If your pet was ill... - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

View Poll Results: What is the maximum amount (lump sum) you could pay if your middle aged pet needed medical treatment
$100-500 46 25.27%
$500-1000 34 18.68%
$1000-2000 31 17.03%
$2000-3000 16 8.79%
$3000-4000 6 3.30%
$4000-5000 4 2.20%
$5000-6000 1 0.55%
$6000 and above 23 12.64%
Other 21 11.54%
Voters: 182. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-13-2008, 05:37 PM
 
Scribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Probably at the thrift store
Posts: 3,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by texaspeach View Post
I don't think I can put a price on it. My pets are part of my family, and I'd do what ever I could to make sure a treatable condition was treated (assuming a good quality of life and otherwise healthy animal), no matter the cost.

When we were dealing with urinary crystals, I think we ended up spending close to $2500. That was very, very hard for us - we were so broke when it happened - we really couldn't afford that, but we couldn't stand to do nothing/euthanize for a treatable condition.

We are better prepared to handle a pet emergency now, but if we had to, we'd borrow money. We also have a good relationship with our vet, so hopefully we could come to an agreement about payments.
This seems a very reasonable outlook to me.
Scribe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-13-2008, 05:39 PM
 
CameronsMama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted other because what I would pay and what I could come up with as a cash lump sum are not the same. My dogs are like kids to me, and if they needed treatment I would get it done, no question. I probably couldn't do more than a few thousand without turning to the credit cards right now because the rest of our savings is tied up in accounts that would take time to access, but I have a credit card that has a high limit and I keep it with a zero balance specifically so it's available for medical emergencies (for humans or pets) that I would put it on, then pay it off.

MJ~ Proud mom to DS (4)
CameronsMama is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 05:55 PM
 
kblackstone444's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: MA
Posts: 3,739
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by avengingophelia View Post
There isn't a maximum. If there was a course of treatment that had reasonable odds of working and wouldn't be horrible for the pet, I'd run up credit cards or take out a loan or whatever I needed to do.
Exactly. My dogs are part of my family. I would go broke treating them medically.

I pray for the day Family Court recognizes that CHILDREN have rights, parents only have PRIVILEGES.  Only then, will I know my child is safe.
kblackstone444 is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 05:56 PM
 
mesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 1,708
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I can't put a definite limit on how much we'd spend. We are most definitely NOT rich, but I would do whatever it takes to make sure my pets are cared for. Just like I would my kids. And you know? Speaking from experience, it really does pay to shop around.

Short story: My first basenji escaped from our yard when I wasn't home. DH was out of town, and I came home after 10 pm to find my dog crouching outside the fence. I didn't know what was wrong with her, I just knew something was VERY wrong. I loaded her in the car and took her to the emergency vet, who charged me $150 just to look at her. $250 for xrays later, we knew she had fractured her pelvis. Vet wanted to operate right then, of course I had to talk to my DH, so he let me take her home with pain meds and a warning that she couldn't relieve herself, so we needed to act quickly (which was a lie, and I decided it was a scare tactic. Low down dirty thing to do if you ask me).

I spent the next day calling vets all over LA county and OC. I took her to see two. The first looked at her xrays and said she needed surgery. It would cost $3500. Of course I didn't have that kind of cash. I called my mother in tears and begged her to pay. She said she would consider it, but only after I had tried every avenue. I went back home and called every charity org I could find, you know those places that help elderly folks with their pet expenses? I knew they wouldn't help me, but maybe they had some ideas for me. One lady told me to call a particular vet in Hollywood. So I did, and then I drove there with Tavi (we lived in the San Gabriel valley, so it was quite a drive)...this vet and two of his colleagues (I didn't know they were orthopedists!) took her xrays and consulted with each other.

Then they came out and told me that in their opinion, Tavi didn't need surgery at all! Told me to keep her quiet and crated for 6 weeks, and she should heal fine...that we would never be able to breed her (she was spayed anyway) but she shouldn't suffer any ill effects. Then they charged me $15 for the office visit.

Anyway, I would, at this point, depending on prognosis, of course, would move heaven and earth to pay for medical care for the dogs and kids. Barring a life threatening emergency, though, I would take a long hard look at what the vet is charging and try to shop around. We're considering pet insurance right now. I don't know if we'll get it.

