If your pet was ill... - Page 5

[dbsam]

I don't think most posters felt if you can't spend thousands on your pet you shouldn't have a pet. (or at least that is not how I read the posts.) I do think, if you can't afford basic routine medical care: heartworm preventative, spay/neuter, minor illnesses, etc, you shouldn't get a pet. (and I understand financial situations can change after you get the pet)

[ZenMamaJen]

Originally Posted by dbsam

I understand people who just cannot come up with the money for expensive veterinary treatment. I do not understand people who choose to not spend the money if they have it, can afford a payment plan, etc…

ITA.
Our dog got sick last spring, and fortunately we had just received our tax refund and we were able to use that money for him. He had liver failure and we ended up having to euthanize him. It sucked. If I could afford insurance for our cat, I would do it. But right now I have to pay for insurance for my kids.

[phathui5]

Originally Posted by dbsam

I don't think most posters felt if you can't spend thousands on your pet you shouldn't have a pet. (or at least that is not how I read the posts.) I do think, if you can't afford basic routine medical care: heartworm preventative, spay/neuter, minor illnesses, etc, you shouldn't get a pet. (and I understand financial situations can change after you get the pet)

That's not what I'm reading. I'm seeing people talking about spending thousands of dollars on an animal's care.

[whalemilk]

When I was a kid, there was a different culture around pet ownership. My parents took the cats in for their shots once per year, that was it. If a cat got cancer, we pampered it until it seemed to be suffering so much it wasn't enjoying food or attention, then we put it down. The idea of pet chemo would have only been credible as the punchline of a joke about yuppies. When I moved out, I got cats. I honestly never considered that I should have to be able to pay for them to stay in "intensive care," ever. I figured if I could get them their yearly preventive care, food, and some $1 catnip toys, we were good to go. It seems kind of perverse to chastise people who were raised as I was (millions of Americans over the age of 18 I'd guess) for being irresponsible because we wouldn't think to pay to put our pets through the same medical interventions we might choose for a disabled grandparent.

[phathui5]

:

[dbsam]

Originally Posted by phathui5

That's not what I'm reading. I'm seeing people talking about spending thousands of dollars on an animal's care.

yes, I'm one of the people that has and would. However, I'm not saying you shouldn't have a pet if you can't.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by majazama

I WOULD NOT EVER go into debt for an animal. Jesus. What about if you totally ruin your credit rating and you can never buy a home for yourself and children? Well, I guess if you saved rover, then it was worth it.

eta: if I had oodles of money, sure, I'd pay up, but not in the financial position I'm in now.

Well said!

[Scribe]

In my house, it comes down to this: my pets are the only creatures in the world who are dependent on me. I have neither children, nor a partner with medical needs, nor an elderly parent--no human beings depend on me for their care. That being the case, I can go into big debt (and have) to take care of a pet. The only person that's going to hurt is me. However, if I had human dependents competing for my resources, things would likely feel differently. I can accept that.

The bottom line for me is that I want people to do the best they can to care for their animals. And most people do. But some don't, and because I do rescue work, I come into more contact with those animals than I otherwise would. It's a horrible, sad and frustrating situation.

[dbsam]

Originally Posted by avengingophelia

The bottom line for me is that I want people to do the best they can to care for their animals. And most people do. But some don't, and because I do rescue work, I come into more contact with those animals than I otherwise would. It's a horrible, sad and frustrating situation.

:
I also do rescue work and understand what you are saying.

[ZenMamaJen]

Originally Posted by heartmama

I hope I word this constructively.

I feel strongly that preventive care and emergency care are two very, very different issues. I am uncomfortable with a comparison that renders responsible pet ownership to either the financially secure or those willing to bury their family in debt. There is something elitist about that view which bothers me--although I realize people aren't intending it that way.

Preventive care is within reach of most pet owners in many communities. Low cost spay/neuter programs, low cost vaccine programs, and bargain shopping online for flea and heartworm meds, makes it possible for many pet owners to go a long way in preventing common ailments in their pets without breaking the bank. There are lifestyle choices that keep pets healthy as well, and don't cost any money--don't let your pet run loose outside, use a leash, and keep your cat indoors. So, I agree there is a certain level of care that is part of responsible pet ownership.

But when we start talking about how we should have thousands set aside in a pet fund, you lose me. I am not going to tell anyone they shouldn't get a pet because they don't have thousands set aside in the bank. There are tens of thousands of kids in the U.S. who have no healthcare and no financial cushion to cover their medical costs. Sure, their parents can get low cost antibiotics and vaccines at the public health clinic, but beyond that, there is no affordable help. What are we saying here? How do you reconcile what these parents are dealing with--How do you put a $5000 pet emergency in perspective for those families? At least with kids, most hospitals will help them first and ask questions about payment later. Nobody is going to do that with a pet. The whole comparison makes me so uncomfortable.

I find the idea that these families--and there are so many of them--that they don't deserve pets unless they will somehow magically spare no expense--very disturbing. How many animals are dumped every day? Animals who will thrive on good preventive care and human companionship? Animals who will live for years if given the chance? How are these animals, and these families, better off without each other? Is that what some people think?

I think it's a very fortunate pet who lands an owner who can spare no expense with their care. That is a wonderful thing. But for the rest of us, who have taken in dumped pets facing certain death, I think we should feel pretty good at the end of the day for all the healthy years we made sure our pets enjoyed because of our efforts. There are things money cannot buy, that are probably more important to our pets than emergency medical care--like the chance to live out the good years they have with love, comfort and affection. I'm not going to put a price on that....

