Thread: Designer Breeds
View Single Post
  #23  
Old February 18th, 2005, 01:57 PM
CyberKitten's Avatar
CyberKitten CyberKitten is offline
Senior Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: New Brunswick - Nova Scotia
Posts: 4,852
Hi again,

The "labradoodle" is not recognized as a "real" breed but I think more significantly perhaps is the ethics of the breeding practices. For example, the breeder interviewed on our local news program suggested that her puppies had the best qualities of both breeds they came from - the gentle nature of the lab and the hypoellergenic "hair" of the poodle. Anyone who has completed the most basic undergrad genetics course knows that is an absurd notion!! Not to mention the health problems these new so called breeds present with.

Yes, some of the newer cat breeds are crosses and that too is an ethical issue. I was just reading about an extensive program breeding sphinxes with domestic cats from shelters to advance the breed - and reduce inbreeding - and the difference between that program and some back yard breeder who decides to breed her two different dog types to cash in a new trend - is the science behind it.

The ethics of course is another question but the early breeders of such new breeds like Tonkinese (Siamese and Burmese cross) and Ragdolls is the reputable breeders of these cats (and many - probbly most are not) is the science and effort of the people behind it. Back yard breeders are playing with the dogs - are typically not educated about genetics - while the early creators of such breeds as a Sphynx spent a small fortune and over a period of time (decades actually) - developed these cats. There is an immense difference between someone who shows their cat or dog and invests money and resources to do because of the love of the breed and the back yard breeder who merely mates two animals and assumes s/he has created a new breed for profit!

Someone wrote: "unlike medicine who (sic) treats the symptom but never or hardly ever removing the source". As a medicalk practitioner, I have to disagree with that comment. I am not an expert in this history of medicine but I would a very poor oncologist if all I did was treat the symptoms of cancer!! In the the 1950's - long before I attended medical school - a child who was diagnosed with leukemia typically died in six months. That was the norm. Anything else was an aberation, a miracle! Now, most children who develop leukemia- as tarrible a disease as it is - live and actually grow up! In addition to treating symptoms, those of us in academic medicine as well as clinical practice also conduct research to ensure the illness disapears. I realize we do not always reach our goal but there have been many milestones in medicine. In the eighties, children with AIDS (another area of my practice) died. Now, most of them can be treated with medications and live long lives!

The treatment of symptoms - while obviously important especially to clinical practice -is a very small part of medicine! It is unfair even to suggest that doctors engaged only in clinical work just treat symptoms. Many of them also partipcate in research in some small way.

Sorry to veer off topic but I could not allow that comment to pass when I work so hard to carry out research while at the same time try to save as many lives as possible. The point is medicine in 2005 is very different from medicine in 1905 and if we had just treated symptoms, it would be exaclty the same - preemies would die, there would be no anesthesia, our mortaility rates would be in the 60 age range - you get my point. <g>
Reply With Quote