Misti, mom to DS (12), DS (9), DD (3), and Mr. Man (October '10)!

mesa is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 07:47 PM
 
WC_hapamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,604
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
We've made the choice of only keeping pets whose veterinary care we can afford. Right now, that means we just have an aquatic turtle.
WC_hapamama is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 07:58 PM
 
alicia622's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: 44° 48' N 68° 50' W
Posts: 4,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I voted 500-1000 and DH said up to 500.

Several years ago I probably would have said whatever it costs and I would have gone into debt for my cats. But now I see it differently. They are inside cats so they don't run the risk of car accidents, animal or evil people attacks or catching a disease.

Alicia DH Mike DS Gage Lola & Zeus Fishy Dishy, Charkey and Shark
RIP Sidney 1994-2010 RIP Charlie Brown 2008-2010
alicia622 is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:01 PM
 
Hey Mama!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: MO
Posts: 2,903
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
We've paid $750 for our pug who had pancreatitis a couple of years ago. She is now nearing 10 and is an elderly dog so I don't know what our limit would be.

student/sahm to three awesome girls who are always on the go!
Hey Mama! is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:16 PM
 
dbsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'd spend whatever was needed for a treatable condition. Heck, I spent a couple thousand dollars on Harry the night I found him - and he wasn't my dog. The vets told me the emergency surgery would save him but he was a crazy, 10-12 year old, possibly incontinent dog. He's been a loving part of our family for over five years. (I believe it w/h/b reasonable to euthanize him. I just couldn’t do it.) 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…
dbsam is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 08:27 PM
 
Scribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Probably at the thrift store
Posts: 3,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsam View Post
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…
Yes. Exactly.
Scribe is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 09:14 PM
 
FancyD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleyhalfmoon View Post
Exactly. My dogs are part of my family. I would go broke treating them medically.
See, I would not. That doesn't mean I suck as a pet owner. I have limited funds, and my kid comes first. Mind you, when I say 'broke', I mean 'I have less than a dollar to my name', so YMMV.
FancyD is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:02 PM
 
Knittin' in the Shade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: near Philly, PA
Posts: 4,541
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by harleyhalfmoon
Exactly. My dogs are part of my family. I would go broke treating them medically.
I don't understand that mentality, at all. What happens to your kids when you go broke treating your dogs? When you go broke, how are you going to provide food for your kids?
Knittin' in the Shade is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:06 PM
 
Teensy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 1,688
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I could come up with $20,000 cash to save my cat's life if needed, but I wouldn't ever spend that much money on him. He was adopted from the pound - he probably would have been put to sleep that week had we not done so. He's been fed and taken care of and provided basic medical needs. But I would not spend huge amounts of money on an animal when there are children dying around the world from malnutrition and a lack of clean water. I could not put such a priority on a pet when the same money could help improve the lives of human beings around the world. For that matter, hundreds of thousands of animals are euthanised each year in shelters and that sum could save many other animals, instead of just one.

We faced this issue when our other cat suddenly became very ill. I think we paid ended up paying around $1,000 to the ER vet center (he died before they figured out what was wrong with him). It's a hard question to answer.

Tanya
Mom to John (age 11), James (age 9) & Katherine (age 5)
Teensy is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:30 PM
 
SleeplessMommy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,113
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I know someone who got chemo for a RAT with cancer. This rat was already at end-of-lifespan. So if the cancer got cured the rat was expected to die anyway within 6 months or so. (she has no kids!)

What is the animal's expected quality of life after a proposed procedure?

I know humans who have gotten care they did not want - like a friend who was a lifelong member of the Hemlock Society and died of Alzheimers 14 years after diagnosis. She had significant deterioration of quality of life, to put it mildly.
SleeplessMommy is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:37 PM
 
heartmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: In the bat cave with Irishmommy
Posts: 5,986
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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....

Mother is the word for God on the hearts and lips of all little children--William Makepeace Thackeray
heartmama is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:42 PM
 
Gunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: bali, indonesia & north cackalacky
Posts: 3,076
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
we just paid 3,000 a couple of months ago to have surgery on my rottie's leg. he's still recovering. i had no idea if/how much i would spend on him but when it came time to do it, our family agreed that there wasn't another option but to do it. he'll be 6 years old at the end of this month.

doula mama to my nov 05 and my feb 08 babes who wrap me in love.
Gunter is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 10:52 PM
Banned
 
whalemilk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thank you for that, Heartmama. Thank you so much. I just recently had to send a dear old friend of mine to a rescue because of our financial situation. We couldn't care for her anymore if she got sick and she was getting up there in years. I miss her a lot. And still, even as we were calling rescues trying to find someone who would take her, we got more "attitude" to the effect of us being irresponsible people who took on a dog and coldly rejected her when we had kids. Well I got her from the pound the week she was going to be gassed, and gave her 5 years of love, play, and good food and water. I guess since I am "bad" for owning her, and "bad" for giving her up, I should have just let them put her down.

