Should a pet be kept until it dies of natural causes, or is it best to have it humanely destroyed before it becomes too much of a liabilty? What anyway, is 'too much of a liability'? Is cost a reasonable factor to consider - for instance last year, our cat cost in vet's fees, cattery fees, insurance, food, etc, more than the combined private medical insurance for my wife and myself. There are many important things I could spend this money on, so is it reasonable or even responsible to spend increasing amounts on a family pet? Another factor is the potential intrusion on normal family life, such as holidays and travel, where it is difficult, if not impossible, to find someone prepared to care for an animal likely to become ill and require veterinary attention. Most catteries understandibly will not accept animals which have a history of even minor illness.
I realise this is an emotive subject, and there are possibly, maybe probably, people who will hate me for even asking it, but it is becoming an increasing dilemma.

aramis, I don't hate you for asking. People view their pets in different ways. To some people they are virtually 'children', for others they are animals. You treat animals kindly, but do not get excessive about them, in my opinion.

I have a cat, I have had five cats (all at the same time!) and to be honest I really didn't want any. At present I have one, and once he has gone to the cattery in the sky he won't be replaced.

Like many households, it was the children, and in particular my daughter, who wanted a cat. I relented and she had one for her eleventh birthday. I thought it better for the cat (and less hassle for me) to have a second cat to keep it company as it monoplolised me all the time. We then obtained a little female kitten about six months later. Being female, and with my two children, I agreed to her having a litter before having her spayed (male kitten was neutered at five months).

She had four little boys, one I had put down immediately as it was deformed. We were to keep one kitten and ended up keeping two. Then I was adopted by a neighbour's cat, they thought he had gone further so replaced him - I was then lumbered.

Now we get to the the point of the thread. The fifth cat was not a hit with my other cats so I gave him away to a good home, he was a lovely cat but it was for the best.

One of our 'kittens' was put down at the age of seven, he was moribund with kidney failure and would have died within a day or two, it was humane to put him down.

Then several years later his mother got cancer, she was in obvious pain so was whisked in to be put down. She was followed last year by the other 'kitten', again put down as soon as he became terribly ill.

This leaves me with our original cat who is almost eighteen years old. I don't have him vaccinated and haven't for years. I will keep him until he become ill then that will be the end for him, I won't be spending a fortune on prolonging his life especially at his advanced age.

I am fond of them but not to the extent where I would spend a fortune trying to keep them alive. If he starts soiling in the house he can go too. Sorry, but clearing up his vomit is enough, I am not clearing anything else.

I have found the cats to be a great tie and expense, once they became FIV positive that was the end of the catteries, then I employed a person to visit twice a day to feed them. Over the years they have cost me a small fortune to have them cared for when I have gone away. Fortunately last year a neighbour cared for them when I was in hospital and I guess she will continue to feed the remaining cat for me if I go away.

I agree with Sue - people are so different when it comes to how they view their pets. We have a dog who is 11 1/2 that we love dearly. My youngest was only 4 when we got her, and she is a member of the family. However, we would not spend exorbitant amounts of money on her. My inlaws had to put their dog to sleep last summer, only after spending many thousands of dollars on tests, medication, procedures, etc. The dog very obviously had no quality of life for several months, and I seriously believe that they kept her alive for their own sakes, and not her sake.
I think the question you are asking is one that every pet owner has to answer for themselves. To some people a pet is simply a pet, others literally put their pet on par with any human member of the family, and there are many degrees of attachment in between.

To quite a number of people, animals' lives are at least equal to, and maybe even more important than human lives. I've just read about a woman who spent £2,000 on their pet rabbit's broken leg, and a young couple we know well, postponed their wedding for nearly a year, owing to spending £1,000's on their pet dog, which had been run over by a car. The dog had various broken bones and other internal injuries, which doesn't bode well for it's future veterinary costs, but obviously to them it was more important than their wedding!

Yes, it's true, everybody is different in how they deal with their pets. When my little girl's Spubcat got so sick last week, I had to make a tough decision about how much I could reasonably spend to save him. And I told her that once that amount was exhausted, and the kitty was still sick - he would have to be put down. Fortunately, the worst didn't happen and he seems to feel better every day.
You are the only one who can determine how much you feel comfortable spending, how important the pet is and how much happiness he adds to your daily life. If he is suffering with no end in sight, I know what I would have to do, though.
Look inside yourself and find the answer, aramis. You'll see what's right.

