Comment on a recent policy change by the American Veterinary Medical Association's House of Delegates regarding pain management and declawing

A recent policy change by the American Veterinary Medical Association’s House of Delegates (HOD) included several revisions regarding pain management and declawing that are concerning both for their scientific inaccuracy and for the potential harm they may cause https://www.avma.org/news/discussion-precedes-hod-actions-cat-declawing-animal-pain-other-resolutions?utm_source=delivra&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Vitals%20-%20Aug%202025&utm_id=9409064&dlv-emuid=a1897c25-0a00-40fc-972b-40b9a579fb93&dlv-mlid=9409064. Most notably, the HOD elected to remove the statement, “Pain is a negative experience that adversely affects an animal’s quality of life.” This change contradicts earlier philosophical and scientific understanding. As early as the 18th century, philosopher Jeremy Bentham argued that the moral weight of animal suffering lies not in whether animals can reason, but in whether they can suffer https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1780.pdf. He stated that pain and suffering in animals are no different than it is in humans. More recently, research by Camps et al. (2019) and Mills et al. (2019) demonstrated that untreated or undertreated pain in animals has negative behavioral issues that directly reduce quality of life. The removal of this statement is therefore not only inconsistent with current knowledge but also undermines efforts to ensure adequate pain recognition and management in veterinary medicine. It is particularly concerning that the AVMA has not adopted a stronger stance against declawing/onychectomy. A JAVMA publication by Katelyn E. Mills et al. (2016) entitled “A review of medically unnecessary surgeries in dogs and cats” outlined both the acute and chronic adverse effects associated with declawing in cats. One of the most frequently cited arguments in favor of declawing is that immunocompromised individuals are safer living with declawed cats. However, this rationale does not withstand any scrutiny. Evidence indicates that declawed cats are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviors, including an increased tendency to bite (Landsberg et al., Behavioral Problems of the Dog and Cat, 2024). This not only undermines the purported health justification but also heightens the risk to vulnerable caregivers, making the argument specious at best, aside from the significant ethical concerns of surgically altering an animal for human convenience. In the same vein, declawing as a supposed solution to feline aggression is counterproductive, as research has demonstrated that it exacerbates aggressive tendencies (Landsberg GM). Further, declawing has been shown to contribute to the development of neuroplastic changes and chronic pain conditions in cats (LaChance et al., 2025). This directly connects back to the broader discussion of pain as a determinant of quality of life. The removal of pain from the AVMA’s policy language becomes especially troubling in this context, as it risks legitimizing procedures that cause long-term suffering while ignoring well-documented scientific evidence. We must follow science. As veterinarians, we carry a profound responsibility to our non-verbal patients. There is now substantial evidence on how pain can impair quality of life as measured by validated instruments, including acute and chronic pain scales. Declawing has no advantage for the cat and can be a significant cause of persistent post-surgical and chronic neuropathic pain. We know that conditions in humans that cause chronic pain, such as phantom limb pain and sciatica have both profound and invisible effects on quality of life. To deny the reality of pain in animals because pain assessment can be challenging is both scientifically unsound and ethically indefensible. Finally, we are also concerned with vague and general statements that “decisions as to whether to perform, or not, certain veterinary procedures are patient- and client-specific and should respect the veterinarian’s professional judgement”. This wording may allow any veterinarian to justify this cruel procedure simply based on “professional judgement” without appropriate justifications that are in the best interests of feline health and welfare. We are disappointed with the results of these discussions and urge the AVMA HOD to review these statements and consult with specialists in the field regarding current evidence on pain, quality of life and the declawing of cats. Members of the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) Pain Committee 2025. There are no conflicts of interest for any of the authors. Research data are not shared.