What would you pay for a family pet's medical care?

[cmosdes]

I have a thread in GQ about a procedure called Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy (TPLO) for the family dog. Around here, it will cost $3500 for my dog to have this done. There is a 30% chance he will need to have a second operation on his other back knee. Quite frankly, I don't have $7k to spend on my dog.

What would you spend on a family pet?

Parse that however you want, including age, chances of success, etc. Would you ever let the stress it would put into your financial situation enter into your thoughts? Would you just find a way to pay for it and let the cost be damned?

In my case, the dog is relatively young (6) and is strong and healthy otherwise. As a family pet, I'm really the only one that pays any attention to him. The rest of the family wouldn't really be all that upset if he were to be put down. Others in the GQ thread expressed that putting the dog down would be their option. I'll find a way to come up with the $3.5k, but I don't think I'd go beyond that.

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I ended up spending over $800 a couple of years ago to save my stepdaughter's cat. I normally wouldn't have spent that much, but it'd cost over $200 to find out what was wrong with it.

[kiz]

We spent close to $2K to remove Missy's tumors almost two summers ago. It'd been her third operation in the past 4-5 years. There were complications in this instance -- one being her age (she's 14, quite elderly for a malamute), the other discovering there were more tumors than previously diagnosed. It took almost a week for the anesthesia to completely wear off ::shudder:: The oncologist warned us there was no guarantee the tumors wouldn't return, and, if such was the case, to think long and hard before subjecting her to another operation.

No new tumors that we know of, but her dysplasia and arthritis have accelerated with a vengence. She also has the canine equivalent of multiple sclerosis, which is untreatable. Going the very pricey holistic/alternative route may bide her some time, but again, no guarantee.

I'm an animal lover. Any pet of mine would receive treatment, no matter the cost. It's only when a condition would be considered irreversible and/or age when I would pause, as we are with Missy right now. One of our more heated disagreements is Missy's continued care. My husband is no-holds-barred when it comes to her continuing care -- if there was a mega dollar operation to correct her canine MS, then by golly, he'd get the money by hook or crook.

Me? I'd be more inclined to agree with him if it weren't for her age and her already problematic medical history.

It's a difficult decision. But I think on one level you've already made up your mind. BTW, one my friend's dogs had the operation you described -- he came out of it with flying colors :)

[garygnu]

My Shiba Inu has allegies, we pay for animal dermatology visits and serum shots, etc. I don't know the $$ total off the top of my head, but it wouldn't matter. She's my kid.

[Dusty]

All I have, without reservation.

Money is just money. You can lose it all, you can get more. Money is neither dependent on you nor has it a health and well-being to be of your concern. Money has no room in the discussion; it's of no importance at all.

[Shagnasty]

I am a pet lover and I love dogs especially.

You must weigh it against all other things in your life. Money has intrinsic value and you don't need to always consider the pet's life only against a big screen TV. Sometimes it might mean putting that money away for a child's education or to provide a loved one with medical care of their own or something else invaluable. This could easily outweigh an extra six months of painful life for a dog.

You have to personally weigh what else you would do with that money and weigh it against the fate of the dog. I mean really segregate it. If you are just going to piss it away on coffee and potato chips then it may be worth it to make the dog healthy and to make yourself and your family feel more comfortable. Otherwise, you might want to take a part of that money and form a doggie memorial fund to help others in ways that will more directly benefit the recipients.

Everyone and everything dies. It is up to you how best to risk the costs and benefits up to your personal values.

[xbuckeye]

Mine is into me for about $300 a year for routine maintanance and random illness and injury. I would have to think long and hard around $1000 and consider value of life with and without treatment. Most of the people I associate with (the owners of the puppy convention that meets outside my door every evening) pay a hundred or more per pet per year for routine things like vaccinations and dentals and etc. and pay up to $1000 for illnesses that have good chances of recoveries and/or prevent future complications. I don't think I could spend 3500 on her, even though she is cute.

[Shakes]

Depends on how old the dog is. I'll spend up to $500. That's assuming the post op care isn't going to cost me a fortune.

Otherwise, it's cheaper to just have the dog put down and go adopt on from your local humane society.

My cats? If they can't get over whatever ails them with a couple of pills or a shot; Bye, bye to kitty. I'll just go find another one for free.