We are dealing with that just now - our cat is diabetic. We found out three years ago, and decided to at least try to see how she would do with insulin, before putting her down. It costs us about 15 bucks a month, and is a bit of trouble, but not much. We can't all go on trips together, but to be honest, we don't really want to - there is always somebody who would rather stay home anyway.
Now however, she is having some health problems as an outgrowth of the diabetes. She was in a small spat with another cat last fall, and the wound has refused to heal (this often happens with diabetes). A couple of weeks ago it was getting ot the point of "OK, one more vet trip, and then maybe we'll have to consider just ending it" but this last treatment (basically just a sock on her foot, so she can't open the wound up again) has been great, she is almost completely back to herself again. Our vet has been very honest, she says she will not do any heroic treatments on this animal - no surgeries, etc. If she gets seriously ill from any other disease, the vet will advise putting her down. The chances of her surviving surgery, chemo, etc, are just too small.
I think quality of life, for both you and the animal, have to be the deciding factors. Our cat is still happy and affectionate, and moderately active. When that changes, we'll rethink the situation.

My dog, Isis, has taught me what love is and how to give and receive it. He is, therefore, more than just an animal. He is 8 years old and, about 2 years ago, developed eye problems resulting in limited vision from one eye and a dense cataract in the other eye. It seems like I cried every day watching him bump into things as he slowly walked to where I was sitting to give me a kiss. I've got tears in my eyes now just thinking about those horrible days. My normal vet referred me to a canine opthalmic surgeon concerning the cataract. The doctor told me that the surgery was dangerous on dogs with protruding eyes (Isis is a Shih T'Zu) and didn't give much hope. Isis underwent the surgery and it was a success. Isis now is cataract free and has much improved vision. I thank God for that (Isis also brought me back to religion--to a point).

The caratact surgery was $4000 and, frankly, I would have remortgaged my home to pay for the surgery.

Had the surgery been unsuccessful and the little guy was blind, I probably would have him put to sleep because his quality of life would be compromised.

I will base my future decisions on the litle guy's quality of life. Ongoing and expensive treatments will be carefully examined and other opinions sought before authorization is given. If his chances are good, and recovery thought to be complete or close to it, I'll spend any amount. But, if the prognosis is questionable or poor, I would put the little guy down. It will break my heart, but my love for him will not permit him to suffer, even for a moment.

These are terrible, painful and heart-wrenching decisions to make. I've got tears running down my cheeks to prove it. I don't envy you.

You are doing the best you can, and your decisions are based on both your pet's prognosis and your love for him/her. That's all you can do.

We very recently had to put our Amber to sleep. She was 14 1/2, had an enlarged heart, and had a tumor growing on her chest, which wrapped around her windpipe. We did what we could, spent about $1000 on various treatments, got the tumor shrunk to where she could breathe. Then, the tumor started growing faster. It pinched the nerves around her larynx, and it wouldn't open and close properly.

Her last week with us was hell... she woke me up several days in a row struggling to breathe. Her final Saturday, she woke me up at 3:30am. We rushed her to the ER vet, they got her sedated and we took her back home. When her regular vet opened, we took her back in. She had another attack before we could get her there, and then while she was in with the vet, she had a 3rd attack. It was heartwrenching to see her struggling to breathe, foaming at the mouth and her lips turning blue. That was when we said "No more." Nothing we could do for her at that point would make her better, and she was suffering. We made the decision to put her to sleep.

If there was anything we could have done to make her better, we would have. It simply came down to her quality of life. There was no amount of money we could throw at the problem to make it better.

