If your pet was ill... - Page 6

[feelinghealthy]

Nowadays I have a dog (called Frixos) but I am not very closed related to it because I love cats and i am not fan of dogs.

Someone left it before 3 years and I have adopt it. Before 15 years I have a lovely cat (Spagolinos). I love it. It was a member of my family. If it was suffering from a disease I could spend a lot of money to help it :

[bri276]

I would like to say I wouldn't bankrupt the entire family but with my female kitty, I am so attached to her it's deranged, I would probably sell my soul to save her life. that said, I would not prolong suffering with no real hope of full recovery.

[gumby74]

I had to pick other. I don't know what the maximum amount would be. Any amount would be hard to swallow, but I am the kind of person who once I commit to having an animal in our lives, I couldn't say no....unless the animal is in horrible pain that can't be helped. Animals to me are like having another child. I wouldn't take on the responsibility unless I thought there would be some way to afford it...whether that be through loans, credit cards etc......I have know too many people who deal with their animals illness by taking it out in the woods and shooting it. I could never imagine being that person who refuses to spend any money on their animal. What is life about, other than making it easier for someone else??????

[SleeplessMommy]

Originally Posted by cfiddlinmama

You know what I'm getting from this thread? That only wealthy people should be pet owners. That really makes me sad that people feel that way.

My husband and I have had cats but not dogs ... I think taking in (non-pedigreed) cats has a much lower cost - we have never had anything but minor antibiotics to deal with, or the occasional tooth cleaning.

Large pure bred dogs appear to have much higher medical costs. A family member adopted a golden retriever after he was surrendered by owner at about 12 mo due to hip displaysia - a $3000 operation required. The golden rescue took care of the operation and he is doing just fine now. We would like to adopt a large dog sometime, but it is very sad to know the lifespan is about 12 years on average for a golden.

BTW, the SPCA will euthanize ill pets at no cost, not something I have done personally.

[Aries1985]

Any amount I had to spend to help my pet would be spent. I have a credit card with a $30,000 limit and you can bet that I'd use it to save my pet. As long as a trusted vet tells me there's hope and that the pet can have a meaningful life, then I'll consider every possible treatment. We don't have extra money, but saving a life is a good reason to go into debt, imo.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by KayleeZoo

Sad story ahead.....

On Saturday, a client who we haven't seen in about 3 years called- her 16yo cat wasn't doing well and she wanted him euthanized. This woman used to go to church with my boss and he gives all of the people that attend his church regularly free services. For people who used to attend, they get a discount. She brought Meowser in, and I gave her the prices for euthanasia and the different cremation options (we are not allowed to dispose of bodies in the landfill- the owner can take posession of the body, or we can arrange private or communal cremation). She started crying and yelling at me that she could not afford the $88 that it would cost. (The regular price would have been $160 plus tax for euth and communal cremation, but he gave her a discount). She did look like someone who really struggled financially. I told her that she could go to animal control and they would do the euth for free, and it was her choice. She wound up staying and using our services, but cried and ranted the whole time about how she was poor and could not afford what we were charging. It's hard; you feel badly for people who are struggling, but on the same hand, if you don't have $88 for a very discounted vet bill, you really can't afford a pet in this day and age with the cost of vet care and animal care in general.

Your story just reminded me of something that I had been thinking about. I was charged over 400 dollars for an emergency euthanasia and it felt really bad to have to go through the sadness and put out all that money. The cat was hit by a driver who was driving way too fast and hit her and sped away. She was paralyzed and laying in the middle of the road until a neighbor came and got us, it was 10:00 at night. I just felt like it would have been nice if the vet would have incurred some of that cost since we were doing (what they kept telling us was) the right thing.

Why can't we all pay an extra 5 or 10 dollars every time that we go to the vet so that no one has to pay for a needed euthanasia?


On the topic of this thread... I have spent a lot on my animals, I can't say how much, I am in denial of the total. I do feel a great responsibility for them and a desperation because I love them so much. However, I also feel extremely guilty that my guinea pigs and cats get better health care than most of the people in the world. The money that I have spent on my pets could have definitely saved some people

ETA: there are no shelters that offer free euthanasia here

[phatchristy]

Originally Posted by Toolip

ETA: there are no shelters that offer free euthanasia here

They don't really advertise it...but I know the vast majority of shelters *will*.

