Open Minded Discussion - Heath care costs

[Gargamel]

All,

As posted on another thread, my lovely lab and much loved family dog has acute osteo arithritis. There is no possible cure, although the vet has said the only highly specialist route open is a Scan (£4,500) and investigation of suitability for joint replacement.

So anyway, I have quite clear views on this and I appreciate that others won't agree, but I am curious about it.

Insurance funded or not, my contention is that it is morally wrong to be spending five figure sums on pets health. I couldn't justify it to myself.

[Jasandjules]

I am perhaps not the correct person to answer this.

Let me see.. 3k on one cruciate. 3.5k on another cruciate. 1.6k on a tooth..... 1k on a Bank Holiday call out. £500 on a call out for PTS in her own home.

Would I spend it all again? Of course.

If it is needed to make them better (save for the 1.6k on a tooth, I would have it removed in hindsight as it has caused more problems over time) then I am required to get them better, that is part of what I take on when I have a pet. I am to protect them, to look after them, to ensure they are as healthy and happy as can be.

As to your issue, if you are "open minded" email me and I might know a way to assist you which does not involve a 4k scan.

[otolith]

If you can afford it, I don't think the money is a moral matter. Yes, you could give the money to Oxfam instead, but when you look at how much people spend on cars and other luxuries, I don't think spending it on saving a pet is the greater moral flaw. Whether continued medical intervention is actually in the animal's best interests is the moral question.

[elephantstone]

I couldn't afford that amount but thats why i have insurance. If i had the money in the bank and it meant i missed on a summer holiday, i would definitely choose the vet bill. As others have said it is our responsibility to look after our animals.

[moorx]

Jasandjules said:

I am perhaps not the correct person to answer this.

Let me see.. 3k on one cruciate. 3.5k on another cruciate. 1.6k on a tooth..... 1k on a Bank Holiday call out. £500 on a call out for PTS in her own home.

Would I spend it all again? Of course.

If it is needed to make them better (save for the 1.6k on a tooth, I would have it removed in hindsight as it has caused more problems over time) then I am required to get them better, that is part of what I take on when I have a pet. I am to protect them, to look after them, to ensure they are as healthy and happy as can be.

^^ This.

(Just for clarity, £4,500 is not a five figure sum, it's a four figure sum).

I have spent four figure sums on several of my dogs, and would do the same in a heartbeat. Having had dogs with diabetes, cancer (x3), arthritis (x4), traumatic injury, dental issues and IMHA, I hate to think what I have spent on vet's bills over the years, but I don't begrudge a penny. Only a couple of things have been covered by insurance, the rest have been paid out of my own pocket. I am not 'rolling in money' by any means, but I guess it is about priorities. My dogs have always been a big part of my life; I consider them part of my family. I chose to adopt them, and it is my responsibility to pay for their care, whatever that may cost.

Personally, I consider it morally wrong not to pay for vet treatment if there is a chance of improving a pet's quality of life.

[Gargamel]

moorx said:

^^ This.

(Just for clarity, £4,500 is not a five figure sum, it's a four figure sum).

I have spent four figure sums on several of my dogs, and would do the same in a heartbeat. Having had dogs with diabetes, cancer (x3), arthritis (x4), traumatic injury, dental issues and IMHA, I hate to think what I have spent on vet's bills over the years, but I don't begrudge a penny. Only a couple of things have been covered by insurance, the rest have been paid out of my own pocket. I am not 'rolling in money' by any means, but I guess it is about priorities. My dogs have always been a big part of my life; I consider them part of my family. I chose to adopt them, and it is my responsibility to pay for their care, whatever that may cost.

Personally, I consider it morally wrong not to pay for vet treatment if there is a chance of improving a pet's quality of life.

Interesting, I promise I can count - I was factoring in the likely cost for two elbow replacements, if the scan is £4k then sure a st the actual operations are going to be more.

However in the end it is a dog.

[moorx]

Gargamel said:

Interesting, I promise I can count - I was factoring in the likely cost for two elbow replacements, if the scan is £4k then sure a st the actual operations are going to be more.

However in the end it is a dog.

Fair enough

We all have to make our own decisions, based on personal circumstances, priorities and veterinary advice. But I know that I would have regrets if I didn't feel that I had tried everything possible. The only point I would start questioning would be if I felt that continued medical intervention wasn't in the best interests of the dog. You asked for opinions, I was simply giving mine.

[ali_kat]

Gargamel said:

However in the end it is a dog.

No, in the end it is a member of your family that you are responsible for looking after.

In adopting a pet, you undertake a moral responsibility for it's health and well being. They don't have NHS which is why we take out insurance for Medical Bills, and if you are one of the unfortunates that can't afford that, it is why there is the PDSA.

If you view it as 'just a dog'; perhaps you are not the right person to have one...

[Mobile Chicane]

otolith said:

If you can afford it, I don't think the money is a moral matter. Yes, you could give the money to Oxfam instead, but when you look at how much people spend on cars and other luxuries, I don't think spending it on saving a pet is the greater moral flaw. Whether continued medical intervention is actually in the animal's best interests is the moral question.

Pretty much what I think. The financial aspect is irrelevant to me.

[elephantstone]

ali_kat said:

Gargamel said:

However in the end it is a dog.

No, in the end it is a member of your family that you are responsible for looking after.

In adopting a pet, you undertake a moral responsibility for it's health and well being. They don't have NHS which is why we take out insurance for Medical Bills, and if you are one of the unfortunates that can't afford that, it is why there is the PDSA.

If you view it as 'just a dog'; perhaps you are not the right person to have one...

My thoughts exactly.

[0000]

I don't think it's morally wrong.

