One of my coworkers mentioned her mother has a cat with cancer and the cat is getting anti-cancer treatments. I’ve also heard people who have major surgery on their pets. I always though if pets were seriously injured or had chronic illnesses, they were almost always euthanized. When did this start to change?
When people started to treat their pets like family members. The industry really took off in the '90s.
I love animals – our household features three dogs, four cats, three rabbits, two turtles and numerous fish. We get the dogs and cats regular checkups, but I would be hard pressed to fund any sort of expensive treatments. We do buy more expensive dog food now, though, but only because we found it cut down on the need for skin medications and whatnot.
When we moved to a new home ten years ago, we had an aging schnoodle (13 or 14 at the time) who would get a cough every spring, something like a cold or allergy. I took him to a local pet clinic and explained the situation and what we usually did for the dog. They wanted to do a whole battery of tests to rule out congestive heart failure and any other age-related problems. I looked at the doctor and said “The dog’s 14; this has happened every year since I’ve known him (when he was 5). If his lungs are filling with fluid I feel bad, but his time is up.”
Though as a part-owner in a petsitting business I’m thankful for the lengths OTHER people will go to for their animals.
If you read James Harriot, you’ll see that people who could afford to were willing to spend plenty to save their pets as far back as the 1930s.
That’s how it was with my parents. They always had a dog and they always took good care of it – kept it clean, warm, fed, dry, exercised (spoiled) – but it wasn’t until the 80’s that they could afford regular vet visits, fancy food, grooming, etc.
The mutts who never saw the vet (except to be neutered – they were always neutered) lived longer and healthier than the purebred registered dog (a cockapoo) they acquired later. That dog cost them a fortune and he was a right bastard.
Last year we paid nearly $NZ3500 for an operation for our Labrador. She had a ruptured ligament in her stifle joint (rear ‘knee’). Although she was about 6[sup]1/2[/sup] years old at the time, she should still have as many years left. It’s our kindness to make sure she can enjoy those years without constant pain from a correctable condition. Of course, this is all subjective, YMMV, etc.
You may want to hit the local library and find a copy of One Nation Under Dog: Adventures in the New World of Prozac-Popping Puppies, Dog-Park Politics, and Organic Pet Food
I heard an interview with the author on NPR and it was very interesting. He said he walked through a pet cemetary and read the gravestones from ~50 years ago and they were all inscribed with things like “Faithful Guardian” or “Loyal Servant” but the gravestones from the past ~15 years said things like “Beloved Companion.” And a pet cemetary is already a place which self-selects for people who care a lot about their pets, instead of burying them in the back yard. Still, this massive shift seems to have occurred. The author’s comments on the social ettiquete at dog parks were almost disturbing. If your dog starts sniffing another dog or trying to hump them at an off leash park you can get into some serious altercations or be shunned completely depending on the type of neighborhood the park is in. Just for your dog being a dog. It’s on my list of books to read in the near future.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hello,
As someone whose been in the vet business (as a manager, not a vet) for the past 13 1/2 years, it really has changed. When I started in this business, we didn’t even offer pet cremation service, one of us would accompany animal control out to the landfill and dispose of the pets on a bi-weekly basis. Now, it’s the exception to not have a private cremation with the ashes returned. And even the vets have become more judgemental about making those decisions to have a surgery or treatment over a 1000 for a pet. As much as I like our business making the and having a good outcome, I have been without $$ enough to not look down on those who do the best they can but who cannot go overboard on treatments or surgery.
I like my current vets because, in part, they don’t push the “extra mile”. My doberman Grace is in congestive heart failure right now. When I took her in and she was diagnosed, the vet said “we can do test and x-rays to see how advanced it is, but the treatment is the same no matter what. So why spend the extra money unless you want to?” These are semi-retired rural vets who will be glad to do what’s required to help a pet, but are upfront about costs and don’t seem to put pressure on their clients to go for the most expensive treatments or tests.
StG
I’m surprised that someone hasn’t pointed out that it is very un-PC to use the term ‘pets’, they are called ‘companion animals’ now. The word pet implies ownership, as in slavery.
I kid you not! Companion animal is the term used in the vast animal products industry now.
Wow! I thought that “companion” was only used when the animal was a medical/physical necessity. I love my parakeet, Scout, but would feel a little silly calling him a companion animal to anyone…out loud… Even though that’s exactly what he is to me!
Or “furbabies”. And be actually serious about it, not just in a joking way.
I would think that extensive cancer treatments would be cruel to an animal, prolonging the pain – especially when it might not even work.
I’ve noticed what I call the “pets as people” phenomenon. I think it’s a fairly recent trend; maybe since the 80s or 90s?
When I was a kid (one of the first signs that you’re getting old is using the phrase "…when I was a kid), people, of course, had pets and seemed to love them, but not to the degree that they do now. I can’t recall anyone I knew shelling out huge sums of money for life-saving or life-prolonging surgery for their animals, unless it was a prize farm animal or a valuable horse. Back then, when the dog or cat got gravely ill it was time for the “Kids, I have some bad news about Mr. Barky…” speech.
