort? I apologize in advance if you don't agree. With that stipulated: If the benefit a dog obtains from living outweighs --- in all but the most extreme cases --- the suffering that dog will have due to its genetic defects, AND people are entitled to make a rational decision not own a dog, are they not ethically entitled to select any…

I don't think the argument still works of you view the different companion animal breeds as generally fungible. You would need to make the argument that the breed would need to somehow be substantially better than other choices or else it would always be better to pick other dogs.

That's a good point I forgot to account for. But it can be accounted for: even if we stipulate that it's not ethical to acquire genetically compromised dogs purely for aesthetic reasons, there are other attributes of these dogs breeds that make them more suitable than others. For us, it was a requirement that the dog be content on its own, amiable with other dogs and children, and not excessively demanding of exercise that we'd be unable to provide it (we're simply not around most of the day).

Were no dog available that could reliably provide those attributes, our choice would certainly have been not to acquire a second dog.

But I also think, for what it's worth, that it's still ethically tricky to dispose of the question of whether it's unethical to select dogs for appearance. I think you can predict the argument I'd make there.

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

#199

Post by SEJeff »

weavie wrote: post #46

Not just Pugs. I had a German Shepherd. Beautiful dog, but everyone who I met who had had a German Shepherd in the past told me their dog had to be put down around 10 years of age due to their back legs failing. Our dog didn't even make it to 10. She died of heart failure at 7. According to the vet this is another common problem with the breed. I well never get a pure breed again.

This is why the Whitehouse and a lot of security companies are switching to the slightly smaller Belgian Malinoise:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/09/2...

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

#200

Post by Nursie »

tptacek wrote: post #185
Nursie wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

At no point have I or would I advocate putting your dog down unless or until its life became unberable due to pain.

What the article covers and what I agree with is that people should think very carefully before buying such a dog from a breeder, as breeders are engaged in breeding dogs for extreme looks that are very likely to experience considerable health problems. By buying such a dog you are incentivising the breeder to create more, with scant regard to the health of the animals.

So I'll repeat - nobody is saying you're evil for adopting a rescue pug, quite the opposite, you did a great thing! The advocacy is to stop buying them from breeders until the health issues have been addressed - probably by introducing greater genetic diversity and ceasing to select for extreme brachcephaly.

Can I ask why you feel the need to reduce everything to extremes? Why do you feel the only ethical options are "Put all the pugs to sleep" and "Yay pugs!" ?

Is it impossible for you to see a middle road - the individual dogs are to be cherished, but for ethical reasons we should change breeding practices and maybe discontinue some breeds?

Post reply on HN