She's alive now, at least--the rescue who took her is no kill. I still miss her and feel terrible though.
whalemilk is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 11:00 PM
 
cfiddlinmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gestating My Rainbow Baby GIRL!
Posts: 1,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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. I would do what I could to take care of my pets medically. They have a wonderful quality of life. There are limits to what I can afford though. I don't have $5000 to spend on my dog. I don't think that means I shouldn't have him. I'm not going to rack up credit card debt without serious reason either.



ETA - for some reason it won't let me make a new post. I just wanted to say: Thank you Heartmama - you said it better than I did.
cfiddlinmama is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 11:00 PM
 
yukookoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Ca
Posts: 875
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
our two dogs are like our babies.

We just paid 600 to get them both out quarantined at home for 6 months instead of in a cage

If we had the choice of uethinising (sorry cant spell haha) or doing a vet quarantine which for the 2 of them would have been well over 10,000 we agreed we would do it.

We would go into debt for them in a second. But also they are chihuahuas with life expectancy over 20 years, i dont know if that makes a difference or would to us if they were a different breed and had a much shorter life expectancy .

We made a commitment to them to take care of them, They depend on us.

posted before i read the threat so im adding

The above was just our situation. I dont think others should go into debt for their pets necessarily. And of course if it comes down to our daughter or the dogs, it would be our daughter. There is a limit for sure, but to us at the moment up to maybe 20,000 in debt we could do. It wouldnt be smart, probably crazy, but I dont know in the situation I couldnt look at my dogs eyes and tell him he needs to die because we cant afford to save him or her (we have a girl and a boy). They have given us everything. Their whole world revolves around us Its just hard for me to think about losing them. Just being without them for 5 days while they were at animal control and having them come and take them out of the blue, was so traumatic for me. It really made me think about losing them. They mean so much to our daughter as well. She was looking for them when they were gone.

So i dunno we would do what we could up to a point. And i think its a personal decision that of course depends on one's financial situation.
yukookoo is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 11:00 PM
 
Ola_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,126
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I don't think it's necessary to be able to spend thousands of dollars. But I question the wisdom of saving a pet from a shelter if you can't provide medical care when it's needed. And if someone is so tight on cash, why would they adopt a pet and stretch their finances even more?
Ola_ is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 11:37 PM
 
canadianchick's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Enjoying the early Spring!!! Yeah!
Posts: 3,610
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KayleeZoo View Post
Basically, we go into pet ownership knowing that it's going to be ungodly expensive. They cost what they cost. They depend on us to care for them. And it's our responsibility to do that.

:

Kim, proud CPS mom to Marnie and my 4 legged kids, Jess, Zander, Oliver, Stumpy and Eddie.
canadianchick is offline  
Old 10-13-2008, 11:40 PM
 
dbsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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)
dbsam is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:11 AM
 
ZenMamaJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Dillweed Estate
Posts: 569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsam View Post
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.
ZenMamaJen is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:14 AM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,020
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsam View Post
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.

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
14yo ds   11yo dd  9yo ds and 7yo ds and 2yo ds  
phathui5 is online now  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:28 AM
Banned
 
whalemilk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 630
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
whalemilk is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:32 AM
 
phathui5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oregon
Posts: 17,020
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
:

Midwife (CPM, LDM) and homeschooling mama to:
14yo ds   11yo dd  9yo ds and 7yo ds and 2yo ds  
phathui5 is online now  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:41 AM
 
dbsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phathui5 View Post
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.
dbsam is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:43 AM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 12,099
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by majazama View Post
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!
thismama is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:45 AM
 
Scribe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Probably at the thrift store
Posts: 3,806
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Scribe is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:49 AM
 
dbsam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by avengingophelia View Post
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.
dbsam is offline  
Old 10-14-2008, 12:53 AM
 
ZenMamaJen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Dillweed Estate
Posts: 569
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by heartmama View Post
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 is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off