The answer depends on the circumstances. How old is the pet, how much time are you buying, and what will the quality be?
My gut reaction is to say that I’d spend $10-$15,000 to buy Maggie even a year. My love for this dog is beyond my ability to adequately express, and I often contemplate the reality of her death and how utterly excruciating I find the mere idea.
I hope to never be faced with making such a decision. My dream is that she lives a long and healthy life, with normal levels of vet bills, and then passes quickly when she’s so friggin’ old that she is obviously a miracle on legs.
But to choose to put an otherwise healthy animal down when you can afford to fix a broken leg, for example. To me that does indicate a lack of commitment. Tears are cheap. You can cry at sentimental commercials on TV. You have set your priorities. I’m not saying one has to spend more than they can afford. I’m not saying your children go hungry so your dogs can live. And few of us would say to mortgage the house to keep an animal alive when it would be in pain. I am saying that my dog needed $700 for knee surgery. She lived 9 years after that. In your world I’ve had her put down and stopped by the Humane Society on the way home.
No, that is not what I am saying. In my world you would have done exactly what you did, but because you wanted to, not because you had a moral obligation to. And there is nothing wrong with that. On the other hand, paying $700 to get your child’s knee fixed would be a moral obligatation. If you had put your dog down and saved another dog, chosing to give 2 dogs 10 good years each, instead of one dog twenty good years and another dog none–you would not be any less good of a person, nor would you be any more good of a person. My claim is that the two courses of action are morally equivilant, and so the dilemna comes down to balancing emotions and money, not ethics.
When you adopt an animal from the shelter (and ALL of my animals are rescues), I suspect the adoption counselor would consider it a moral imperative that if you take that dog home, you do the best you can for it, health-wise. If you were to walk into a shelter and say, “I’ll take this dog to replace the one I just euthanized, because, you know, they’re just dogs and one is the same as another” they would refuse to let you adopt the dog.
When you decide to bring an animal into your home and into your life, you need to commit to giving that animal any necessary medical care. If you know you will only euthanize any animal when it costs you more than annual vaccinations, don’t get the animal.
Manda JO - You’re the one bringing moral imperatives into this. I’m talking implied obligation in assuming an ownership role. I don’t have a moral obligation to save any dog. If I bought a purebred dog from a breeder my obligation would be no more and no less. I have a feeling that this is probably an “agree to disagree” situation, and if I’m reincarnated as a dog, I know which owner I’d rather have.
Well, without an adotion counselor here to rule, we may have to agree to disagree. I think that if you went to the shelter and said “hey, I have a dilemna. I could spend $1000 on an operation for my dog that has a 90% chance of sucess, or I could use that same money to save two of your dogs who are slatted to take the long walk tomorrow,” the adoption counselor ought to be willing to listen to that arguement. I can’t see how, if you have to chose, one dog’s life is worth more than another.
My understanding is that htis thread is about extraordinary medical bills–at least a grand and up. If only people who could afford a thousand dollar vet bill owned dogs, shelters would be putting down twice as many animals each year. That’s half a month’s income for my household. Mind you, we don’t have any animals, but it seems giving an animal slated for death six happy, comfortable years and then a more peaceful, comfotable death than it would have had cannot be called less moral than leaving it to die.
StGermain
What is the difference between a moral imperitive and an obligation? This confuses me.
I have no clue where this comes from: I don’t understand the relevance here.
I can settle for that: there is certainly rooms for alternate view points.
You mean that if you are reincarnated as a dog with an owner, you know what kind of owner you’d rather have: if you are reincarnated as a dog who is dumped at the ound at 8 weeks, you might have a different perspective.
The only thing that I loved more than my dog was my husband. I would pay any amount, up to the point where it may hurt or endanger my husband, and then I would regretfully stop. I would do so because I wanted to, not because I felt obliged to. The only prerequisite was that she wouldn’t be in much pain during or after the procedure.
I miss my dog so much. Inoperable brain cancer, two and a half years ago.
