I got this in a google alert yesterday and commented like this:
Not cruel to deknuckle a cat? 10 seperate amputations and 18 if all 4 paws are declawed, that is at least 10 possible infection sites and areas where there can be crippling claw regrowth or malformation. And what's this guff about the AVMA denying it's cruel? According to their laughable policy declawing should be a last resort procedure when all else has been tried and failed, not a condition of giving a cat a home. It's a pity the AVMA don't follow it through, get off the fence and police it instead of turning a blind eye so that vets can rake the cash in. I think if your cat could talk she would say she'd rather have kept her fingers, but having had them amputated she had no choice but to get on with life to the best of her ability and if she shows no effects then you should thank God, but think on this, cats need their claws for much more than scratching, and indoor cats need theirs just as much as those who have freedom to enjoy outdoors. Cats need their claws to groom, scratch that itch, play, and most importantly to anchor themselves for the very necessary stretching exercises that cats need due to their complex bodies and because cats actually walk on their toes and not on their pads, thus declawing forces them to walk unnaturally, leading, in many cats, to arthritis in later years. But all this aside of course declawing is cruel, why would it be banned in 38 countries if it wasn't agreed by ethical veterinary associations to be inhumane? The pro-declaw propaganda is encouraged by your veterinary surgeons who make a lot of money from declawing and from follow up treatment when things start to go wrong. Wise up, declawing is bad and those who declaw their cats, including yourself, should realise that pretty soon it's going to be banned in the USA so you'll either have to get off your rear ends and train your cats or let someone else own the cat who accepts that cats come with claws.
