I view “elective” as effectively capturing two of the three above-mentioned concepts: (a) invasive; and (b) dubious. It captures invasiveness because it’s a term of art used to refer to surgical or quasi-surgical procedures, and no one would ever call a haircut or nail-trim an “elective” procedure. It also sufficiently captures the concept of “dubious” because the types of life-saving procedures that we’ve been talking about, like tumor or gangrene removal, are clearly not “elective.” I realized that “elective” doesn’t perfectly capture these two concepts, but in my book it comes close enough that, with sufficient explanation in the text, we can make it fit. I realize I was lukewarm on “elective” previously but, upon further reflection, am perfectly willing to go with it. I don’t have a strong feeling either way about the “appearance-changing” concept, especially since it doesn’t fit everything (e.g. devoicing). 
 :::Bottom line: In addition to all the other titles (including the existing one) that I’ve said I can live with, I can also live with Scientizzle’s suggestion of elective procedures on animals.  
 :::I also proposed something a bit different yesterday, invasive animal management procedures. I’m not particularly invested in this idea but, not having gotten any feedback, thought I’d at least keep it on the table in case everything else falls through.