MY logic is; I try to look at the "Bigger Picture". Why funnel all that money into a dog or cat that's probably had a fairly good run anyway? There are more younger and needy pets out there.

That's why I've never bought a pet in my life. I've always adopted.

This influence comes from my Mother who own's and runs a Kennel.

However, SHE would go bankrupt before she let one of her Labs take a dirt nap.

[Stinkum]

A couple of years ago, my Bobbie developed cancer in her sinuses. I was underemployed and could barely pay my bills, but I made sure I had the cash for the diagnosis and treatments to make her comfortable, which came to about 500. The vet mentioned that taking her to Purdue for surgery might buy her a few months, but she might not survive the surgery, and it would cost a couple thousand. Given she was 14 years old, and had some other ailments, I chose to make her comfortable and happy for her remaining days, rather than put her through the trauma of surgery. She died in my arms Aug. 27, 2004. The decision was about her quality of life, not so much the cash. She was the bestest dog ever. :(

My dog Joplin has some tumors, and he's 10. Surgery is an option, and he'll get treatment as long as he is happy and his quality of life isn't diminished. Nor do I want my own quality of life to diminish -- meaning I'm not going to the poorhouse for his vet bills. I don't think that's selfish, just realistic. If it's his time, he'll die in my arms, peacefully and (hopefully) without pain.

If you want a number, probably 2,000 in that range would be as much as I could afford. Over that, I'd see if I could do a deal with the vet if the prognosis was good that he'd pull through and enjoy a similar quality of life as before the treatment.

[Martin Hyde]

I've actually paid for surgery on one of my dog's legs before (this was years ago when I wasn't near as comfortable financially...and the dog has since died passing at the ripe old age of 13) and she continued to have a troubled-limp for months afterwards but eventually it got much better and she was relatively healthy for 5 more years until she died.

I'd spend a lot of my money to save a pet, I really love my dogs. I wouldn't spend so much, that, if I had a family it would become a huge detriment to their quality of life. Since it's just me, I'd not mind going through hard times financially for awhile if it meant saving my dogs life. I wouldn't lose home or drastic quality of life either (wouldn't live without utilities and such.)

[Laughing Lagomorph]

You wouldn't believe the amount of money we have spent in the last year on veterinary treatment for a pet rabbit. It has run to several thousand dollars. I don't know the exact total because I think if I knew it I would freak (my wife has handled all of this).

This is a rabbit we bought for less than $20.

[romansperson]

For me it's a lot less about how much something costs than the risk/benefit ratio. I would pay for an expensive and difficult surgery for a dog that is young and otherwise healthy if the surgery had a high probability of restoring a good quality of life. I wouldn't pay for an expensive and diffcult surgery for a dog that was very old, had other health problems and wouldn't have nearly as much chance of a good outcome from it.

Veterinary medicine is getting more and more like human medicine - it seems like no matter how bad off you are, there's always one more procedure that can be done to eke out a little bit longer existence, no matter how lousy/painful that existence might be. I don't believe in doing that for myself, and I wouldn't do it for a pet either. There's a difference between living and just surviving.

[Stonebow]

I wonder if there is a large gap in what would be spent based upon the presence of family/children in the pet owner's life. I love our dog, and we do what we can to keep her healthy- shots, etc. But if it came down to major surgery (to the point where I see my kids suffering for it), then I'd have no problem with having her put down instead.

That said, I can understand going the distance if the animal is your sole companion, though I lament the circumstances that might lead you there.

[cmosdes]

I've been talking this over this friends and family and most seem to think there is always a way to find the money and it should be done. None have come right out and said that, but it seems strongly implied. Comments like "what would the quality of life be afterwards?" and "look at their age and recovery time" all imply, at least in this case, that the procedure should be done.

I take great care of my dog: daily walks, regular checkups, weekend romps up in hiking trails, etc. I could never, ever do anything to hurt him. But on another level I just don't see him as "my kid". I have kids and it just isn't anywhere near the same thing.

$3,500 is exactly on the cusp on how far I'd go to make him whole again. Is that completely callous of me? Could be. At $2,000 I probably wouldn't begin to debate it. At $4,000 there is no way I could really ask my family to pay that.

Anyone here have pet insurance??

