One needn’t spend insane amounts of money to be a decent pet owner. Medical procedures are stressful and painful for the pet and subjecting it to multiple surgeries and treatments can be downright abusive. I’ve seen more than one caring pet owner squander a small fortune to keep a pet alive and suffering instead of accepting that the humane thing is to let it go.
I could afford chemotherapy, neurosurgery, transplants, etc. for my dog if he ever needs it, but I hope I will not succumb to the urge to do “whatever it takes” to keep it alive.
I am a huge animal lover and have to actively work hard to give fewer fucks about the choices other people make. That said, I refuse to take on responsibility for other people’s irresponsibility, and by that I mean, if a person had no business getting a pet, knows it, and is trying to re-home that pet, I will not take it on. I just can’t save 'em all and I don’t feel right about rescuing people who made poor choices.
When it comes to my own pets, however, I weigh quality of life vs. treatment options. Some examples:
I had a cat who had a thyroid problem. There’s a very expensive treatment for cats with this problem, involving taking it to a specialist, shooting it full of radioactive isotopes, and blasting its thyroid full of radiation. I did not want a glow-in-the-dark cat, nor was I willing to expose everyone in the house to radioactive cat litter. And the pills were cheap and I managed to get a liquid compound that was tuna-flavored and trained him to ask for his meds. So I opted for the cheap treatment because the quality of life was basically the same.
Then later, that same cat developed a tumor. Again, a specialist wanted to go in there and lop it out. I drew the line at getting a very expensive kitty ultrasound just to diagnose the thing. No way was I spending thousands on a surgery for a 15-year-old cat with a thyroid problem, who was also starting to show kidney problems. So I asked the specialist what the prognosis for kitty was if I consented to the surgery. “Oh, well, with treatment, this type of tumor, oh, he’ll have maybe 3-4 months.” :eek: Wait – what? You want me to spend $5K on a horribly invasive, major surgery on a geriatric cat who is already a medical trainwreck and who may not ever really recover from this surgery? Oh, fuck that. I gave Kitty a few more weeks of TLC and had him put down.
Now, had that been a young cat with no other medical issues, and the surgery would have cured him and given him a nice, long, lazy-ass life? I would think nothing of dropping a few thousand on that.
And every person’s mileage will vary here, depending on income, other priorities such as children in the home, how people value animals within their particular family culture. My dad views animals like farm animals and is horrified that my dog is even allowed inside the house, ever, nevermind on the couch. 
My sister would prefer that animals don’t even exist. She doesn’t wish violence on them, and she isn’t afraid of animals… she just doesn’t like them. She gets that pets are family to me, but part of her does not understand or relate to that at all. My mom is like I am, only my mom is old and senile and is an actual Crazy Cat Lady. All of us have different ideas about what is appropriate to spend on vet care, who should have animals and why, and so forth.
The only other comment I have is I don’t quite completely trust people who do not have animals and who do not care for animals (like my sister).
Having had exclusively “small pets” (hamsters and mice) for the past few years, I think about this subject a lot: all too often the small rodents and such get dismissed as disposable, and go without proper care. If you’re not willing to take your hamster to the vet when it gets sick/injured, you shouldn’t get one for your child, and someone who treats a “trainer pet” that way is setting a terrible example to follow.
That said, the question of how much money/treatment to spend on a small animal, like any other animal, really is nuanced. We had a family of dwarf hamsters that turned out to be prone to mammary tumors, and on about three separate occasions we sent various hams into surgery to have growing and uncomfortable masses removed (to the tune of about $300 a pop, if I remember correctly). Did we do the right thing? We could afford it, and (more importantly) all of the hams bounced back relatively quickly and went on to lead long healthy lives after that point, so I feel good about the decision in hindsight…but that’s always 20/20, and we were lucky to have a vet whose skill and candor we trusted. I certainly wouldn’t fault anyone for deciding differently, as long as they were keeping the ultimate well-being of the animal in mind.
We currently have a hamster who has lost his bottom teeth, and so we take him in once a month or so to have the top ones trimmed. It’s an inconvenience for us, but he puts up with a few moments of (painless) handling and is otherwise his happy active self. If he weren’t so easygoing and had to be sedated for the trim, we’d have to decide whether to sedate him for every trim, have his top teeth removed altogether, or put him down. I’m still not sure where the line of “too much” would fall, in that case.
I said you could look at it that way if you want. I didn’t say anyone has to. I didn’t say “take this principle and apply it to everything”. I didn’t say “utilitarianism if the best”. And I certainly didn’t say “do the first bit (saving money) but then don’t do the second bit (spending it other animals)”. I think “people might only do half your suggestion” is one of the worst arguments against an idea I’ve ever heard.
If you really want to be clear, read my post. Make stuff up if you prefer, but I’m not convinced it will help with clarity.
I think as long as active cruelty is avoided, you’re morally in the clear. It’s better to give an animal that would otherwise have been euthanized a few happy years with an owner, even if they’re broke and can’t afford fancy surgeries.
I do think it’s actively cruel to keep a high-energy dog in a tiny apartment, though.
It’s definitely weighing quality of life vs. treatment options, as Dogzilla said upthread. We’ve been accused of being overprotective of our dogs because we keep a sharp eye out on anything amiss. That’s not being overprotective – that’s being a savvy pet owner.
We recently had to say goodbye to our elderly border collie/Aussie shepherd cross. She was almost 16 and, up until a couple of years ago, enjoyed rather robust health. In addition to the age-related arthritis and losing her sight/hearing, she developed, unbeknownst to us until her last day, something called laryngeal paralysis. We had the choice of submitting her to a lengthy operation where they’d basically give her a new larynx with the warning that she might not survive it…or let her go while she’s sedated and not in acute crisis. We opted for the latter because, really, what would her quality of life be IF she did survive the operation?
Same question with Malamute Jack, who developed bone cancer in his shoulder. If he had been a smaller dog he probably would have managed with amputation. But no, it wasn’t an option with a dog his size, especially since our vet surmised it might give him another 3-6 months tops. We didn’t want him to suffer anymore.
Missy The Malamute rode out two separate cancer treatments like a champ. She was maybe 7 or 8 years old the first time around and was otherwise in perfect health. We spent a fortune on her. She lived cancer free until she was 14-1/2, which is almost unheard-of for her breed.