For me, even in my limited financial means at the moment, my dog is not only a joy and a companion, but she is also a responsibility, felt deeply and keenly. She is not here for my enjoyment alone. I think that when one takes a pet into their homes they make an agreement of sorts. Your pet will give you love and companionship, but you have a responsibility to them as well, to care for them to the utmost of your ability. The simple fact is, I feel that I would be more than remiss if I let down my end of the bargain. My dog gives me everything she can. I am duty-bound as well as love-bound to do the same for her. If it means scraping up every penny we can to take care of medical issues, then that is what we will have to do. But that includes knowing when to let her go if that has to happen. When my family's scotty dog was 14, she had been suffering from bladder cancer for 2 years, controlled very well by drugs. Then, she came down with very fast-progressing lung cancer, and we knew that at her age, and considering her other problems, any of the possible treatments (none of which stood a really reasonable chance of working) would be more for our sake than hers, and we made the choice to put her down before her suffering became any greater. It was a horrible choice to make, but I know that in those circumstances, deciding NOT to spend all those dollars on potentially painful treatments just to keep her alive (at what cost?) for a little longer was the absolute best thing we could have done.

I think that in many cases the answer is easier than one might think. Of course, money is an issue, and has to be a consideration, because this is not an ideal world. But in many of the cases I have experienced, an amount of introspection will show that a considerable amount of the money people spend on their pets is probably for their peace of mind rather than a real benefit to the pet. I can understand extenuating circumstances, like the $1000 after a car accident, if the vet had really good hopes that the animal would survive without too much permanent damage or prolonged suffering. But especially with aging animals it is sometimes more selfishness than concern that prompts people to spend those large sums on anything with even a slim chance of working. (Not saying that has anything to do with anything that's already been said, just another angle to view things from.)

Personally, and this doesn't imply criticism of other peoples' priorities, it is also a moral issue. Is it really right to spend very large sums on a pet, when for instance, eyesight could be restored to a hundred or more people for the same cost? I've seen first hand some extreme forms of poverty and suffering in third world countries, where people routinely endure unspeakable conditions, so is it selfishness rather than responsibility which causes me to spend so much on my pet's health?
There is no doubt that a family pet can relieve stress, and even do certain jobs, but I have never considered, as some folk do, that animals are people with equal rights to ourselves.
By the way, our cat is not suffering just now - and is not headed for the 'animal euthanasis clinic' either. He is a long-haired, white chinchilla cat called, believe it or not, 'Aramis', from whom I take my funtrivia forums I.D. A few months ago, he acquired a skin/fur complaint which caused a certain loss of hair, but is now recovering well. The vet kept him in isolation for a week, and ran blood tests, etc, so the treatment was expensive (over £1,000), but most of this was fortunately covered by insurance.

Quote:

---

Is it really right to spend very large sums on a pet, when for instance, eyesight could be restored to a hundred or more people for the same cost?

---

You'd never end up having any luxuries if you thought like that. No doubt you work hard for your money (*sing it with me* so hard for your money, so you better treat her right) so have every right to spend it on what you like without any guilt. Be it a sick moggie or a full on sound system or a backyard pool. DOn't get me wrong, I think people should help out or donate to charities and all if they can but shouldn't be made to feel guilty if they don't.

This is a practical, scientific and long-held approach and is in keeping with various customs and laws which define pets as property, approves their use for experimentation, sets minimum standards for care and so on. And I can understand that.

Then we have emotions like love, devotion and loyalty that many of us for many different reasons find in a pet. Perhaps it is our need to dominate or our need for affection that we can't find in our fellow humans; perhaps an answer to being alone or a financial consideration if one wants companionship for a reasonably small cost. Perhaps it's because a pet's innate characteristics are superior to that of most humans. The addition of emotion complicates things.

I'm sure that $4000 would have gone far to treat the ill or feed the poor in a given area, and contributing to charities is built into my annual budget (though certainly not $4000). The difference is that I don't love the sick or starving poor. I care about them, but I don't love them. I love Isis. For a lot of reasons. And he's more to me than 'just an animal' or a piece of property like a chair or a plate.

When I go food shopping, I could buy hot dogs instead of steak or not buy a car since I rarely use it, and donate the difference to the needy. I guess I'm selfish but, where he is concerned, I place my need fir him and his for me above those of strangers.

Vendome, I seem to recall that you have one of the best veterinarian schools ever in your town. At least I met lots of Europeans doing special work there while I was living in that area. I bet you actually can find the right vets to help your pet.

You're right, Bruyere. We're loaded with medical schools, hospitals and veterinary schools. To name a few: University of Pennsylvania (the vet school is the best in the world so I'm told), Temple, Jefferson, Pennsylvania, Will Eye, Hahnemann, Osteopathic, Children's, St Christopher's (children) to name a few.