THIS EDITORIAL was in the Sydney Morning Herald recently and really got me thinking.
I like to think I love my pets but there is no way they're sleeping on my bed let alone having thousands of dollars spent on them or mortgaging the house.

How far would you go .. or how far have you gone?

Sorry! I am a conscientious pet owner, and all the family join in in looking after the various cats, dogs fish or whatever else has passed through our doors. I firmly believe, however, that while the pet has it's place in our home and our hearts it remains an animal, and shouldn't be treated like a pampered child!

The dog sleeps in her basket in the garage and she gets fed dog chow. I don't bring her to pet salons for her grooming care, we wash her in a plastic bath bought specially for the occasion. I trim her hair myself when necessary and count on the vet to treat 'everyday' illnesses. If she shows up with serious health issues we'll make a decision which will be seriously based on the quality of her life with or without the proposed care and the cost. If it's exhorbitant then sadly we won't go down the road of treating her.

I think it's an absolute disgrace to waste resources and skill treating a terminally ill dog with cancer or leukemia or some other illness when the funds should be going towards looking after HUMANS who need care or attention.

I do keep her shots up to date, and certainly I'll bring her to the vet for treatment if she's injured. Recently I spent a not insignificant sum on vet bills to try to sort out a skin problem, but as it's not going to be a recurring bill I find that acceptable. It makes her life more comfortable, and the family home environment healthier as her hairs are no longer taking over.

I agree. No one is soppier about animals than I, and I cannot bear them to suffer. But I would never go to such extremes. They are wonderful and I could not be without at least one dog and cat. But they are animals and not to be treated as humans.

I love my cat, but he does not sleep with me. He doesn't even enter my room. If there was an emergency, of course I would seek a vet, but extreme, costly care is not something I could do. He is 14 or 15 years old, and when his time comes, I will be sad, and he will be in a 'better place.'

I've spent a lot on my animals, mostly emergency medical problems. But when it's pointless or they are elderly, there's a time to let them go. It hurts like none other, but it's only fair to them.

Tough call. Do I provide basic vet care for my animals? Of course I do - in my mind that's part of the package if you're going to have them. But would I take out a second mortgage for Mayo Clinic style advanced medical care for one? Not so much.

And yes, both cats sleep at the foot of my bed (although they don't spend much time there unless it's stormy outside, then they spend a LOT of time there). That's also part of the package.

My cat is 14, diabetic, almost blind, and missing most of her teeth. It's actually been years since she's been to the vet, as the vet visits stress her out so much. If anything goes wrong, I just phone them and they do a ballpark guess as to her trouble over the phone. She's just slowly gliding downhill, getting slower and less able to jump and so on. As things stand right now, she is safe and happy and not in any pain that I can tell, so we're just letting her do as she wishes in her quiet way.
Dog is not so old nor with so many halth problems, but has pills and eye drops.
I guess if you looked at our lives, you'd say we do a lot for our animals, but it's all stuff that has come up gradually, over the course of several years. Every time it's been a question of "Well, let's give this a try, and see how much expense and trouble it really is, before we decide" and it turns out to be not that much. Until we go away for the weekend, and the medication and feeding instructions are pages long!

I think Santana2002's post says it just about the way would.

I have had five cats plus the odd hamster or two. The first hamster caught a cold from me, apparently this is common, and despite a visit to the vet she died the following day of pneumonia. Enter hamster two who fared a little better.

As for my five cats, then four when I gave one away (another story), I used to have them vaccinated but then one died of kidney failure when he was seven, apparently he had feline AIDS. I then took two of the remaining three to be tested, the fourth had disappeared when the cat baskets came out! Both cats tested as being FIV positive and the vet said it was just a matter of time before they would die, he didn't know how long, and also said that the other one would almost certainly be FIV positive or would become so since he lived with my other two cats. The others were aged 7, 8 and 8.5 at the time. I took them all for their influenza jabs and the older cat wrecked the surgery so the vet said not to bother with the jabs any longer, especially since they probably wouldn't live long.

The next to die was the one who had been 8, she was in her teens when she had to be put down with cancer, then the youngest one was put down, again with cancer and again a teenager. The final one was 18 when I had him put down so he lived ten more years and didn't see a vet in all that time until he was put to sleep.

It didn't enter my head to have the cancers operated on, I think by the time they showed symptoms they were really beyond treatment, the vet certainly didn't suggest treating them, just said to let nature take its course then bring them back when they were obviously in pain.

