Pet ethics question

[rojo]

Supposing that your pet got sick and needed emergency treatment. Let's say the pet is 8 years old, and has generally been in good health. Without the treatment, the animal would most likely not survive. With the treatment, it's chances would be better, but not guaranteed. The treatment costs $2000. What would you do?

Is there a limit to how much you would spend on your pet?

[methodistgirl]

If the animal was dying anyway just have it put out of it's misery. I don't
have that problem. If one of my hermit crabs kicks the bucket I can always
get another one for five bucks. Unlike a large animal that can be expensive
with vet bills.
judy tooley

[Krummhorn]

There are two cats, aged 8 and 9, in our household. Each has their own special personalities and give us much almost as much love in return for what we give them.

For me, placing a dollar amount on an animal's life seems tacky ... I guess it would be decided on the circumstances of the illness and trying to determine the quality of life the animal would have after the medical procedure.

I voted for option #4, "It Depends", which better fits my values.

[jhnbrbr]

A tricky one, Rojo. I voted "It depends" too. For one thing, there are pets and pets, and some you can have a much deeper relationship with than others. It's a horrible dilemma, but what that means is there's no obvious right or wrong choice, so there's really no reason for the owner to feel guilty, whatever they ultimately decide to do.
John.

[rojo]

Thanks for your responses guys.

I knew everyone would answer 'it depends'.

Maybe this will help make the yes or no choice easier; let's say that if the pet survives the treatment, that the chances for the pet to lead a normal life afterwards would be good.

[dll927]

Two grand is still a large amount, and it sounds as if some vet sees a patsy.

The only pet I've ever had was a cat who disappeared on February 12th of this year. He appeared after I bought my place, and was never invited. But I took him in, and he was here for 8 1/2 years. He never went to a vet, but I would not have spent that amount of money on him. He would have been put out of his suffering.

[wljmrbill]

I have 3 dogs and have had pets all my life. To me it is like spending money on myself for health care: will treatment give good quality of life after, life expectancy after treatment, amount of suffering involved with and without treatment..... amount of money is only one factor of decision. They are like family to me and and desire same consideration for health problems/accidents. Being legal to put to sleep is a great option and one we humans do not have unfortunately. Voted #2

[Jess Chen]

Turtles and fish don't really need to see a doctor :/

[drummergirlamie]

I hate the thought of not bein' able to pull through for my cat cause I love 'eem so much. But to be realistic about it there is a limit to how much I could spend to save 'eem.

He has it pretty good though. I'll put it this way, if I'm a cat in the next life I want owners like me and my roommate.

[greatcyber]

I guess I agree with the majority. Once you adopt a pet (or it adopts you) and you make the decision to include this living being into your "family" then they become just that - family. Having already gone down this road with my Little Bear, who was a Russian Blue that lived for 18 years. He became ill, first with Lupus and then developed Diabetes a year later, from the steroids used to treat the Lupus.

At first he needed to go to the vet every week for a shot of steroids which made him feel great for about 5 days. Then he would start to wane and would need to go back to get another shot. At $50 a pop and me being on disability, I just could not afford it. Luckily, me entire family used the same vet and over the years not only spent a fortune combined, but also developed friendships with the staff.

When I broke down there one day, and told them that I couldn't afford the treatments but that I couldn't stand the idea of no more Little Bear, they took pity on me. They sold me the injection med and gave me syringes and needles so I could treat LB at home. They told me that they had NEVER done this for anyone before but taking our past into consideration, they accommodated me at every turn. It helps when you have a good relationship with the vet.

I suppose I would go without some things if it meant my pet would be better off; even if it was only a chance. And though 3 of our pets are adoptees, 1 was a purchased pedigree (the Abyssinian - Amun). And even though I never in my wildest dream thought I would ever spend $750 buying a cat, I did just that because I fell in love with him. And it was the best decision ever. So, once I found out that he has herpes which is manifested as upper respiratory problems in felines, I have already spent money on treatment and once he is over his slight flare up, I intend to have him vaccinated for $104 so as to reduce his outbreaks.

But there would naturally be a limit when it comes to finances as there is only so much money and then nothing to fall back on.

So, in agreement with most, it would depend. I hope I don't have to face this anytime soon. And I hope Rojo isn't having to struggle with this type of decision.

Rereading Robin's statement, if the pet would most likely have a good quality life, I would probably do whatever I had to in order to pay for treatment. Even (God forbade) going back to work in order to have the money.

[rojo]

Aw Stephen, you're such a sweetie.

You read between the lines.

Y'all know I have cats. Well, several weeks ago, one of them needed an emergency transfusion. He would not have made it otherwise. The good news is, I spent the big $, and Dusty is now doing fine. He's about 90% back to normal. Which is pretty good considering he almost died.

Worth every penny.

So, yay! Go Dusty!

[greatcyber]

Meow, meow, meow. Happy to hear about Dusty being on the mend.