[garygnu]

I had insurance for my mutt, but we cancelled it soon after. That dog is indestructable.
If the money means many more years of doggie happiness, it's worth it to me, however much it is. I would not, however, prolong suffering.
I love my dogs too much to let a silly thing like money stop me from making them better, especially something like knee surgery.

[phall0106]

Depends on how old the dog is. I'll spend up to $500. That's assuming the post op care isn't going to cost me a fortune.

Otherwise, it's cheaper to just have the dog put down and go adopt on from your local humane society.

My cats? If they can't get over whatever ails them with a couple of pills or a shot; Bye, bye to kitty. I'll just go find another one for free.

MY logic is; I try to look at the "Bigger Picture". Why funnel all that money into a dog or cat that's probably had a fairly good run anyway? There are more younger and needy pets out there.

That's why I've never bought a pet in my life. I've always adopted.

This influence comes from my Mother who own's and runs a Kennel.

However, SHE would go bankrupt before she let one of her Labs take a dirt nap.

Waiting for the countdown....

[Trunk]

Parse that however you want, including age, chances of success, etc. Would you ever let the stress it would put into your financial situation enter into your thoughts? Would you just find a way to pay for it and let the cost be damned?
All of that is the crux of the issue.

I wouldn't spend $3000 on a lame, blind, 12 year old dog to get chemo when he has cancer in his pancreas. Anyone who would is a complete fool. Any vet that would allow you to is greedy and irresponsible.

On the other hand, $500 to fix up a 3-year old dog's broken leg so he can enjoy the rest of his life seems pretty reasonable.

Let's have people in this thread stop acting like they're animal lovers because they'd spend whatever it costs to fix anything wrong with their dog because it's only money. Money isn't silly. Money is important.

Animals not people. They're not kids. They get put down when they're much younger than humans. That's what happens to them. They live 7-12 years. They get sick. They get put down. You shouldn't get a pet without realizing that.

You know, we don't get dogs because there's some dog out there waiting for cmosdes to come along and make his life complete. cmosdes gets a dog because he thinks that having a dog will bring more enjoyment to his life. If paying for the dog, caring for the sick dog, going into hock over the dog, is going to cause serious distress, then the dog should be put down.

[garygnu]

I love my dogs more than I love my money.

[Trunk]

I love my dogs more than I love my money.
What does this even mean?

Would you rather be homeless, hungry and not have a job or a car or a penny in savings if it meant keeping your old, lame, blind cancer-ridden dog alive for one single day?

Are you incapable of seeing some kind of gray area or is the extent of your thinking on the issue, "I like dog more than money."

[Shagnasty]

I love my dogs more than I love my money.

All your money. Would you sell everything you and your family own to save a 12 year old dog that will never fully recover? Would you allow your family to become homeless, for any present or future children to forgo education, or possibly medical treatment themselves?

There must be some limit right? Money can represent years of stored work and value to others. It isn't just paper.

I would say the same thing about expensive radical treatment for an elderly loved one.

[Bippy the Beardless]

What I could afford to pay. If saving the pet cost $500 and I could only afford $300 then I wouldn't pay, if it cost $20,000 and I could afford $20,000 I would pay. Part of financial solvancy is to ensure I have plenty of money available for emergencies, so any pet would do fine by me. This is assuming the payment is for healing an animal. I would not want to be kept allive in a bad state of health, and neither would I expect to keep an animal alive is such a condition. But any amount that I could afford to make myself or a pet more comfortable in such a situation would be reasonable. That said, I do not currntly have any pets, and I would only fell this way about a pet with personality (dogs cats etc) not a stick insect or a fish.

[toadspittle]

I have dropped around $1000 in catastrophic medical care for each of three different ferrets. I take that as part of ongoing costs. Our 2nd ferret to fall ill, we could have spent a great deal more on chmeotherapy, but it likely wouldn't have extended her life (and certainly not her quality of life) by much over some steroid treatment (which we opted for). $2000 would be about my limit for any one illness, I think.

[The Chao Goes Mu]

I racked up over $6000 in vet bills for my kitty, Bean. He died back in June after battling thyroid disease for 4 years then pancreatic cancer. I'm still paying on that bill. I will be for a while.

I don't regret it. I currently have 2 dogs and 3 cats. No kids. My animals are my kids and I'll do whatever it takes to make sure they are healthy.