The cats cost me more in cremation fees than vet fees, I was too soft to let them be mass-cremated so had each done individually. I wasn't actually faced with the possibility of expensive treatment but I think there would have been a stage at which I would have said no.

30 or 40 years ago when I had large lumbering English and Gordon Setters, there was only a certain amount that veterinary medicine could do for one's pets. They seemed not to get many of the ailments of today, lived a good life, and were lovingly helped off this earth with as much dignity as we could muster.

Just because we now have a myriad of options to extend the dogs life for another 2 or 3 minutes, putting them, very often, through unnecessary pain and discomfort, and us into peniary, does not mean we should.

I think, once again, it comes down to finding a sane understanding of how long a pet is supposed to live, and I suspect Darwin would be aghast at the thought of keeping barely functional animals alive, because of our inability and lack of courage to let them go. There is, I am sure, a sound reason for dogs to live 8-15 years and humans into their 80s or more. One cannot stretch one into the other.

This past week the local animal shelter had reported that many people have handed in their cats as they can no longer afford them, or in some cases are moving to accommodation where pets are not permitted. They had 62 of the poor thing, half have now been offered homes as a result of the publicity.

I spend thousands on my marine fish tank and mine is only a basic set up.

Quote:

---

But they are animals and not to be treated as humans

---

Sorry, ren, I must disagree with you. We are animals, just as our dogs and cats are animals. Their lives are not less valuable than human lives, except that humans have a self-inflated sense of their own importance on the planet. We may be more powerful, but I'm not sure we are better, or more worthy, than any other animals on Earth.

For many people, the emotional bond with their pets is just as important, and meaningful, as the bonds they have with humans. They love them, care for them, worry about them, sacrifice for them, and grieve for them when they die. In some instances, they rely on them for assistance or protection or companionship, and sometimes they even regard them as members of the family.

Caring for pets can be very costly. They are just as disease prone as we are, and their medical treatments can be just as expensive. How much a pet owner is willing to spend on such treatment, or preventative care, can vary considerably. Obviously, the more you regard your pet as a member of the family, or the more emotionally connected you feel to your pet, the more you might be willing to spend, if you can afford to do so. Veterinary medicine has kept pace with human medicine so that many diseases, including cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, endocrine problems etc., as well as many orthopedic problems, can be successfully treated and managed, but at a price, both monetary and in terms of time and effort on the part of the owner.

With my own pets, I've always spent whatever was necessary to keep them in good health, and, at times, this has been quite costly. I feel that is part of my obligation and responsibility as a pet owner.

The first dog I ever had, as a child, was given to my family as a "gift". She was a 9 month old standard Poodle who had contracted distemper because she had not been vaccinated. As a result, she was already suffering from epilepsy and her previous owners just didn't want to deal with the problem. Throughout her entire life she also suffered from severe gastro-intestinal problems and required numerous hospitalizations for those problems. Her seizures (which in those days were not treated with medications) would go on for hours at a time and, at the age of two, she suffered a stroke which left her temporarily blind and partially parayzed. At no time did my parents, who were of very limited means, ever question the costs of her medical treatment, or begrudge her the treatment, or consider having her euthanized because of the costs of her treatment. And, because she so often required medical attention, or hospitalization, the costs of maintaining her were high. As a Poodle, she also required regular trips to a groomer, which added another expense. The dog was considered part of the family, and was treated as such. She slept in our beds, sat next to us on the furniture, and ate home-cooked meals because she hated dog food and refused to eat it. She loved us, and we loved her, and, with the care we gave her, she lived to the age of 13, about the average life span for a standard Poodle (the largest of the Poodles), particularly in those days, and a remarkable age for a dog who had such serious chronic health problems.

Perhaps because of that earlier experience, and my parents' attitude, it never occured to me to treat any of the dogs (or cats) I owned as an adult any differently. If they needed medical care, they got it, regardless of the cost. Only one of the dogs was blessed with remarkably good health until the very end (which was due to an inoperable brain tumor) after living a normal life span. My last dog suffered from chronic severe back problems, had surgery on both of her knees due to torn ligaments, and was diabetic for the last 5 years of her life, requiring two insulin shots a day during that time. Diabetes is a costly disease, in both people and dogs, and her treatments, and related hospitalizations and lab tests, set me back several thousand dollars for that alone. She lived to be 16, a pretty good, ripe-old age for a toy Poodle.

