Letters to the Editor
-
An easier way to make the decision
I have an elderly cat. 4 years ago I spent $2000 on an operation that saved his life. It was almost guaranteed as a one-time curative operation. It worked and I'm happy he's still around.
But...I feel less guilty now at the thought of not paying for something similar in the future.
Why spend thousands of dollars on a sick animal when you could instead save the life of a young, healthy, perfectly adoptable pet currently wasting away in cage at your municipal shelter?
By spending thousands, you are making that choice: you are allowing a healthy animal to die in order to save your old sick animal.
Free yourself of the guilt and save the animal at the shelter.
-
Thanks!
I'm so glad someone else noticed this scam. Suburban Vets in well to do 'burbs are the worst.
Recommendation: go to a Vet that has a large animal practice as well as small, somewhere in a smaller town. They tend to have a much more practical and less judgmental view of the value (monetary and otherwise) of your animal.
-
You need a gerbil
Or maybe a hamster. Something disposable, that you won't feel obliged to take to the vet if it gets sick. I can understand you not wanting to pay a lot for the cat's care, but I can't understand how you could object to the vet taking care of the animal and then finding a good home for it rather than putting it down because you didn't want to pay. Would you actually rather see the cat die than be in somebody else's home? I have 3 dogs, and have spent a fortune on them. They make me happy. They bring many things into my life. But if i couldn't care for them, and somebody else could, I would let them go rather than let them die. They aren't possesions, they are living creatures that at least deserve a chance.
-
Setting limits
Everybody has to set limits, it is each person's responsibility to figure out what those are. Also there are those who don't realize what it takes to care for a pet and the expenses involved who should not take a pet on in the first place (I am thinking of college students, notorious for abandoning pets once they get sick or they need to move somewhere they can't take the pet). I have spend thousands on a dog, a dear love of mine, with a chronic condition, which eventually killed him, but it took nine years, and during that time he lived a better life than he would without the treatment, and it definitely extended his life beyond what it would have been otherwise.
However, at the end, when the AMC wanted to do a blood transfusion and keep him in the hospital for many days to monitor him, I knew that would really do him in, and wouldn't really help in the long term. I said no, and have always had to be forceful there as to what I can spend (often beyond what I can afford but not nearly as much as they would run up if I left it up to them completely). Places like that are on the cutting edge of medical care for animals and they tend to want to use heroic measures. Often it is unrealistic to believe that everyone that walks in can afford it or the pet is even well served by it.
If an animal you love is really sick and old, I think it is much kinder to keep them with you at the end as long as possible, rather than be in the hospital alone, or surrounded by other distressed animals, getting invasive dangerous treatments. Also I think of what someone said to me once, about their elderly mother. She had an old dog who was sick, and the vet wanted to do procedures which would have cost thousands. The old lady could not afford it, except to put it all on a credit card. It's not right either for that lady to have to pay those bills for years afterwards, doing without and putting herself in financial peril to expensively medically treat a basically unsalvagable situation, it's not fair to her, and her rights are important too, even if at the moment one is so blinded by the urgency and grief it feels right to do anything at any amount of money to make the problem go away. I have had vets pressure me to do weekly blood tests after a certain point when they were just "monitoring" and also tests to rule things out when I can only afford a more focused approach to dealing with what is obviously wrong.
I think pets really teach you to be more humane, and give unconditional love in a way that people never can, except for very young children. But it's the same with people sometimes, they say someone who goes on life support at the end is getting a $600K funeral. These heroic measures do not cure, only prolong the agony.
Putting my pet to sleep was a kindness to him at the time, and I was with him. It was a huge loss, devastating for me, he had a huge personality and I loved him dearly, and he loved me. But he could not stand up by himself anymore, and he was hanging on by a thread, it probably would have taken another couple of days to the natural end, full of suffering for him and panic for me and my other dog. After the shot, it took maybe five seconds, and it was very peaceful. It really was like going into a deep sleep. I wish he could have lived longer and been healthy, but it didn't work out that way. I wish we humans had such a humane way to go when we get to the point of incurable suffering, but the law does not allow it.
-
@ kieran
I remember the story of Job in the bible, where his children were all killed because of a game between God and the Devil, but it all turned out okay in the end because God gave him other's people's children to replace his. It seemed ridiculous to me, and your suggestion that putting a cat down and getting a new one seems just as ridiculous. We live in a disposable society. If our microwave breaks down, we don't have it repaired, we throw it away and get a new one. But pets aren't microwaves. They are living creatures. You can't just get rid of one and get a new one like it didn't mean anything. I know that a lot of animals are euthanized every day, and I hate that, but that is no reason not to care for the ones we have right now.