Not everyone agrees with me but it's my money, and they're my pets.

[PapSett]

Y'all knew I wouldn't be able to stay out of this one, didn't you? :D

First a disclaimer: It is my opinion , and if you don't agree, fine. I don't wanna hear about how 'animals aren't people', OK?

My animals are literally all I have in my life. They are what I am living for. I would pay whatever necessary to save one of them, I have been with my vet long enough that he allows me to make payments in desperate times.

BUT.

I would only do this *if* the dog or cat had a good shot at a full recovery and could live a good, pain free life after. If a $1000 operation was only going to give me another month with my baby, no, I would not do it. If a $1000 operation would save my baby's life, but leave them in a huge amount of pain for a long period of time, no, I would not do it. QUALITY of life always comes before QUANTITY. It is kinder to end their suffering with a painless injection.

But all things equal, if a surgery will make them all better, I will pay whatever it takes.

[AuntiePam]

I helped my daughter pay a $1,000 bill for a stray kitten she'd only had for about a month. That was four years ago and Oscar's been healthy since, and he's worth every penny.

For me, older (61 next month) and without a full-time job or much savings, the pet's age would be the biggest consideration. For Ricky the cat, who's almost 14, I don't think I'd consider any long-term treatment, or treatment that didn't have a guaranteed good outcome. For Micky the cat and Boomer the dog, who are 8 and 9, I'd max out the credit card and worry about how to pay for it later.

[butler1850]

I'll always pay for basic diagnosis. That usually has a cap of about $200 or so, anything more, and I have to start doing cost analysis.

For treatements, I'd probably pay another couple of hundred (seems anything at the vet other than basic shots is at least $100 anyway).

Beyond that $400 total, though I love my cats deeply, they are cats after all, I'd begin to look at "comfort measures" and their cost, and if that's still too high (money and/or time investment) then sorry, but we have much higher priorities for our money at the Butler household.

We made just this choice for a 14yo diabetic cat. Diagnosis was around $200, treatment would have gone into much higher ranges to get the medication (insulin) levels correct (multiple visits & tests) and the effort of daily (perhaps multiple daily) shots was deemed too much for a cat that had already had a darn good run. We let him live untreated until we saw that his QOL (quality of life) was beginning to deminish, then had him put down. It sucked, but was IMO the right choice for the Butler household.

I might pay a bit more for my 9yo cat, or the wife's 11yo cat, but not much.

[chiroptera]

Agreed, if the animal is relatively young and there's a good chance of quality of life; of course I would. One of my Rotties has dysplastic elbows, at a little over a year old I was looking at a possible $2,500 surgery on his left elbow and I wasn't about to hesitate.
Consults with an ortho specialist and surgeons at MSU led us to make some small lifestyle modifications and take a wait-and-see approach. I'm glad I did; the dog is five years old and competes in agility. (http://community.webshots.com/photo/520658948/1520670811041397343AsObmT)
I adore this dog, he's a wonderful animal. If he lives to be ten years old, that surgery would've amortized to only $250.00 per year. :) Very well worth it!

I have no kids; my dogs are extremely important to me and I would spend whatever I could if warranted, without going into real financial hardship.

I had a friend who kept a $5,000 credit card clear for vet emergencies. Her 13 year old Cocker got cancer and she opted for surgeries, radiation, the whole deal. She maxed out that card and then some to buy her old dog 8 extra months of surgery and dealing with unpleasant medication side effects. I thought that was not fair to the dog at all. Right about the same time I had an almost-ten year old Rottweiler with bone cancer. He was too old for amputation (relatively inexpensive and many dogs recover brilliantly, if it hasn't spread.)
I could have put the old guy through radiation and all sorts of unpleasantness, but for what? He was old and had had a wonderful and full life.
We had a party for him with about 30 of his favorite humans to fuss over him, the vet came to my house and he passed on in my living room. As deaths go, it was very dignified.

To the OP, I would make sure to get second and third opinions. From a veterinary teaching hospital, if you can.

[garygnu]

All your money. Would you sell everything you and your family own to save a 12 year old dog that will never fully recover? Would you allow your family to become homeless, for any present or future children to forgo education, or possibly medical treatment themselves?