I had a friend who was out of work who did this with her dog. She went into the shelter, they had her sign the dog over and took her in a room with the pet and did it right away. She couldn't afford the hundreds of dollars it would have been at the vet.

No doubt some people do surrender their animals to shelters for this reason as well. My mom has told me about all the stories they've had where she's living and the economy is seriously depressed and animal surrenders are at all time highs.

[rhubarbarin]

This thread seems to be evenly split between the people who feel that their pets are their babies (and are nearly or as attached to them as they are to their human children), and therefore are willing to spend whatever it takes to treat whatever medical problems arise (as any of us would for our children);

and those who feel that however much they love them, pets are animals, different from people, and choosing to stay within your financial means (whether that means $100 or $10,000) when pursuing treatment for them isn't a moral issue.

I'm in the latter camp but I can understand where the 'price is no object' people are coming from as it seems most of them take the medical care of their animals just as seriously as they do for their children.

But - I totally don't agree with that position. My animals aren't my kids. They're my friends and dependants, and I love them and care for them as best I can. I would spend a couple thousand dollars on them depending on the problem. But beyond that (and if they were in pain) I would euthanize. And I wouldn't feel guilty. Honestly I don't feel that thousands and thousands of dollars are morally justifiable to save an animal's life. I choose to not make much money, to live frugally and 'off the grid', to not own a car, because I don't feel comfortable with the idea of being (comparatively) wealthy. There are so many people in need I just don't feel it's right for me to have so much more than I need (which I already do, though most people in this country would consider me 'poor').

I'm getting a 'if you don't have thousands of dollars at your disposal, or if you're not willing to bankrupt yourself to save your dog's life, you shouldn't own pets' vibe from some posters here, and I strongly disagree with that mindset too. Living on a small income, or not spending money on things other people consider to be very important, shouldn't prohibit someone from keeping pets or having kids. It's like saying kids whose parents are too poor (often through misfortune that has little to do with them) to afford proper health care for them should be taken from their families. The system is the problem, not those individuals who are struggling within it. I personally believe spay/neuter programs and shelters should be goverment funded. God knows there could be many changes made within the AKC that would lead to a better situation for millions of animals.

I believe in preventative care - but I don't take my pets to the vet every year. They all get spayed/neutered, the cats get boosters as kittens and then again if there's a new animal coming into the houshould, the dogs get boosters once every 3 years and regular heartworm meds. Teeth cleaning is as needed. Beyond that - they go to the vet when they're sick or injured, which in the last 4 years has been never (besides the three traumatic accidents my older dog had - but the last of those was 7 years ago, way before we moved out of my parent's house).


I guess the bottom line for me is: animals aren't people to me. They don't fear death, and I feel little or no guilt about killing them. I EAT animals every day, so how could I?

[KayleeZoo]

Your story just reminded me of something that I had been thinking about. I was charged over 400 dollars for an emergency euthanasia and it felt really bad to have to go through the sadness and put out all that money. The cat was hit by a driver who was driving way too fast and hit her and sped away. She was paralyzed and laying in the middle of the road until a neighbor came and got us, it was 10:00 at night. I just felt like it would have been nice if the vet would have incurred some of that cost since we were doing (what they kept telling us was) the right thing.

2 things stand out to me in this story. First of all, your cat was outside- at the mercy of every car on the road, not to mention other animals who could prey on her. If she had been inside, you would have never been in the situation where a $400 vet bill was necessary because she was hit by a car.

Second, it's not the vet's responsibility to incur the cost for your pet. Veterinary hospitals are not charitible organizations. Most vets aren't rich- they rely on their business to feed their family and pay the mortgage, just like the rest of us rely on our livlihood to do the same. MANY if not most vets do some sort of donation, whether it is with their services (doing reduced cost or free sterilizations for shelters) or outright monetary donations (which can mean providing free care to people), but it's not their obligation to do so. It's really aggravating when people come in and expect us to discount the price because the owner is doing "the right thing". It's the pet owner's obligation to do the responsible thing. That's what pet ownership is all about. What would happen if they incurred the cost for everyone who walked through the doors? They would go bankrupt and would not be able to help any animals, period. People need to remember that veterinarians are business people, too, and can not stay in business if they offer their services at below-cost prices for everyone who can't afford to care for their pet.

