A question to dog owners.
Discussion
My view once any treatment for a pet gets above a certain number then effectively it is immoral to spend that kind of money on one animal, not matter how much you love it.
Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
Depends on the prognosis. If the chances of survival were slim I think it'd be more inclined to bite the bullet and avoid putting the dog through the effects of the treatment. Also that sort of treatment can be mighty pricey so that'd have to be considered too which wouldn't be easy to do when quite often your dog is virtually like one of your kids.
I had a dog who had cancer in her tail, we had the tail amputated but another tumour appeared on the stump after a while, the stump was amputated leaving the poor old girl with no tail at all. When a lump appeared on her hind quarters we knew it was time to call it a day
I had a dog who had cancer in her tail, we had the tail amputated but another tumour appeared on the stump after a while, the stump was amputated leaving the poor old girl with no tail at all. When a lump appeared on her hind quarters we knew it was time to call it a day
Gargamel said:
My view once any treatment for a pet gets above a certain number then effectively it is immoral to spend that kind of money on one animal, not matter how much you love it.
Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
I don't get that. It's not as if the dog is going to die shortly after having a hip replacement is it? Perhaps it would be immoral to pay to keep an animal alive if they were suffering from a condition that was going to kill them, and that money would only buy them a short period of time, possibly only serving to continue the suffering the poor creature was experiencing.Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
A hip replacement could give a whole lot more life to a dog. For me, that would be worthwhile.
It would depend on the type of cancer, the quality of life during treatment and length of life.
Some cancers e.g osteosarc, fast spreading (usually in a limb) adv is amputation of limb and chemo, for a few months extra.
Lymphoma - can respond well to chemo, just had a dog and cat survive and extra 12 and 18 months due to chemo tx. However it is expensive and no vet should force you to go for it or make you feel bad if you don't. The cancer will nearly always win in the end with animals (though again dependnig on type we are talking about).
Also consider if your pet will cope with the many vet visits, the ones we treat cope well (they are only in for an hour, it's not often the same as it is for people) and they don't often have the side effects.
There are lots of variables to the question but if can afford to consider the cost make sure your pets quality of life reamins during tx and that youa are not just helping your pet to live for another copule of months, anything less than 6 months I wouldn't do it to my pets, my personal opinion.
Some cancers e.g osteosarc, fast spreading (usually in a limb) adv is amputation of limb and chemo, for a few months extra.
Lymphoma - can respond well to chemo, just had a dog and cat survive and extra 12 and 18 months due to chemo tx. However it is expensive and no vet should force you to go for it or make you feel bad if you don't. The cancer will nearly always win in the end with animals (though again dependnig on type we are talking about).
Also consider if your pet will cope with the many vet visits, the ones we treat cope well (they are only in for an hour, it's not often the same as it is for people) and they don't often have the side effects.
There are lots of variables to the question but if can afford to consider the cost make sure your pets quality of life reamins during tx and that youa are not just helping your pet to live for another copule of months, anything less than 6 months I wouldn't do it to my pets, my personal opinion.
ukwill said:
Gargamel said:
My view once any treatment for a pet gets above a certain number then effectively it is immoral to spend that kind of money on one animal, not matter how much you love it.
Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
I don't get that. It's not as if the dog is going to die shortly after having a hip replacement is it? Perhaps it would be immoral to pay to keep an animal alive if they were suffering from a condition that was going to kill them, and that money would only buy them a short period of time, possibly only serving to continue the suffering the poor creature was experiencing.Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
A hip replacement could give a whole lot more life to a dog. For me, that would be worthwhile.
Totally different consideration. With cancer we are usually dealing with much older pets with very poor prognosis long term even with tx.
I wouldnt want any of my dogs / horses going through pain and discomfort.
I think we would have them put to sleep, as as someone once said to me, the hardest thing with animals is knowing what they are going through (pain wise and discomfort) and not being able to communicate with them to tell them "it will be ok" etc
I think we would have them put to sleep, as as someone once said to me, the hardest thing with animals is knowing what they are going through (pain wise and discomfort) and not being able to communicate with them to tell them "it will be ok" etc
Edited by FlashmanChop on Wednesday 2nd December 12:56
Yes
Our boxer dog was diagnosed with Cancer when he collapsed with a ruptured spleen caused by a tumour. After surgery he was put on medication and led another two happy, active and healthy years before the next one claimed him, very suddenly, over the space of an hour or so one morning.
If he'd obviously been in obvious pain or suffering at any point, we would have re-evaluated things, but as it stood, he enjoyed another couple of years of a good life as part of our family.