There must be some limit right? Money can represent years of stored work and value to others. It isn't just paper.

I would say the same thing about expensive radical treatment for an elderly loved one.
Yes, there's a limit.
I'd make a decision based on the health and well-being of my pet, not the dollar amount. Besides, once the dollar amount gets up like that the chances of the procedure fully healing the animal with no further complications get slim. Paying any amount only to prolong suffering is wrong, but that's a different question than money.
I am very fortunate in owning a home, and living in a marraige where both of us make enough money to be able to pay a vet bill without having to eat Spam for a month. I also don't have human children. No actual vet cost would faze us. $20,000? We've got more than that in equity. I would rather be homeless with my wife and dogs than live with the knowledge that I chose to put down my loved one instead of paying a measly $3,500 to fix her.

[garygnu]

What does this even mean?

Would you rather be homeless, hungry and not have a job or a car or a penny in savings if it meant keeping your old, lame, blind cancer-ridden dog alive for one single day?

Are you incapable of seeing some kind of gray area or is the extent of your thinking on the issue, "I like dog more than money."
Paying a vet bill would not cause me to lose my job. It might make me get another one, though.
Any grey area would come far beyond realistic vet bills.
And get the quote right: "I love my dogs..."

[davenportavenger]

MY logic is; I try to look at the "Bigger Picture". Why funnel all that money into a dog or cat that's probably had a fairly good run anyway? There are more younger and needy pets out there.I agree with this. Frankly, I think it's crude to spend thousands of dollars on a single animal when there are thousands of other animals (and, er, people) out there who only need a little food and a roof to have good lives.

I'd be willing to spend up to $1000 for my cat, but only because he is young, and that would be dependent on whatever he had being completely fixable. If it was an older animal, or one that was always going to be in ill health, I'd spend less, not because of the money per se (although the money would be part of it), but because past a certain point it just seems pointless. Animals don't handle illness well, because they can't think long term. They don't know that their chemo will improve their lives; the only thing they know is that they are in pain, and I'd be the one administering that pain. And with a long term illness like cancer, they might be in constant low level pain their entire lives, with no way to contextualize the pain or rise above it. I think it would be a little cruel for me to subject my pet to pain just because I might miss him.

[xbuckeye]

Yes, there's a limit.
I'd make a decision based on the health and well-being of my pet, not the dollar amount. Besides, once the dollar amount gets up like that the chances of the procedure fully healing the animal with no further complications get slim. Paying any amount only to prolong suffering is wrong, but that's a different question than money.
I am very fortunate in owning a home, and living in a marraige where both of us make enough money to be able to pay a vet bill without having to eat Spam for a month. I also don't have human children. No actual vet cost would faze us. $20,000? We've got more than that in equity. I would rather be homeless with my wife and dogs than live with the knowledge that I chose to put down my loved one instead of paying a measly $3,500 to fix her.
This is quite easy for you to say because in your world, you don't have to choose between food and electricity and shelter on one hand and your pet's health in the other hand. In my world, that is a real decision. I considered that buying a home would make kitty emergencies less affordable. I considered that there might be hard decisions about my cat and money before I even got a cat. I think it is incredibly irresponsible for people to have pets when they can't afford simple maintanance costs like vaccinations and spay/neuter, but it is equally irresponsible to invest your life savings in a pet if it gets horribly ill or injured. I will not lose my home or my car to invest in feline care and maintanance.

[garygnu]

I will not lose my home or my car to invest in feline care and maintanance.
That's fine with me.
but
The OP asked "What would you pay..." [My emphasis]
My answer is "The vetrinarian medical care I choose for my pet will be judged on its medical necessity, not its cost."
I also say I would pay any cost because I can pay any actual cost. I should not have pushed this to a hypothetical extreme.
I also tried to make the point that the most expensive procedures are also the ones less likely to result in a completely cured animal.

[chiroptera]

I think it is incredibly irresponsible for people to have pets when they can't afford simple maintanance costs like vaccinations and spay/neuter, but it is equally irresponsible to invest your life savings in a pet if it gets horribly ill or injured. I will not lose my home or my car to invest in feline care and maintanance.

I couldn't agree more; everyone has a realistic threshold. Like garygnu I own a home with plenty of equity. However, I wouldn't jeopardize my home for one of my dogs...wow, that is a choice I hope I would never have to make!