Emergency clinics charge more, yes. Their costs are MUCH higher than the average 9-5 small animal clinic. The whole staff gets paid more, the equipment needed to deal with emergencies is more expensive, etc. And you're paying for the convenience of being able to go in at 10PM without an appointment and have your animal seen. All of that results in a higher cost.

Some clinics maintain a charitible fund, whereby someone who cannot afford a bill can get some help. It was a much more popular idea 10 years ago, though. What started happening was that people found out which clinics had money to help, and they flocked to them; people started feeling like they didn't have to bear the financial burden of their pets if a charity account was available. It became an entitlement issue instead of a gift issue, which was why the idea came into being to start wtih.

[heartmama]

This thread seems to be evenly split between the people who feel that their pets are their babies (and are nearly or as attached to them as they are to their human children), and therefore are willing to spend whatever it takes to treat whatever medical problems arise (as any of us would for our children);

and those who feel that however much they love them, pets are animals, different from people, and choosing to stay within your financial means (whether that means $100 or $10,000) when pursuing treatment for them isn't a moral issue.

I'm in the latter camp but I can understand where the 'price is no object' people are coming from as it seems most of them take the medical care of their animals just as seriously as they do for their children.

I'm coming from a third point of view--there are hundreds of thousands of American parents who do not have unlimited funds to pay for a child's medical crisis. They certainly won't have that kind of money for a pet. I'm not going to expect people to do more for a pet than many could for their human family.

Almost half of the bankruptcies in this country are from *medical debt*. And a majority of those people *had health insurance*. The cost of human medical care is beyond the financial means of the middle class at this point.
Spending thousands of dollars on a pet is a luxury that many people just cannot afford. Fortunately, many CAN provide years of good preventive care and loving affection to their pets.

[Joyster]

I'd pay what I could if it weren't going to negatively affect the financial well being of my family. Back when it was just me and my pets, I had a hard time understanding the point of view of people who couldn't fathom putting their pets up with their kids on something "so insignificant" as money. Now that I've had kids, I've can completely understand and agree. We are in a position however where we could afford a good amount of money for vet care.

I'd also pay what I could so long as it has a decent prognosis. When my GSD was diagnosed with cancer, chemo was an option, but a 12 year old GSD with degenerative myelopathy and a possible 6 month extension? No, definitely not going to make his life miserable with the travel, constant vet appointments and chemo for my own benefit. He lived six weeks further (and vet appointments and naturopathic meds, plus blood tests easily ran up to 2-3K) and most days (95%) were quality until the last.

[rhubarbarin]

Originally Posted by heartmama

I'm coming from a third point of view--there are hundreds of thousands of American parents who do not have unlimited funds to pay for a child's medical crisis. They certainly won't have that kind of money for a pet. I'm not going to expect people to do more for a pet than many could for their human family.

Almost half of the bankruptcies in this country are from *medical debt*. And a majority of those people *had health insurance*. The cost of human medical care is beyond the financial means of the middle class at this point.
Spending thousands of dollars on a pet is a luxury that many people just cannot afford. Fortunately, many CAN provide years of good preventive care and loving affection to their pets.

Good point.

[Sailor]

Originally Posted by SleeplessMommy

Large pure bred dogs appear to have much higher medical costs. A family member adopted a golden retriever after he was surrendered by owner at about 12 mo due to hip displaysia - a $3000 operation required. The golden rescue took care of the operation and he is doing just fine now. We would like to adopt a large dog sometime, but it is very sad to know the lifespan is about 12 years on average for a golden.

Actually, it's the opposite. Or rather, if you purchase a dog from an ethical breeder who does genetic and hip testing ... in every generation, for many generations back - you're not going to have any problems with your dog. You will pay a lot of money for the dog, but your medical costs will be low.

On the other hand, if you adopt a purebred dog or get one from an unethical breeder - it will cost less upfront, but in the long run the medical bills have the potential to be huge. Hip displaysia is so common among large dogs - I see it in the GSD rescue all the time.

I purchased my dog from a breeder - and there have been no health issues, and I doubt there will be. He's not going to get any genetic issues, and short of having an accident will have no hip issues. But, my dog's pedigree can be traced MANY generations back, lol. He's got a bigger family tree than I do.

I always tell people who are adopting from the GSD rescue where I volunteer - you have to have enough money for your dog's health - which can be anywhere from $1000 a year to $5000. As the dogs from rescue - it's a big question mark in terms of future potential problems. Not that I'm saying don't rescue - I'm a BIG fan of rescue. I'm just saying have enough money for the dog.