Well said...thank you.
Gosh, I wish I'd written that.

[ZenMamaJen]

Originally Posted by avengingophelia

In my house, it comes down to this: my pets are the only creatures in the world who are dependent on me. I have neither children, nor a partner with medical needs, nor an elderly parent--no human beings depend on me for their care. That being the case, I can go into big debt (and have) to take care of a pet. The only person that's going to hurt is me. However, if I had human dependents competing for my resources, things would likely feel differently. I can accept that.

The bottom line for me is that I want people to do the best they can to care for their animals. And most people do. But some don't, and because I do rescue work, I come into more contact with those animals than I otherwise would. It's a horrible, sad and frustrating situation.

I agree with you, but some of your previous posts in this thread seemed to indicate that if we weren't willing to go into huge amounts of debt/spend all of our savings/sell our house to care for our sick pets, than we didn't deserve to have animals as companions. So, I think people are responding to that tone, iykwim.

[thismama]

Originally Posted by avengingophelia

In my house, it comes down to this: my pets are the only creatures in the world who are dependent on me. I have neither children, nor a partner with medical needs, nor an elderly parent--no human beings depend on me for their care. That being the case, I can go into big debt (and have) to take care of a pet. The only person that's going to hurt is me. However, if I had human dependents competing for my resources, things would likely feel differently. I can accept that.

I am so glad to see you say this. I'm sure it's not true for everyone, but having children for me greatly changed my pets' importance in my life, and the extent to which I am willing to extend myself/take risks to provide for their care. So I do think the 'common sense' type responses are probably coming from mamas who feel similarly and who do not have a large cushion, so the question is more real for them than for those who have a lot of financial protection. I dont think I or they are bad people for answering as we have. I think it's reality, yk?

And I dont think ppl should have to have the means to fork out thousands on vet bills to be worthy pet owners. I mean, if we had a shortage of pets then there could be some application process involving a huge financial component. But that's not the reality. In the animal world, there are no wolf and bear vets. Domestic animals are unique in their access to veterinary care at all. We do what we can, and we don't do what we cannot. And IMO that is okay.

[Scribe]

Well, I was being too dogmatic earlier. I've been shown the error of my thinking today, and I appreciate it.

That being said, I don't think it's OK to keep an animal in pain. If you have an animal you cannot afford to keep out of pain, then it is your responsibility to have that animal euthanized.

[onlyzombiecat]

I voted $100- $500 for an illness (not routine care). If it went over $500 right now we just couldn't afford it.
If we had the money there would probably not be a limit. Our pets are important to us. We take good care of them and to give them the best quality of life we can.

[ZenMamaJen]

Originally Posted by avengingophelia

Well, I was being too dogmatic earlier. I've been shown the error of my thinking today, and I appreciate it.

That being said, I don't think it's OK to keep an animal in pain. If you have an animal you cannot afford to keep out of pain, then it is your responsibility to have that animal euthanized.

I am sure that most reasonable people would agree with you!

[Sailor]

It depends on the condition. If my dog had a chronic condition (not likely due to this genetics). But, theoretically, if it was a painful, chronic condition and surgery would only help some ... but not much, I'd opt to put him to sleep. I don't think he'd be happy living in pain.

On the other hand, if it was a treatable condition that would go away with surgery or be alleviated ... dude, I'd pay any amount of money. If I didn't have it in cash, I'd use credit. If I didn't have enough in credit - I'd sell everything to pay for the medical bills.

My dog is ... I can't describe it. He's the best darn friend I've ever had. We're a team. He's never let me down and would do anything for me. He loves me without condition and without reserve. I can't get that just anywhere. So, yea, I'd never give up on him.

[littleaugustbaby]

Right now, nothing. I just don't have it. Getting a loan or using credit cards is not an option. I love my pets like family, but I honestly don't know what I'd do at this point if one of them required medical care. I don't even have enough money to pay for medical care for the humans in my family. If it was that serious, I might consider euthenasia, even though it would destroy me.

If I had the money, there's no limit on how much I'd spend to take care of one of my pets.

[Mama Dragon]

A million dollars as long as the vet let us work it off and make payments. I guess it would depend on how much we could beg, steal and borrow. It's unlimited.

[CariOfOz]

Originally Posted by heartmama

I feel strongly that preventive care and emergency care are two very, very different issues. I am uncomfortable with a comparison that renders responsible pet ownership to either the financially secure or those willing to bury their family in debt. There is something elitist about that view which bothers me--although I realize people aren't intending it that way.

Very well said.

I'd spend what I could afford to spend. We don't have credit cards and no real savings so neither of those are an option. It would honestly depend on the exact situation and whether the vet would allow a payment plan.

That being said.. I just dropped 90bucks on care for a 15 dollar pet rat who had a nearly severed & broken tail. and for some reason I find that incredibly amusing. But he's a sweet rat, and it was MY fault that the accident that hurt him occurred so I kinda think it would've been wrong to injure him and then go have him killed. (and so far the tail hasn't turned a freaky colour or fallen off lol.. and rats take antibiotics FAR better than cats do I must say.)

[queenjane]

Originally Posted by CariOfOz

That being said.. I just dropped 90bucks on care for a 15 dollar pet rat who had a nearly severed & broken tail. and for some reason I find that incredibly amusing.

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