As a former pre-vet student and lifelong animal lover, the most important lesson I ever learned when it came to determining what level of care to offer a sick or injured animal was how much benefit was the animal actually going to derive from that treatment vs all other considerations (including cost).

For example, with my 18 1/2 year old cat with a massive abdominal tumor, the vet explained what medical option was available and what the probably benefit would be. Surgery was possible, but given my cat's age, her depleted physical condition and other medical considerations (such as slowly increasing renal insufficiency), surgery might only have bought us around three months and they very likely would not have been good months for her. My vet is an amazing women and she said honestly that given all of that, it would not be worth it financially to do the surgery and it would not be in Freebee's best interest. We agreed that the time had come to euthanize her that day. Which while it was one of the most painful decisions I'd ever made, but I have no doubt at all that it was the right one.

Now if Freebee had been a much younger cat who if the surgery would have given her years of healthy and pain-free living, I would not have hesitated to have the surgery done. In that case, she would have derived a much greater benefit and it would make far more sense ethically and financially. Just as I would question putting an elderly human through painful medical procedures that would do little to extend their lives or improve their quality of life, it made no sense to put an elderly cat through surgery that would not give her a good outcome.

There are a lot of good vets out there who do understand the financial considerations that go into determining patient care. I know vets who will work out payment plans after reducing their fees to cost in order to help family afford treatment that their animals needed, and I know of owners who have made huge sacrifices for their pets. Believe me, no decent vet will urge expensive procedures unless they do believe that the animal will benefit greatly. What frustrates them is when they see animals overcome by things that would be preventable with minimal cost, such as proper vaccinations or preventative medications, only to end up as complicated medical and financial nightmares later on. What makes more sense – spending around $75 a year to prevent heartworm, or spending hundreds of dollars and putting your pet through the pain of arsenic compound treatments to kill a heartworm infestation? Paying for vaccinations to keep your pet from getting sick, or watching your new puppy slowly die from parvo?

Euthanizing an animal because it is sick and suffering is not a sin. It is a loving act. Nor is it a sin to refuse treatment that will not do your pet any real benefit and drain you financially. But I have a difficult time trying to understand why some pet owners refuse to pay for basic preventative care, and then moan about the high costs of treatment.

I'm just glad that we did. I adored my cat Freebee and she was one of my dearest friends for the nearly 19 years of her life. She saw me through a great deal of crap and unlike a lot of humans who could be appallingly dense at times, she always seemed to know when I needed her. She could tell if I was upset or hurting or angry. When I was recovering from surgery, she had the amazing sense to curl up on my lap, rather than trying to sit on my chest the way she normally would.

When I lost her this past November, my grief was very real and surprised me with it's depth. I didn't cry as much at my grandfather's funeral as I did leaving the vet's office with an empty carrier. I was a complete mess for days afterward and even now, months after her passing, I still get very teary when I think about her.

It may not be a deeply complicated love as you should share with a fellow human. You don't have arguments and hard feelings clouding the waters. Sure, some of the affection she showed I'm sure was because I was the one filling up her food bowl, but it was more than that. Happiness at being well fed wouldn't explain her seeking out my company when she wanted a cuddle, or the little head butts she would give me when she saw I was waking up in the morning.

You cannot live with an animal for years and share its life without being marked by its passing or to be thankful for each day you get to share with it.

Considering that the segement of the Catholic church that Gibson was alligned with has outright rejected all reforms made by the church in the past century (most notibly Vatican II), I cannot see how he could take advantage of any reforms that would allow divorced Catholics to remarry in the church and not be labeled as the greatest hyprocrite in history.

Gibson has public rejected such reforms as the reciting of mass in the language of the congregation rather than in Latin, the acknowleging of antisemitism by the church - reforms that had done nothing but make the church of more accessable and open to its lay congregations, and to acknowlege wrongdoings done by the churt in its past. For Gibson to suddenly decide that this reform would be one that he could accept because it would give him a personal direct benefit would be nothing short of the height of chutzpeh. Perhaps if Gibson was as devout a Catholic as he likes to make himself out to be, he would have managed to avoid cheating on his wife and bringing this divorce about in the first place.