Perhaps there are better things the money could be spent on, but the list of worse choices is probably substantially longer.

[Gargamel]

ali_kat said:

No, in the end it is a member of your family that you are responsible for looking after.

In adopting a pet, you undertake a moral responsibility for it's health and well being. They don't have NHS which is why we take out insurance for Medical Bills, and if you are one of the unfortunates that can't afford that, it is why there is the PDSA.

If you view it as 'just a dog'; perhaps you are not the right person to have one...

I knew someone would suggest I wasn't fit to be an owner. I am not offended, I know the quality of the care and dedication I give to my dog.

However, lifting it slightly from the personal to the moral and ethic. Should western society be spending these sums of money on pet treatment. In most places in the world, a sick dog is very much "just a dog" and £10,000 buys a lot of human health care.

I know it is a little trite and there are ALWAYS better things to do with money at that level.

[ali_kat]

ali_kat said:

No, in the end it is a member of your family that you are responsible for looking after.

In adopting a pet, you undertake a moral responsibility for it's health and well being. They don't have NHS which is why we take out insurance for Medical Bills, and if you are one of the unfortunates that can't afford that, it is why there is the PDSA.

If you view it as 'just a dog'; perhaps you are not the right person to have one...

Maybe I'm being a little harsh there, sorry.

That comment just struck the wrong chord for me.

[ali_kat]

Gargamel said:

I knew someone would suggest I wasn't fit to be an owner. I am not offended, I know the quality of the care and dedication I give to my dog.

However, lifting it slightly from the personal to the moral and ethic. Should western society be spending these sums of money on pet treatment. In most places in the world, a sick dog is very much "just a dog" and £10,000 buys a lot of human health care.

I know it is a little trite and there are ALWAYS better things to do with money at that level.

Sorry, it seems I was quoting myself as you posted!

I wasn't saying you aren't fit to be an owner, in your op you come across as caring.

It was the it's just a dog statement. It isn't just a dog, it's a member of your family.

In most 1st world places in the world, they'll pay for the dog's health if it's viable to do so.

[Gargamel]

ali_kat said:

Maybe I'm being a little harsh there, sorry.

That comment just struck the wrong chord for me.

No worries Ali, I agree it is a difficult one to get the tone right on a forum, lack of visuals etc.

I love my dog, and there are lots of things I would do and do do, to ensure a great quality of life, and I am gutted she is crocked at only seven years old. My kids are in tears and we simply can't walk her across the beautiful countryside we live in, early this week she broke down after about 500m and we had to carry her back to the car.

At individual level we are all going to make choices. But honestly I don't think I could morally spend 10k on joint replacements, but I was interested to hear the views of those that have or would.

I think we just need to agree that this about who loves their pet most... more a philosophical topic.

[daytona365]

If we truly love our pets, then we should recognize when that inevitable time is approaching, and not spend thousands to pick, poke and experiment on them to try and make them last a little longer for OUR benefit.

[ali_kat]

I know you do, I was surprised at the statement, which I think is why I got upset if that makes sense?

What is the Vet's prognosis? Will the Ops improve her quality of life for sure, or is it a maybe?

Will they lead to further Ops? (Good money after bad so to speak?)

Is she insured?

IF she's insured, it's a no brainer.

If she's not then (why on earth not?!) it's a different question

[Gargamel]

ali_kat said:

I know you do, I was surprised at the statement, which I think is why I got upset if that makes sense?

What is the Vet's prognosis? Will the Ops improve her quality of life for sure, or is it a maybe?

Will they lead to further Ops? (Good money after bad so to speak?)

Is she insured?

IF she's insured, it's a no brainer.

If she's not then (why on earth not?!) it's a different question

No she absolutely is insured, I am waiting to hear back from the insurance co as to whether the claim is allowable.
Without the scan the Vet isn't willing to comment on whether she is a suitable candidate for the surgery, but it is both front elbows and given it is arthritis it is likely to be in other joints sooner or later too.

So it is hard to say. Hence the question. I have previously made bold statements about hugely expensive surgery for pets and how I don't think it is morally justifable. However ..... am I about to change my mind ?


I guess in the end the real question is - post op - will she be back and close to good as ever, or is it a marginal or temporary gain.

She needs rest right now, back at the vet in two weeks once the inflammation is a bit more under control.

[moorx]

daytona365 said:

If we truly love our pets, then we should recognize when that inevitable time is approaching, and not spend thousands to pick, poke and experiment on them to try and make them last a little longer for OUR benefit.

I agree - up to a point. Believe me, I have had to make 'that' decision more times than I care to remember But I would still (assuming the dog was otherwise reasonably fit and able to cope with treatment and aftercare) want to feel that I had tried all the available options.

Deciding against further treatment in the best interests of the dog is one thing. Deciding against it purely on financial grounds is another.

[moorx]

Gargamel said:

No she absolutely is insured, I am waiting to hear back from the insurance co as to whether the claim is allowable.
Without the scan the Vet isn't willing to comment on whether she is a suitable candidate for the surgery, but it is both front elbows and given it is arthritis it is likely to be in other joints sooner or later too.

So it is hard to say. Hence the question. I have previously made bold statements about hugely expensive surgery for pets and how I don't think it is morally justifable. However ..... am I about to change my mind ?


I guess in the end the real question is - post op - will she be back and close to good as ever, or is it a marginal or temporary gain.

She needs rest right now, back at the vet in two weeks once the inflammation is a bit more under control.

We may have different views (for now at least....) but I just wanted to say that I do sympathise with you and do understand how hard it is

I do wish you and your dog the very best and all the strength that you'll need to get through this (whatever the outcome).