Re: kids and dogs ... if I had enough money or resources for medical bills for my kid OR for my dog - obviously, my kid would win out. So, in that sense, the "human family" is my first priority. But, if there wasn't a situation like that, where I had to choose - yea, I'd totally sell everything to pay for my dog. I just can't get that unconditional love and acceptance, and relative ease of care (after the first 2 years of training) from just anyone. Even human love comes with conditions - whereas my dog will love me regardless whether I'm a serial killer or not. Not saying I'm psycho ... just saying my dog loves me either way.

[CariOfOz]

Originally Posted by queenjane

if you spend any time on rat boards, you'll find it quite common for "dedicated" rat owners to spend that much and more on vet care for their rats. Paying for euthanasia when the time comes (which sometimes costs alot as well) is also the norm. When my first rat that i got in college got sick and died (taking a day or two to do so ) i didnt even know euthanasia or even medical treatment was an option. One of my rats, a rescue, came to me neutered, so times have changed!


Katherine

I will very likely pay for euthanasia (and request to be there so I could see that it was humane), from what I understand they basically OD rats with inhalant anesthesia and since I've already paid for one round of anesthesia I can see that the cost isn't prohibitive. We'll funnel our pet money into building them the Hilton of rat homes since they don't get vax etc Spoiled rats indeed

[alicewyf]

I voted $500-$1000, because that's about all we could afford in one go. We've probably spent at least that much total on both cats since we got them, and we stay current on their vet visits, etc.

I do view my cats as my "babies," and I love them very much. I will do almost anything to keep them from suffering.

We have a lot more than 1K in savings, but I would not drain our savings to save a cat. We have a "pets" line in our budget, and we try to stick to that as much as possible. It's about responsible money management.

That said, our cats live a pretty high life. We buy top quality cat food, they get regular vet visits, they have an automatic litter box, lots of toys, cat trees, we play with them daily, we are careful to keep their tags updated (and one has a microchip) etc. They are likely to stay healthy for a very long time because we have invested a lot of time/money/energy in keeping them that way. We will probably take out pet insurance on them as they get older as well.

[bri276]

This thread seems to be evenly split between the people who feel that their pets are their babies (and are nearly or as attached to them as they are to their human children), and therefore are willing to spend whatever it takes to treat whatever medical problems arise (as any of us would for our children);

and those who feel that however much they love them, pets are animals, different from people, and choosing to stay within your financial means (whether that means $100 or $10,000) when pursuing treatment for them isn't a moral issue.

I know what you're saying, but it's not that cut and dry. I have two cats. For one, I would probably not spend more than say, 1/3 of our savings. For the other, I would sell my soul. I can't explain it. I'm really not a "pets are babies" person. I really am irritated by that attitude, actually. My female cat IS an animal and not a baby, and not even close to a child, and yet, she is the cutest animal I have ever laid eyes on. I've had many pets. She takes the cake. Just like people, sometimes you fall in love with a certain animal in a way.

I think it is totally up to an individual how much they are comfortable spending. Who am I to say a million dollars would be too much for Bill Gates to spend on his pet? When you earn the money, you get to decide how to spend it, and I can think of many worse ways than saving a pet's life, especially when that pet means so much to you or your family that they are priceless.

[Toolip]

Originally Posted by KayleeZoo

2 things stand out to me in this story. First of all, your cat was outside- at the mercy of every car on the road, not to mention other animals who could prey on her. If she had been inside, you would have never been in the situation where a $400 vet bill was necessary because she was hit by a car.

Second, it's not the vet's responsibility to incur the cost for your pet. Veterinary hospitals are not charitible organizations. Most vets aren't rich- they rely on their business to feed their family and pay the mortgage, just like the rest of us rely on our livlihood to do the same. MANY if not most vets do some sort of donation, whether it is with their services (doing reduced cost or free sterilizations for shelters) or outright monetary donations (which can mean providing free care to people), but it's not their obligation to do so. It's really aggravating when people come in and expect us to discount the price because the owner is doing "the right thing". It's the pet owner's obligation to do the responsible thing. That's what pet ownership is all about. What would happen if they incurred the cost for everyone who walked through the doors? They would go bankrupt and would not be able to help any animals, period. People need to remember that veterinarians are business people, too, and can not stay in business if they offer their services at below-cost prices for everyone who can't afford to care for their pet.

