The only people I know who actually spend $1300 on a handbag are also giving their pets gold-plated medical care. If you have that kind of money to throw around on a purse, you just plain have that kind of money to throw around on whatever you want.

The same group, however, fails to see the need for universal health care. Having not really wanted for anything in their lives, they don't really understand people who do. (Even if they have jobs--one told me that she doesn't want it because there's no way it will be as good as what her company provides now. Hope she keeps her job!)

I read your article with some interest. I certainly understand what you and your readers are saying about putting a limit on the dollar amount of your vet bills, but I have to say that this question is one I have never heard dog owners raise. Perhaps it's because I live in a more affluent area, but I doubt it. One of my neighbors went into debt to provide her old dog with the chance to live longer with the assistance of various kinds of therapies. These in addition to holistic remedies as well. One man I spoke with briefly in Central Park, where many of us complain about the cost of veterninary care, told me his 11 year old dog was a survivor of brain surgery. I doubt if any of us would have thought ill of these two people had they decided that the cost of care was not only prohibitive but not necessarily in the dogs' best interests. But none of us was at all surprised to learn that for them, as for most of us, there is no dollar limit for medical care for our dogs.

You titled your comment on p. 53, "I can't stand my cat's" (which by the way doesn't require an apostrophe). It is an emotionally unhinged screed demonstrating something deeply disturbing about you.

To characterize that insane diatribe as 'simply agree(ing) with the article" is ludicrous.

In that post and every subsequent one, you've attributed arguments to me that I've never made, made observations about my personal life and behavior that you couldn't possibly have knowledge of, and claimed to know my opinions on subjects wholly unrelated to anything discussed here.

And most unsettling of all, after fabricating these items you use them as tools of argument as if they are real and factual. This goes beyond functional idiocy into the realm of psychosis.

Seek help.

I agree with Reilly's take on the article. People will spend 1300 on a designer hand bag, but question whether the money is a waste when spent on pet treatments. No one is saying that a choice is being made between saving starving children and throwing the money at a pet who is going to die anyway. By the way,it is interesting to see that there are some real whack jobs that subscribe to salon.You know who you are!

I simply agreed with the article and I was attacked venemously by the pious sanctimonious insane animals are people too crowd. People like you are intolerant idealogues. I find it appalling that you people get your panties in such a twist about someone complaining about thier cats yet don't bat an eye when you read about live children being tossed onto bonfires in Darfur, or little girls being sold into sex slavery, or senior citizens dying from oozing bed sores in nursing homes. Your values are totally twisted and backwards, and I hope one day you have to choose whether to spend your money on your ailing cat or your ailing child.

This was a shabby piece of writing by Ada Calhoun meant only to exorcise the displeasure she harbors at having had to pay $1300 for her cat’s health. Attempting to somehow vaguely portray herself as a victim, she tries to invent societal pressures that don’t exist and hints at nefarious veterinary practices that she never demonstrates. But underlying all of that is a palpable resentment of her pet. This resentment seems to have acted as a catalyst for many of the commenters anxious to prove their ability to formulate platitudes such as “a cat is just a cat”.

Even if the crux of this piece had been about whether humanity should value animals exactly as it does other humans, (except, of course, the humans we bomb the f*ck out of) which it quite obviously wasn’t, one wonders why anyone would bother writing something as unenlightening as “a cat is just a cat”.

But equal valuation of animals to humans was never the theme of this piece. Nor was it about taking “heroic measures” to save a pet. And although she hints at it, Ms. Calhoun never comes out and says that the veterinary profession is a rip-off. I’m glad the anonymous veterinarian had his say, but not before many of the easily manipulated commenters did Calhoun’s bidding by pretending for her that veterinarians were exploiting us.

As to Elise H.’s inquiry; “I seriously don't get those who believe that once you have a child, you can no longer love your pets. Are you implying that the human heart has a limited capacity for love?”

No, they were only implying that about themselves. Except the ones who weren’t implying it but were stating it loud and clear. (See tonia67 on p. 53 for a real (head)case study)

Some commenters went beyond even a limited capacity for love, or compassion and demonstrated a vicious attitude towards the animal kingdom, as if somehow our pets, rather than being an addition to our lives and a joy and pleasure for us, were an unwanted burden that we were saddled with and that was somehow constraining us.

Ms. Calhoun can be satisfied that her self- serving, dishonest piece of work found so many dishonest, self-serving followers.

A cat is just a cat, a dog is just a dog. They might be loving and affectionate animals (or less so, as my family cat was) but they're just not on the same level as people. Because... they're animals. They deserve humane treatment, a loving home, and plenty of food, water and shelter. But not heroic measures to save their life. And it's beyond absurd to expect an average family to go into debt to pay for these measures.