Tropical Fish Forums

[Marcos Avila]

This story was posted in the Brazilian board and got some interesting reactions, both for and against the owner's decision. What do you think?

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1993641.html
_________________

Success with a fish/tank is measured in YEARS, not months or weeks...

[cbussell]

Wow, I'm surprised. Normally when I see something like that on Ananova, I google the topic and either get no other results or get a bunch of stories that list Ananova as their source (either way, pointing to a fake story). This one, though actually appears legitimate.

I do have a question though. Is there any chance that the growth could have been caused by people throwing their germ ridden hunks of metal, er... coins, into the pond / tank / whatever? Just wondering.

As for the question at hand if there was no loss to quality of life caused by the growth (and it sounds like there wasn't), then the surgery should not have been performed, especially since the fish is now short an eye.

[ernie]

Ugh that is cruel. People shouldn't cut the fish's eye off simply because their is a fuuny growth on the side of their heads...


Ernie
_________________

[lindak]

It could be a good thing if the growth was found to be cancerous, if they did pathology on it.

It could be a bad thing if it was something that would have gone away on it's own anyway and was done for cosmetic purposes so people didn't have to look at an "icky" thing on the fishes face.

Since they stated ithe fish had surgery, hopefully they used anesthesia, etc.

At any rate, IMO, the whole story wasn't told.

[menagerie mom]

I assume the museum is a credible institution, so I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that the surgery was done to ensure the fish's long term health and that it wasn't just cosmetic surgery.

[TJ]

Maybe it got the growth from the coins that were thrown in the pond that the fish lives in. I voted no, Maybe just take it off display, quarintine it until it looks better.

[alohamonte]

I think it's a good thing. The lump couldnt have been good for fish. Parasite, cancer, injury, who knows. The loss of the eye is unfortunate, I feel bad for the little guy. But this pond is free of predators and has plenty of food - so he'll be fine one-eye short.
_________________
Several retired planted tanks from nano to 55gal. 20 gal in the works.

[Ciklido]

Okay, lets for instance say this happened in nature by itself. Supposedly the fish would be a "dis-abled" fish and would most and very likely die with in a short time since its functioning improperly and has obviously lost important eyesight and its natures call to put an end to its life. We as fish-keepers do the HUMANELY thing and that is to help it survive but at the same time the fish is a disabled one and its not as happy as it was before. I think in this case since it was one of the million goldfish in the world, they should have just euthanized and let it go its own way.

I think this was just a scam to bring more public and audience to the museum and get more profits. The scientists really didn't do much difference and it was just for their amusement. But the article is really focusing on the COSMETIC part and not really the right or wrong thing to do. I think they should have just euthanized it.
_________________
Get attached, love everything now, then, suffer when it comes to an end, for it will bring great meaning to one's existence. JR

[McP]

So if a fish develops a growth that is only a problem from an aesthetic viewpoint it should be euthanised? I think thats worse than at least allowing the animal to live. Removal was a questionable move, euthanization I think would be ridiculous in this case.

[ultra]

I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Harmless abcesses are routinely removed from dogs and cats to improve their looks, why not fish?