I have a good friend, on a very limited income, with few financial resources. She's got a chronic illness and struggles to pay for her own medical expenses.
She has to extremely well cared for and loved older dogs, but no way could she ever afford a catastrophic medical bill like $3,500. We've talked about it - if it came down to having one of her dogs suffer interminably for lack of treatment or choosing euthanasia, she would euthanise. And cry a lot. And then go rescue another Great Dane.

[Scumpup]

Probably not more than a hundred dollars, tops. One enjoys having pets around, but in the end they are just animals.

[Dryfreeze]

I've been averaging about 300$ yearly on my dogs. I have a boston and a mutt. I would spend whatever it took to keep them healthy. They are my kids. I would sacrfice the steak for some soup in a cup if it meant that I could have my wonderful dogs running around still.

Slight Hijack - Anyone use pet insurance? Is it a good deal?

[romansperson]

I wonder if there is a large gap in what would be spent based upon the presence of family/children in the pet owner's life. I love our dog, and we do what we can to keep her healthy- shots, etc. But if it came down to major surgery (to the point where I see my kids suffering for it), then I'd have no problem with having her put down instead.

I know a single mother who spent money she couldn't really afford on surgery for her dog because her kids cried and begged her to. They couldn't bear the thought of losing their buddy. So I think sometimes there's an extra added guilt trip if your kids are very attached to the pet. I also think it can be a good learning experience for kids, though, too - in the case I'm referring to, the kids also thought up ways to help make extra money and they agreed as a family to cut back on some things for awhile.

[Kalhoun]

My SIL has spent tens of thousands on her horse. She is also being buried with him (much to her husband's dismay).

I don't have that kind of money. I would probably do whatever it took within my budget to cure the little softies if there were good odds that it would actually work. But I'm not one to put an animal through medical hell if there is just a miniscule chance that it will do any good. Ya gotta be realistic for their sake as well as your own.

[Czarcasm]

Try to answer the OP and not criticize the responses of others, please.

[Trunk]

I know a single mother who spent money she couldn't really afford on surgery for her dog because her kids cried and begged her to. They couldn't bear the thought of losing their buddy. So I think sometimes there's an extra added guilt trip if your kids are very attached to the pet. I also think it can be a good learning experience for kids, though, too - in the case I'm referring to, the kids also thought up ways to help make extra money and they agreed as a family to cut back on some things for awhile.
I think a good learning experience when you're a kid is that when your dog is old and incontinent and not ambulatory and a little crazy. . .that's a good time to say goodbye to Ol' Shep.

[Scumpup]

Yeah, the death of pets does serve a learning purpose. When I was in first grade, my dog (a miniature poodle/beagle mix) got killed by a car in front of my eyes as I was getting ready to go to school. Mother made me go to school anyway. Sister Justina made me stop snivelling and get my classwork done. The very important lesson that I learned from all that was that even when "somebody" important to you dies, life goes on for everybody else and you still have responsibilities to fulfill.

[romansperson]

I think a good learning experience when you're a kid is that when your dog is old and incontinent and not ambulatory and a little crazy. . .that's a good time to say goodbye to Ol' Shep.

Which is not at all, in any way, comparable to the situation I was referring to. Working together to solve a problem (getting enough money to pay for a surgery) is what that family did.

Knowing when (and how) to say goodbye when nothing can be done is another matter entirely.

I do know a several people whose parents snuck off and had pets put down while they were at school, I guess in some sort of misguided attempt to spare their kid pain. Instead it was actually much more painful since they didn't get a chance to say goodbye or have any kind of say at all in what happened to a pet they loved.

[Shodan]

Anything over a thousand bucks, and I start asking about euthanasia.

My dad is a vet, if that means anything. At the end of the day, it is still an animal.

Regards,
Shodan

[eleanorigby]

Anything over a thousand bucks, and I start asking about euthanasia.

My dad is a vet, if that means anything. At the end of the day, it is still an animal.

Regards,
Shodan


Except for my dad being a neonatal pathologist, I agree with this entirely. And make the amount $500 per animal.

There are many animals without homes. Right now I am somewhat "off" pet ownership, but in terms of life lessons for kids, they are invaluable, so eventually I would get another cat. But, there are limits.