I also can’t remember Fire and Rescue going to any lengths to save animals in potentially lethal situations like what’s seen on the news on a regular basis. A while back, I saw a story about a whole team of Fire & Rescue personnel in Southern California, complete with a chopper and specialized rescue equipment, going to the aid of a dog who was trapped on a mountainside ledge. 20-odd years ago I doubt that there would’ve been any media coverage, and I’m certain the local Police and Fire Department would’ve said, “Too bad about your dog, pal.”
I do have a couple of friends who consider their dogs as their children. I find it mystifying, but I’ve never been an animal person. The other day I heard about a friend of ours who adopted two cats–for mousing outdoors–from the animal shelter. He had to fill out a ton of paperwork, and one question was how much he would be willing to spend on medical care for a cat. He put $200, and was refused the adoption, because it wasn’t considered nearly enough commitment. (He changed the numbers enough to get the cats, who were certified as fixed. One just produced 7 kittens.) Anyway, that struck me as odd. Do shelters now consider wealth to be a necessary criterion for pet adoption? Because there’s no way I could afford that much if Kitty got cancer; I’d just put her down and be done with it.
Personally, I think $200 is a pretty low “put them down” point. I own 8 dogs and 2 cats, none of which are my children and all of which have a point at which I would not go overboard with. However, at least in my area, a cat could get an abscess that might cost about $200-300 to fix and that is a common condition for an outside cat that might fight with other cats or get other wounds. If your friend hasn’t had a pet for awhile, he might not know what basic care costs, but personally I wouldn’t adopt a cat out to someone who would have it PTS for a treatable wound. I wouldn’t consider that cut off to be about adopting only to wealthy people.
Lots of places won’t adopt out a cat unless you promise to keep it indoor-only, so clearly definitions of what’s “reasonable” vary. I think it’s a lot more reasonable to expect people to keep a cat healthy by keeping it inside than it is to expect them to keep it healthy by spending money they may not have.
I don’t know about that… Talk to some of the dopers that have been through cancer, and some that are in remission. Heck, look at celebs (like Armstrong) who’ve battled cancer. Saying “prolonging the pain” is somewhat inaccurate.
Some of the drugs given during chemotherapy are exactly to stop the pain. Even surgical procedure of removing a mass (or even a leg, in the case of osteosarcoma in dogs and cats) can significantly reduce the pain that animal is currently experiencing due to the cancer.
Also, depending on the type of cancer, some of them can significantly prolong the lifespan and life quality of the animal. I find it amusing that people realize (when the animal is healthy) that one year of our life is equal to more “dog years” or “cat years”; yet when the animal is sick, and treatment can prolong the lifespan one or two human years, suddenly that is “too little time”.
Lastly, unless the person puts the animal down immediately, at the first sign of cancer (when the animal may not even be in pain), palliative treatment will still help relieve the present and future pain and improve the quality of life.
Now, I understand cancer treatment can be costly, and I’m not saying that a person has to get into deep debt to take care of a pet, but if the issue is money, I’d rather the person be upfront with it than cover it up with false perceptions.
DianaG’s comment is true, I volunteered at a humane society shelter where they refused people who were not going to keep their cats inside.
Some shelters are more selective than others. Privately run ones, which may be no-kill shelters, can afford to be more selective than county or city run shelters.
Still $200 is below the average PTS amount (I forget what the amount is right now). Also, considering the person is probably paying an adoption fee, for 2 pets that may come up to around $200, and it may include all the required shots, deworming, spay/neuter, plus any other condition it had during the stay at the shelter (ringworm, scabies, URIs, viruses, wounds, etc.).
I’m not sure if the person meant “$200 is the maximum I can afford” vs “$200 is the amount I’m willing to spend at once, but I can spend it again and again”. My dog, as a puppy, had to have surgery because of a suspected foreign body. It costed a whole lot more than $200. Two years later, she got into a dogfight, and again incurred in injuries costing more than $200, even with my vet student discount. Should’ve I put down my dog the first time around and the second time around, for injuries that were one time, completely treatable and curable? That is something owners have to struggle with and understand. I’m glad I made the choice to let her live, as she is my faithful companion and is an excellent blood donor (for the hospital’s blood bank). What was my sacrifice? I couldn’t afford fancy food nor new clothes nor go out to expensive places. Big deal.
My mum has pet health insurance now, her home insurance company offered it to her a while ago for $1 per week, so now the animals have health cover.
I don’t know how much it costs to care for the average cat, but I just spent $160 on normal shots for a small dog in an area with a low cost of living, so a $200 cut off for being PTS seems low to me, too. I don’t think it’s a case of “should/shouldn’t a person pay that much” but that that range is not outside what the average vet bill might be.
On the other hand, some rescue people are insane. When I was looking for a dog, I found one rescue that wanted to do unscheduled welfare visits for the pet. That’s intrusive and unrealistic, and makes me think they’re not actually looking to place pets in homes. I ultimately went with the craigslist puppy.
I think the latter.
I guess I won’t be taking one of the unexpected kittens then–I can’t afford the shots.