Interesting reading.
The one thing that seems as inevitable as death and taxes is that scientists will always find a way of contradicting each other or overturning previous "consensus".
We had Posie done because it was/is commonly held to be the right thing to do to reduce the risk of female reproductive organ cancers. That conclusion has been supported by statistical studies.
We can rarely be certain what will affect our pups and we make the decisions regarding their health based on the best information/advice available at the time. Posie may still develop ovarian cancer despite the (possibly?) lowered risk because shes been "done", or she may be hit by a bus, but much as I always want the best for her, I don't like the idea of finding out that I may have actually increased her risk.
That's the nature of these studies though, and for each finding of increased/decreased risk of one illness, there is usually a counter argument for another illness.
Fascinating study though, and I will probably still keep an eye on it. Maybe.
Additional: I reread the article after posting this comment and realised that there wasn't much in the way of actual numbers. Stating a "fivefold increase" sounds worrying, but without knowing what the base figure was leaves us with less useable statements. If the base incidence of bone cancer is 1%, then a fivefold increase is still 'only' 5%. If there is still a 60% reduction of another cancer (I think that's the figure used for mammary and/or ovarian cancer) then I'll take the increased bone cancer risk with my beloved pooch. It's the choice I would make for my own health - if we ignore my lack of ovaries.