My cats have been a little less expensive than my dogs. But, when my last cat developed hyperthyroidism, I opted for the most expensive treatment available--$1500 for radiation of the thyroid--because it was also the most effective treatment, and immediately cured the condition. A few years later, when the same cat developed cancer, I chose not to treat it, not because of the cost, but because the cat was already 16, and the treatments, even if they were effective, would not have significantly prolonged her life. I did try to keep her going, after the cancer diagnosis, with a few hospitalizations for dehydration, and by infusing her at home with subcutaneous fluids, as long as she appeared comfortable and in no acute distress. When she clearly developed pain, I let her go.

My last veterinary bill, about ten months ago, totalled about $3,000, for treatment of hemorrhagic gastroenteritis in my then 11 year old minature Poodle. That's a rather scarey condition that suddenly attacks perfectly healthy dogs, for no clear-cut reason, causing severe bloody diahrrea and vomitting. Without immediate treatment it is usually fatal. My dog spent 4 days in an emergency veterinary hospital, and was on IV fluids and antibiotics for three of those days. A large chunk of the bill was for a myriad of lab tests and x-rays to rule out any other cause of her symptoms besides HGE. My dog could have died, and I did want to be sure she had no undetected contributing medical problems, so I did not question the cost, although I was admittedly a bit staggered by it. I just forked over my credit card and paid it off gradually. Money is only money, my dog is priceless. That she is once again her happy, healthy self was all that mattered to me.

I see nothing wrong, morally or otherwise, with the fact that I am more than willing to spend a great deal of money on my pets. They matter to me, they are an important part of my life, I love them, and they do make me a better, less selfish, human being. I also buy them toys, clothes when necessary (coats or sweaters), the most expensive pet foods, cook for them, and generally treat them as I would any special beloved person in my life. If that means I have to sacrifice spending (either time or money) on other things, so be it. Truthfully, it's really no one else's business.

Quote:

---

I think it's an absolute disgrace to waste resources and skill treating a terminally ill dog with cancer or leukemia or some other illness when the funds should be going towards looking after HUMANS who need care or attention.

---

A diagnosis of cancer is not an automatic death sentence for a dog. Cancers can be effectively treated and dogs, and cats, apparently tolerate chemotherapy much better than people do. If cancer treatment can restore the dog to a normal or decent quality of life, why not institute such treatment?

Treating a pet's medical problems will not deprive needy humans somewhere in the world of these monetary resources. Pet owners are unlikely to give the money to charity rather than spend it on their pet's medical care. And they shouldn't have to feel guilty about spending it on their pets --- it is not an absolute disgrace, it is an act of human compassion and kindness. Why not also make people feel guilty about buying expensive cars, or taking vacations, or eating in good restaurants, just because there are needy humans suffering somewhere who could use that money?

These people spent $25,000 on their dog's medical care over the past few years. Obviously, the dog was important to them and, obviously, they were somehow able to manage that.

Dog's Life (And Death)

Leona Helmsly left $12 million to her dog in her will. She also wanted the bulk of her estate ($5 to $8 billion dollars) to be used for the welfare of dogs.

Helmsley Left It To The Dogs

However, the trustees of Helmsley's estate have so far not distributed the assets in accordance with her wishes. They have put the interests of humans above those of dogs.

Helmsley Trustees Alter Her Wishes

Personally I feel that, if Leona Helmsley wanted to give $8 billion to dog welfare causes, that's where the money should have gone. It was her money, and people should be able to use their money as they wish. The Helmsleys were very charitable people, for human causes, when they were alive. Leona apparently decided that she could do more good by giving it to the dogs after her death. Her wishes should be respected. Animal rights groups are still fighting this out with the trustees in court.

Santana2002, disagreeing on things is what makes life interesting. We all look at things from a different perspective, and we can all learn something from each other's viewpoint.

I think I'm a reasonably charitable person. I recently made donations to three charities doing relief work in Haiti, and I regularly support a whole host of charities. But the total of those donations, and of my entire charitable donations for the past year, was nowhere near the amount I shelled out for my dog's last veterinary bill ($3,000). I don't have enough disposible income to be able to give that amount to charity. Charities have a lot of other people they can rely on for donations, my dog has to rely on only me to pay her bills. I have to put my dog first. Charity does begin at home. And it's my dog who is in my home. Anonymous needy people somewhere will have to wait until my dog is taken care of first.

I'm obviously part of that group of pet owners that regards a dog or a cat as part of the family, and as a sort of surrogate child. People who don't feel that way about pets regard folks like me as being slightly nuts. But I think it's simply wonderful that we can have these meaningful interspecies connections. The relationships, and bonds, between dogs and humans, in particular, are just incredible.