Emergency clinics charge more, yes. Their costs are MUCH higher than the average 9-5 small animal clinic. The whole staff gets paid more, the equipment needed to deal with emergencies is more expensive, etc. And you're paying for the convenience of being able to go in at 10PM without an appointment and have your animal seen. All of that results in a higher cost.

Some clinics maintain a charitible fund, whereby someone who cannot afford a bill can get some help. It was a much more popular idea 10 years ago, though. What started happening was that people found out which clinics had money to help, and they flocked to them; people started feeling like they didn't have to bear the financial burden of their pets if a charity account was available. It became an entitlement issue instead of a gift issue, which was why the idea came into being to start wtih.

Ok, I see where you're coming from, however, I mentioned that I thought people could pay a little extra at each visit to cover the costs of euthanasia so it wouldn't exactly be the vet covering it. I realize that I also mentioned that the vet could take on this cost, but I didn't mean it should come out of their savings, but that the clinic could budget to not charge for euthanasia services. As for the emergency services, I would have gladly paid extra if there had been a way to save the cat but it just felt like a real slap in the face being there sobbing holding my dead cat and her tapping her foot saying , "that'll be $400"

As far as the cat being outdoors... that is the only cat I have ever had that was an outdoor cat. She was abandoned by a college student living next door so we had been trying to gain her trust and had been feeding her. She had just started coming up on the deck and coming in the house. We tried locking her is and she FREAKED out so we were trying to gradually convert her. Please don't try to make me feel more responsible for this situation. I feel really bad about it already. Your post felt really judgmental and presumptive

[phathui5]

I read the same thing in that post Toolip. Our cat had been a stray and was not happy as an indoor cat. Now that she's allowed to come and go as she pleases, she's happier and nicer. Higher quality of life may mean being less safe, but that's often the case in life for people too.

[happyhats]

I'm a low income mama, but I can't put a price tag on my kitty's life. She is like a child to me...totally different in her needs, but not in my sense of responsibility for her. I find it very sad there aren't more options for animals in need, but that's also for a different thread. I don't think anyone could turn their head on human suffering the same way if it was in front of you-not that I'm saying that anyone on this board is.

Luckily I could borrow money from friends and family, and I could get a loan or make payments to care for my cat. I would sell my belongings as well. I know some people would think of this as depriving my child, but I don't think the loss of our big screen tv would be the same as the loss of a family pet (or whatever you could sell, just trying to find an example, lol).

As far as low income people having animals in and of itself, I don't think it's fair to judge. My kitty Oreo was a stray. She found her way to my porch and adopted us. Taking her in was really the most humane choice-there are no good shelters in our area and there is a higher ratio of people getting rid of cats than people looking to own one. I take care of her best I can-not that I deprive her because of money issues but I'm always learning more about her health and nutrition same as my own. Honestly, to care for her costs less than twenty dollars a month.

And also, what if something catastrophic happens and you lose your wealth or income? That shouldn't make you less of a good animal parent.

[kblackstone444]

Originally Posted by happyhats

I'm a low income mama, but I can't put a price tag on my kitty's life. She is like a child to me...totally different in her needs, but not in my sense of responsibility for her. I find it very sad there aren't more options for animals in need, but that's also for a different thread. I don't think anyone could turn their head on human suffering the same way if it was in front of you-not that I'm saying that anyone on this board is.

Luckily I could borrow money from friends and family, and I could get a loan or make payments to care for my cat. I would sell my belongings as well. I know some people would think of this as depriving my child, but I don't think the loss of our big screen tv would be the same as the loss of a family pet (or whatever you could sell, just trying to find an example, lol).

As far as low income people having animals in and of itself, I don't think it's fair to judge. My kitty Oreo was a stray. She found her way to my porch and adopted us. Taking her in was really the most humane choice-there are no good shelters in our area and there is a higher ratio of people getting rid of cats than people looking to own one. I take care of her best I can-not that I deprive her because of money issues but I'm always learning more about her health and nutrition same as my own. Honestly, to care for her costs less than twenty dollars a month.

And also, what if something catastrophic happens and you lose your wealth or income? That shouldn't make you less of a good animal parent.

You said it all very well. Especially the "She is like a child to me...totally different in her needs, but not in my sense of responsibility for her." That's the way I think of my dogs.