Our boxer dog was diagnosed with Cancer when he collapsed with a ruptured spleen caused by a tumour. After surgery he was put on medication and led another two happy, active and healthy years before the next one claimed him, very suddenly, over the space of an hour or so one morning.
If he'd obviously been in obvious pain or suffering at any point, we would have re-evaluated things, but as it stood, he enjoyed another couple of years of a good life as part of our family.
Gargamel said:
My view once any treatment for a pet gets above a certain number then effectively it is immoral to spend that kind of money on one animal, not matter how much you love it.
Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
On what grounds is it immoral? Because the money could be put to a more charitable use?Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
Really tough one.
Much as non dog-owners may scoff, pets really can be one of the family.
It would all depend on my financial situation, the prognosis of the dog, how old it was and how much £££ we're talking.
The OH on the other hand would have her chequebook out without hesitation, whatever the circumstances I think. Not a criticism, just the way she is when it comes to her dog.
Much as non dog-owners may scoff, pets really can be one of the family.
It would all depend on my financial situation, the prognosis of the dog, how old it was and how much £££ we're talking.
The OH on the other hand would have her chequebook out without hesitation, whatever the circumstances I think. Not a criticism, just the way she is when it comes to her dog.
If it sorted the cancer once and for all or had a high success rate, yes, at the drop of a hat.
If it merely prolongued the agony/had a slim chance of beating the cancer, no, I wouldn't put my dog through that just to keep him alive a little bit longer.
The money doesn't come into it for me, but in all fairness I do have the most comprehensive policy money can buy for our dog just incase I ever need to call on it, as I know bills and quickly run into 4 figures.
If it merely prolongued the agony/had a slim chance of beating the cancer, no, I wouldn't put my dog through that just to keep him alive a little bit longer.
The money doesn't come into it for me, but in all fairness I do have the most comprehensive policy money can buy for our dog just incase I ever need to call on it, as I know bills and quickly run into 4 figures.
AlexC1981 said:
Gargamel said:
My view once any treatment for a pet gets above a certain number then effectively it is immoral to spend that kind of money on one animal, not matter how much you love it.
Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
On what grounds is it immoral? Because the money could be put to a more charitable use?Recently an aquaintence of mine had her dogs hip replaced, the insured cost was over £3,000.
As I said - immoral.
So no I wouldn't pay for the drugs, and I probably wouldn't claim on insurance either if the prognosis wasn't good.
However, if £3,000 is ultimately being spent on a dog, which I suspect if you asked around the world would indeed be seen as a little odious.
I have pet insurance primarily in case my dog causes an accident, she may indeed at some point need surgery and I would happily claim for it. But a market is developing in ever more complex treatments for pets - and greater expense. At some point owners should be prepared to say, this isn't morally acceptable.
I know not a dog, but a few years ago our 17 year old cat had a stroke, she couldnt walk and went blind. She wasnt insured. The advice we were given by the vet and friends and family were to have her put to sleep. My wife and I thaught differently, we had her treated at the cost of about £2500. After a few weeks of treatment she was able to walk again. She never regained her sight but coped very well, able to walk out into the garden and do most things a cat of that age would want to do. She lived another 2 1/2 years, and died from an unrelated illness.
I wouldnt hesitate in paying whatever it costs to help in the treatment/recovery of any of our pets Cat, Dog or Rabbit. Even if it meant taking out loans. Obviously if the treatment is just going to prolong the suffering that is another story. I believe that there are people who have pets as objects of amusement and people that have pets as extended members of their family. If you have a pet that can benefit from treatment even if it is going to cost you, you should not think twice about it. If you have to think twice, perhaps you should not have a pet in the first place. This is not directed at anyone here, just my opinion.
I wouldnt hesitate in paying whatever it costs to help in the treatment/recovery of any of our pets Cat, Dog or Rabbit. Even if it meant taking out loans. Obviously if the treatment is just going to prolong the suffering that is another story. I believe that there are people who have pets as objects of amusement and people that have pets as extended members of their family. If you have a pet that can benefit from treatment even if it is going to cost you, you should not think twice about it. If you have to think twice, perhaps you should not have a pet in the first place. This is not directed at anyone here, just my opinion.
Edited by Gring on Wednesday 2nd December 14:15
Gargamel said:
However, if £3,000 is ultimately being spent on a dog, which I suspect if you asked around the world would indeed be seen as a little odious.
Hmm. If you ask around the world, the amount that "we" spend on sports cars, on houses, on mobile phones, on eating out, on interior design, on <whatever non-essential> could be seen as odious. Fixing up your dog, for me, is probably a less odious use of money than some other things.Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff