Abstract
Dear Editors,
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) actively advocates for scientific research that improves animal health and welfare. The recent JFMS article, ‘Pain and adverse behavior in declawed cats’ by Martell-Moran et al 1 provides additional insight into the potential long-term consequences of declawing domestic cats. It is evident that the authors, like the AVMA, are passionate about feline welfare.
Unfortunately, the authors’ paraphrasing of the AVMA policy on Declawing of Domestic Cats 2 in the article’s introduction oversimplifies its content. The AVMA policy closely aligns with the American Association of Feline Practitioners’ (AAFP) policy and focuses on client education about alternatives to declawing and the potential risks of the surgery itself. In regard to when declawing may be an option, the AVMA policy states, ‘Declawing of domestic cats should be considered only after attempts have been made to prevent the cat from using its claws destructively.’ These attempts could encompass a range of strategies such as changes to the environment (eg, environmental enrichment), changes in owner behavior and expectations, and use of claw trimming or nail caps. This is a markedly different message from the interpretation provided by Martell-Moran et al that ‘declawing domestic cats is warranted after training methods have failed’. The AVMA’s policy considers quality of life, recognizes the importance of honoring the human–animal bond in individual relationships, and supports the value of professional judgment, stating that ‘The decision to declaw a cat should be made by the owners in consultation with their veterinarian.’
In addition, within the version of the Martell-Moran article currently published OnlineFirst, content from the AVMA Literature Review on the Welfare Implications of Declawing of Domestic Cats 3 is incorrectly referenced as AVMA policy. Although the article’s references have been corrected for the print issue and the online version from April 2018, the misconception that AVMA’s animal welfare literature reviews are AVMA policy must be addressed. The AVMA’s animal welfare literature reviews are peer-reviewed summaries of the literature prepared by the AVMA Animal Welfare Division and provide information on topics of interest to its membership. Accordingly, the literature review on onychectomy does not include a recommendation emanating from the AVMA to leave a segment of the distal phalanx; instead, it reports on this recommendation that has been made by others. As noted in the literature review, currently available published literature indicates that it is unclear whether leaving a portion of the distal phalanx results in pain and, if so, how much. Martinez et al 4 found that lameness was higher in cats declawed via a disarticulation method when compared with a bony amputation; whereas Martell-Moran et al 1 found pain and adverse behaviors correlated with fragments of the distal phalanx.
The full AVMA policy on Declawing of Domestic Cats, the associated literature review, and client resources promoting alternative training and management options can be found at AVMA.org/declaw.