It is usually done to prevent the cat from a natural behaviour (scratching) which can usually be fixed by getting a proper scratching pole and monitoring you can for a week or two to prevent them from scratching anywhere else.
Declawing often introduces other behavioural problems (biting, soiling outside the cat box) which are usually a sign of your cat not liking the situation.
Castration is for the male cat a smaller operation, and usually fixes problems and gives you a happier less aggressive cat with an increased tendency to gain weight.
Behaviour problems in cats are usually because they are not stimulated enough, and declawing them will hide the scratching problem but will sometimes introduce other problems that are harder to fix.
Veterinarians should really propose other solutions first such as activelt working with your cats behaviour. In the end it will probably give you a happier cat.
I would argue that aggressiveness in the male cat is a different kind of behaviour. It is a natural behaviour, of course, but it is not easily changed, and it is also not a behaviour that makes your cat happy.
To summarize: castrating a cat is a good way to get a happier calmer and slightly fatter cat. Declawing is usually done to prevent a either a natural behaviour or a sign that your cat is unhappy. It commonly leads to other behavioural problems that are even harder to fix.
One is a path to a happy cat, one is to sweep a problem under the rug.
I am of course coloured by where I live: declawing has been outlawed for quite some time and even before that it was considered animal abuse by most.
Thanks again. The wikipedia article actually seems considerably more measured—behavioral changes are observed, but for a small percentage of subjects in most studies, and at those levels I really wonder how much is a placebo (on the part of the observer, not the cat, ofc)
The general tendency of the result isn't very good for declawing. Especially considering the amount of cats that get complications from the surgery.
The studies cited with positive results for relinquishment pushes for other risk factors such as understanding and investing in you cat as a contributor to positive outcome. Maybe people willing to pay are more invested in their cats, and go with what a veterinarian recommends (which may be declawing).
I would 100% agree if we were talking about humans.
As is, euthanasia of cats and dogs is generally considered morally acceptable, and we can reasonably predict that more cats will be euthanatized as a result of this law. So if there weren't clear evidence that declawing was inherently harmful to a pet cat, I would consider it misguided to ban the practice.
I admittedly have no idea how’d you’d test this in an animal—but it seems like it should be a prerequisite to banning the procedure.