Humans may have accomplished a great deal in their time on this planet, but humans are also capable of the most extreme sorts of violence against their fellow man (and all other animals) and atrocities of the worst sort. A dog may defend his own turf, but he's not going out actively looking for other dogs he can subjugate, or territory he can take over, or trying to destroy those other dogs who think that Mighty Dog dog food is better than Kibbles and Bits. And, unlike humans, your dog is not likely to leave you for another owner who is younger, better-looking, more interesting, wealthier, etc. And, have you noticed, that owners do not usually feel slighted, neglected, ignored, criticized, rejected, or taken for granted by their dogs. Dogs often do provide something that other human beings cannot --absolute, unconditional love and loyalty. That is part of why we want them in our homes and in our lives, and why we love them. And, because we feel that way about them, we pay for their medical care.

I'm not sure that the problem is the infatuation of pet owners with their furry (or feathered) friends, I think it's the high cost of veterinary care. Most people have some sort of insurance to help with the costs of their own medical bills, but in the U.S., at least, relatively few have medical insurance for their pets. That's why the costs, for even routine care of a pet, can mount up. And, if the pet develops a serious illness, or requires surgeries, the costs can be very high. But, if treatment is available, many owners want their pets to have it, even if affording it is a hardship for them. This isn't really "going to extremes". Compared to humans, pets have relatively short life spans, and many of us want to keep them with us as long as possible. I'd like to see more national pet health insurance policies with reputable carriers, and more charitable funds made available to help indigent people, or the elderly, pay their pets' veterinary bills.

I don't know whether I would mortgage my house to pay for my pet's health care, since I have to anticipate how I will manage, and what I can realistically afford to do. I would think that someone who goes into extreme debt trying to pay veterinary bills might have some problems which go beyond just having a sick pet. At some point, you do have to let go of your pet. Particularly a very ill, infirm, or elderly pet. It makes no sense to go into deep debt or bankruptcy trying to extend a pet's life for a very short period of time, particularly since the pet might not even have a good quality of life during that time. People who do that, or consider doing that, would benefit from some counseling to help them deal with the impending loss of their pet in a more appropriate, less self-destructive, manner.

For those who can afford to pay for their pet's care, even with some belt-tightening or budget slashing of other items, it is fine that they do so. This isn't a waste of money. Pets enrich our lives, otherwise we wouldn't have them, we wouldn't care for them, and we wouldn't pay their bills. There is nothing wrong with that. To say that the money might be better used elsewhere, for human charitable causes, is really irrelevant. It's like saying you shouldn't buy your child a video game, which he could live without, because another child somewhere in the world has no shoes. If that game will make your child happy, and you can afford it, you'll probably get it for him. We all take care of our own before we take care of others. Many people consider their pets the same way, and, if the pet needs something, the pet will get it.

Santana2002, people will always spend money on things that others will see as frivolous, extravagant, unnecessary, wasteful, or even "an absolute disgrace". It could be cars, clothes, houses, hobbies, entertainment, children, and even pets. People spend on what's important to them, and that includes giving to charities and altruistic causes, and it also includes their pets. We all divvy up our money differently. You really haven't convinced me that other humans are more worthwhile or deserving than our pets, mainly because it's not an either or situation. Caring for a pet doesn't mean you forget the rest of humanity. But, if we didn't care for (and about) our pets, and pay their bills, we really wouldn't be such terrific human beings, would we? My dog may not come up with a cure for cancer, but she brings joy into my world. That makes her very worthwhile indeed, as worthwhile as any human. And millions of other dog (and pet) owners feel the same way I do.

And, if Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, and nothing to her grandchildren, it was likely because the dog loved her, and treated her better than those grand kids did. The dog mattered so much to her she wanted it to eventually be buried with her. The cemetery has refused to do that, allegedly for "health reasons". Personally, I think they were afraid of starting a trend.

The upside of all the money we spend on pets is that it's good for the economy. It's really big business, and it continues to grow.

The Pet Economy

CB, I have to say that I totally agree with everything you have said. My dogs are very important to me and I will pay whatever is needed to prolong their health and lives.

I put down Hugo A-Go-Go some years ago because I couldn't afford the surgery and it still gnaws away at me. But i'd probably do the same thing again, unpleasant though it is. My girlfriend spends thousands over time over her pets, they get medical care for every concern that may arise, things others might just let run their course.
Still their your pets and your money so..its a matter of choice I guess.