Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals

Eyelid tacking

The article on Entropion states that in dogs, "If left untreated, the condition can cause such trauma to the eye that it will require removal." So it seems like eyelid tacking is therapeutic in nature and should not be included. Is it on the list because it is sometimes done unnecessarily for cosmetic purposes, or because the need for surgical intervention is disputed? Either way it would be nice to have a WP:RS to justify its inclusion on this list. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 07:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Several of the procedures on the list can be used to address veterinary concerns, e.g. tail docking if the tail is broken. However, these procedures may also be performed for cosmetic reasons.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the separation between the two is still evident. Tail docking is a $10-$20 procedure done on puppies solely for aesthetic reasons in 99% of cases. Blepharoplasty is a $300-$500 procedure done on grown dogs (or puppies who are at a high risk of Entropion) solely for medical reasons in 99% of cases. I think including a procedure that is required to save something's vision on a list of discretionary procedures is misleading when in the majority of cases it's not discretionary at all. 2601:243:200:34B0:11F:A1A3:A125:3EEE (talk) 03:12, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Removal of synthesis in intro

I just removed some content from the intro and then noticed that similar changes had been made previously by another editor and then reverted. So I thought I would add some more justification for removing these. The removed portion was this:

The term "mutilatory" generally connotes some form of disfigurement or even maiming. However, there are multiple definitions and interpretations that carry varying degrees of emotional intensity. For example, Merriam-Webster defines "mutilate" as "to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect", but gives a relatively mild example: "the child mutilated the book with his scissors".

It's fine to describe what sources have stated (e.g. describing the RCVS's justification for using the term "mutilatory"). However, the removed text is attempting to explain and analyze what the sources have stated, which is WP:SYN as it contains ideas not directly attributable to the sources. 24.130.189.187 (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References

This is the lead, the longer explanation is given later. Montanabw^(talk) 09:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Neutering

The most obvious invasive procedure, practiced widely and affecting the life of the animal. Also microchipping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.152.199 (talk) 12:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Note also, some neutering methods scar the animal more than others. Some are quite severe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.81.152.199 (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The scope and definition of this article have been discussed at length. I suggest you read the archives, particularly Archive 1 which contains discussion about microchips. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"List of nonhuman mutilations" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of nonhuman mutilations. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)