Well in my case the decision was already made, but I didn’t agree with it.
Here’s the scenario:
SO goes out of town to visit a friend.
Friend has a friend who has some kitties.
SO brings one back.
A couple of days later, SO gets a call from out-of-town friend saying that the other two kitties from that litter are FeLV+ (feline leukemia positive).
SO keeps kitty for about a year (as an inside kitty), then euthanizes her.
I disagreed with that decision.
If you’re not familiar with FeLV, it’s sort of a feline version of HIV. AFAIK, it’s not really a virus that causes feline leukemia, but that is a common affliction once their immune system starts becoming depressed.
I did some digging and found (of course) there aren’t any easy answers.
Typically, (from what I read) there is about an 85% mortality rate withing 4 years of symptoms starting to appear. I’m not familiar with all the various symptoms, but the kitty at some point starts visibly showing that it’s sick.
But what we have basically no clue on is how long it takes between infection and symptoms. You think it’s hard in people–try to get that info from your kitty.
The vet said in as many words that sometimes they live long lives before showing any symptoms–but they can still infect other cats.
So, her choices were a) keep the kitty as an inside kitty so that it could not infect anyone else’s, b) let it be an outside kitty where it might infect someone else’s, c) try to find someone willing to either risk a or b, or d) euthanize it.
This is not really a great debate–and the matter was settled months ago, but I’d appreciate any feedback on this.