Considered mutilation by many, a simple mention of the word "declaw" warrants an adamant response from even nonfeline fans. Even though the vocal aversion to declawing is already a no-brainer to most of you, the recently proposed ban on the procedure here in SF has earned (what may appear to be) some unlikely challengers — the SPCA.
Even though the organization both opposes the procedure and doesn't practice onychectomy at its hospital, it doesn't agree with legal regulation and SFSPCA President Jan McHugh-Smith worries the proposed law could have other negative side effects:
"The SFSPCA is opposed to declawing . . . but we are concerned about the option being taken away from the guardian. They could potentially give up the pet, and it could end up in a shelter and end up being euthanized."
So the argument is not just about the morality of the procedure but on the involvement of politics in medicine and that city council members have no place regulating such procedures — what's your take?
Source: Flickr User Muffet