Manda JO - I brought the idea of a purebred dog into this because that’s not saving a life - if anythign it’s supporting the dog breeding industry. But those dogs aren’t any less important or less worthy of medical treatment than pound puppies. The OP said nothing about “extraordinary” expenses, just how much is it worth to you. pepperlandgirl’s price for unconditional love is $1-200. I’m not saying you should spend more than you can reasonably afford - but I am saying that when you take on the ownership of a pet, you have agreed to pay for it’s medical expenses. Starting with vaccinations and a spay/neuter, but extending to treatment of illnesses that have a remedy. So if you have to pay your vet $50/mo (about the cost of cable TV) for a year to pay for an operation that would save your pet’s life, or save your cat from a lifetime of discomfort, it doesn’t seem unreasonable. And if it isn’t a sacrifice you’re willing to make, that shows the depth of your commitment. You sacrifice for those you love in many ways. If it’s the dog, you take it out even in the rain. You clean the cat’s litter box. And if you have to do without dinners out or new clothes or new CDs - can you say that your pet isn’t worth that? I try to be a “Golden Rule” pet owner - do unto them as I’d have done to me in their place.
There was an episode of The Simpsons once in which Santa’s Little Helper, a greyhound picked up by Homer, needed surgery. Each of the family had to give up something, make a sacrifice, to help pay for her life-saving surgery. They all did it because they loved her. And love doesn’t have a price tag.
If my spouse and my dog were trapped in a burning building, i would run in, rouse my spouse, and say ‘pick up the dog.’
But I wouldn’t spend more than a couple of thousand on the dog. We have college tuition coming up.
But then, I don’t know that your conditions are believable; most pets I know that have high medical bills are not happy and healthy. They are miserable because their owners will not do the responsible thing. This affects my attitude.
I have two parakeets, St. Germain. One literally flew into my classroom last year, and the other was found nearly dead outside a neighbor’s classroom this year. We put up “found parakeet” signs for both but were unable to locate an owner, so we took them under our wing…so to speak.
Southern California is amazingly overpopulated with non-native birds. Just yesterday I saw 3 pairs of green parrots zoom over my school’s campus. The parrots tend to fare better than parakeets; they seem to be hardier. Both of my adoptees were very ill and weak when caught, and a third bird we saw in the tree outside my room looked horrible (but still managed to fly away).
A classroom–particularly one without windows–is not really suitable living for these poor fellows. The a/c seems to make them susceptible to colds. So, I’m giving them away to my students (with parent permission, of course).
I’d pay thousands of dollars to help my cats or my dog. But there’s a limit, and anyone who says there isn’t is either a liar or its nuts.
Tell me, folks: would you sell your house to pay for an operation for Fido? Would you move your family from a 4-bedroom house into a 2-bedroom apartment? Is it worth THAT much?
RickJay - I don’t know how to do the quote thing, but this is a quote from my earlier post: “I’m not saying you should spend more than you can reasonably afford - but I am saying that when you take on the ownership of a pet, you have agreed to pay for it’s medical expenses. Starting with vaccinations and a spay/neuter, but extending to treatment of illnesses that have a remedy. So if you have to pay your vet $50/mo (about the cost of cable TV) for a year to pay for an operation that would save your pet’s life, or save your cat from a lifetime of discomfort, it doesn’t seem unreasonable.”
We know a person who keeps nine cats. One of them has to be tube fed and hooked to a resporator to breath. The cat should have been put down a long time ago, but the owner cannot stand the thought of putting the cat down and thinks that anything but a natural death is inhumane. Apparently the term “quality of life” means nothing to this person.
Personally, it sickens me. It is downright painful to watch or even hear about. To me it is the worst form of animal cruelty. Just because you can afford the best treatment doesn’t mean that is the way to go.
Jane D’oh - Most of us aren’t talking about keeping a cat alive on a respirator (which I wouldn’t call “natural”). We’re talking about a medical procedure which would insure a long and healthy life for our pet or would give them extended time with good quality of life.
Jane, I definitely agree with you on the case you mentioned. In my family, quality of life is the concern first and cost comes second.
In my first post, I mentioned that we spent a fair amount of money on a cat when I was a teenager. She was middle-aged but not old (eight years) and had a kidney problem. We treated her at the advice of our vet. However, she was miserable after coming home and died shortly afterwards. When our second cat came down with the same illness a year later, we opted to put her to sleep once she got to the point where she was unable to enjoy daily activities. (For those of you who are wondering, these cats were sisters and the vet theorized that they had had a virus while kittens that eventually led to kidney failure.)
Currently, one of my mom’s cats has cancer. She’s suffering from a vaccine-related tumor, which means that the tumor is between her shoulderblades. We’ve opted not to operate, because the operation would be very invasive and the vet said that she might only live for three or four months after the operation. It’s been six months since the tumor was diagnosed and Julie is doing fine—running, playing, eating and using the litterbox normally. When it gets to the point of affecting her activities or ability to function, we will put her down.
My point in all this is that having the money to spend doesn’t necessarily mean we spend it. Quality of life is the first consideration; the money comes second.
My Rotty developed ideopathic immune mediated thrombocytopenia and had to be put into doggy intensive care for a week at the University Veterinary Teaching Hospital for one week. She was kept alive with blood transfusions from greyhounds until they could get her body to make platelets again and to stop destroying them. Nothing was working so the vet eventually tried vincristine which did the trick. She was on prednisone for months after and now has wavy-curly hair! This happened at Christmas two years ago; we had no money and had to take out a $3,500 loan to pay for the bill. I’d do it again but Eddy says no.
I am in the minority here but I can’t see spending over even $500 on a pet. I guess I don’t get as attached to pets as others do. I definitely don’t equate them with children. There are too many other things (such as our children and their education) that would come before spending outrageous amounts on a pet’s healthcare.
Our cat is 16 1/2 years old now and has been a great cat. I don’t think there has ever been a time in her life where I would have spent $1000 on vet bills. It probably sounds cruel but she is just a cat.
We all have our own thoughts on what a pet is/means to us. No one is right or wrong about it. It doesn’t bother me that others would spend a lot of money on their pets. I just wouldn’t do it.
Yes, the life of the dog in whom I have already made a substantial financial and emotional investment is more important than that doggie at the pound about to take the long walk. Sorry, but to me, one dog isn’t just the same as any other, as if they were manufactured robot dogs. My dog is more important because I have spent oodles of time, money and love training him, feeding him, scooping his poop, walking him, and getting snorfled by him, and this is why if something happened to him that required an expensive vet bill, I would pay the bill, not just have him put down and get another dog, since they’re all the same. They’re not all the same. My Max can’t just be replaced by another dog.
I do see where you’re coming from, though, and I agree that there are people who ignore the plight of pound animals while thinking they are such “animal lovers.” My dogs and cat are also rescues, by the way. It’s funny, I would never spend $1500 to purchase a bred dog, but I would not hesitate to spend that same amount on my mutts if necessary, even old Xena, who surely doesn’t have that many years left.
To repeat what I and others have said, it’s not like we are willing to just throw gobs of money down the drain in a hopeless bid to save a hopeless case. Like booklover said, it’s the quality of life that comes first, money second. Also, I think we all agree that we wouldn’t spend more than we could afford and still pay the mortgage, kids’ schooling, etc. That would be kind of silly.
And as others have said, people who are not going to be willing to do what it takes to ensure their pet’s health probably should not have pets in the first place.
My cats were are spayed, have their vaccinations, have two, large litter boxes, are fed good food, always have water, toys, comfortable places to sleep, get plenty of exercise and cuddles, and basically have everything a cat needs or wants. I rescued both of them as kittens from a certain death. They’ve been living on borrowed time since they were born, and we do the best we can, but at the end of the day there are bills to pay, and I am just a starving college student. Some people can make sacrifices…we don’t have that luxury. And I’m not entirely sure even if we did,I’d spend a great deal of money on them. They are just cats, good cats, but just cats.
And I really don’t care if you think I’m not committed to my cats. Compared to you, I’m probably not. But they are not ill, not abused, and not living in a tiny, stinking cage, condemned to a certain death in a hostile enviroment.
pepperlandgirl, you are plenty committed to your cats. You give them a good home and good preventative medical treatment. I wouldn’t blame you one bit if you chose to put a cat down instead of racking up thousands in vet bills. If I were in your situation, I wouldn’t either (rack up the bills). Luckily I am in a situation where, while not well off, I could afford maybe a little more. Even I have my limits, though.
**St. Germain **is going off the deep end a bit. “If it isn’t a sacrifice you’re willing to make, that shows the depth of your commitment,” indeed. Maybe St. G. should put himself in the shoes of someone who has lost their job and is struggling to make ends meet, including paying for cat food and vaccinations, and the cat comes up with aggressive bone cancer with a 50% chance of success after a $3,000 operation and treatment. If I had no family or friends or other resources, I would have no choice but to put the cat to sleep. It would tear me up, but I would have to do it. And I wouldn’t need people like
St. G. telling me I wasn’t committed to my animals because I didn’t sacrifice to his satisfaction.
