Do you think it is morally permissible to spend $5,000 or more for pet surgery?

[JamalChristophr]

Continuing the discussion from The Purpose of Animals:

The catechism seems to indicate otherwise. Thoughts?

 

[marybobo]

It would be good to see where the catechism speaks to this subject. People who can afford this option should be able to do so. I have no problem with it.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Continuing the discussion from The Purpose of Animals:

The catechism seems to indicate otherwise. Thoughts?

On an ordinary pet, for someone who has the money? Maybe. I think many surgeries on animals simply prolong their suffering just for US to have the pleasure of them around. That is very sinful. Sometimes these expensive surgeries done on pets train doctors and given them insight into healing. For instance, univeristies developed many techniques when it became obvious that hip dysplasia is common in labs. They actually developed techniques that help children today.

So not all pet spending is a frivolity.

I do think that putting money into service animals is very different than pets.

I do think, for the average American…who according to studies has less than $400 in the bank, going into debt for a pet would indeed be sinful as it would be a threat to their existence as a human.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Is it morally permissible to spend over $20k on a car? Is it morally permissible to spend more than $100 on a dress? A haircut? A dinner? Club membership? Is it morally permissible to spend $5k on a vacation?

I think this falls in the MYOB bucket. To each his own.

 

[JamalChristophr]

2418 It is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly. It is likewise unworthy to spend money on them that should as a priority go to the relief of human misery. One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.

-Catechsim of the Catholc Church

 

[FollowChrist34]

And if the animal is relieving your human misery…?


I do agree there is a limit to what I would spend on medical care for a pet. I budget it within my finances. I also stop treatment if it is overly burdensome in other ways. Or the case is terminal. But it depends on what $5k means to a person in terms of their assets.

If a family pet is injured, say hit by a car, and the family does a surgery for $2 or 3k I think that is ok; I am ok if they to decide to euthanize too. It is a personal decision based on a number of factors.

 

[tawny]

There is an Animal Hospital in NY called, Animal Medical Center. They have a cancer care unit, their DVMs are crossover MDs. They do cancer care & research in affiliation with Weil/Cornell, The Rockefeller Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering & NYU. Many experimental cancer drugs are given to animals in research programs before being applied to human care. If, you have the money & or pet insurance; why not?

 

[BenedicamDominum]

No, I think it is a complete waste of money on a complete first world problem.

Use that sort of surplus to sponsor a child in a poor country for the next eight years of his or her life. Go to Missio and find one of the many projects you could single-handedly finance, and look at the good it would do to those poor people.

But don’t waste it on Fido.

 

[pnewton]

The catechism answers the question for me. I know that I could not. I recall the scene from Schindler’s List where at the end he has heart-rending regret for every luxury he afforded himself. I wonder if Purgatory might hold for us a similar fate.

 

[Viki63]

I agree with pnewton. However, I would spend $2 K on a dog hit by a car, but if a close family member was in need I would mortgage my house, do whatever was necessary. It’s only money, and God owns the cattle on a thousand hills.

 

[Guadalupe]

I am appalled by anyone thinking of not doing what one can to help one of God’s beautiful living creations that is in any kind of pain . But . we do live in a society that kills/murders defenseless innocent unborn babies still in the womb by several horrific ways . God have mercy on us

 

[Roseeurekacross]

These days there is pet insurance. So if Fido gets injured or sick, if it’s fixable , it can be covered by insurance.

If we keep pets or livestock we must at least have to the funds to pts in an emergency or if unwell, and to desex them, feed them properly and train them. We can’t just get fido and throw fido in a yard and forget about fido. He needs shelter as well

Say you have insurance , fido gets hit by a car , fido is scraped off the road, rushed to the vet, he gets X-rays, sedation, pain relief. One leg is easily fixed , it’s a clean break, operation and a plate , all good, other leg degloved, so vet says it will cost thousands and a lot of care, and who knows how the dog will respond.

What do you do? Put the dog down. But you had to be able to pay the costs already incurred and the cost to pts.

If it were just one leg, clean break, op and plate and good to go in 12 weeks or so, you have insurance, do the op.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

I am appalled by anyone thinking of not doing what one can to help one of God’s beautiful living creations that is in any kind of pain . But . we do live in a society that kills/murders defenseless innocent unborn babies still in the womb by several horrific ways . God have mercy on us

Huh? First, this is about pets, not abortion, lets stick to the topic.
Second, I am stating that many of the procedures that people are willing to put animals through only prolong their suffering even though in a human it could mean some years of life remaining. The difference is that animals have no ability to understand pain, and no ability to give that pain in redemptive suffering.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

Huh? First, this is about pets, not abortion, lets stick to the topic.

Second, I am stating that many of the procedures that people are willing to put animals through only prolong their suffering even though in a human it could mean some years of life remaining. The difference is that animals have no ability to understand pain, and no ability to give that pain in redemptive suffering.

Let’s not make this about redemptive suffering. Father David has a lot to say about that in a thread. Stick to the topic. It’s about morality of spending 5k plus in vet fees.

There are plenty of procedures animals can undergo that relieve their pain and suffering. Animals have the ability to understand pain, no pain. Take a traumatic eye injury. Remove that eye, immediate relief of pain.
And they do respond well to pain relief. And as stated , there are vets out there doing cutting edge surgeries and procedures that will translate to people, and give an animal quality of life back.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

Huh? First, this is about pets, not abortion, lets stick to the topic.

Second, I am stating that many of the procedures that people are willing to put animals through only prolong their suffering even though in a human it could mean some years of life remaining. The difference is that animals have no ability to understand pain, and no ability to give that pain in redemptive suffering.

Let’s not make this about redemptive suffering. Father David has a lot to say about that in a thread. Stick to the topic.

There are plenty of procedures animals can undergo that relieve their pain and suffering. Animals have the ability to understand pain, no pain. And they do respond well to pain relief. And as stated , there are vets out there doing cutting edge surgeries and procedures that will translate to people, and give an animal quality of life back.

There are also an enormous amount of vets out there who are “treating” things like cancer, seizures, heart and joint issues to the tune of thousands that keep an animal in pain but able to live longer. Sometimes, it’s just the fact that the animal has a lengthy recovery process that causes them to suffer unnecessarily.

There are many people who selfishly put their pets through painful procedures that have a poor net result to get more time with their pet who’s still suffering (albeit less). That is sinful in my opinion. While I’ll cede to you the point of redemptive suffering, I do see the above as a huge difference to what is owed to humans vs what is cruel to animals.

 

[Roseeurekacross]

There are also an enormous amount of vets out there who are “treating” things like cancer, seizures, heart and joint issues to the tune of thousands that keep an animal in pain but able to live longer. Sometimes, it’s just the fact that the animal has a lengthy recovery process that causes them to suffer unnecessarily.

There are many people who selfishly put their pets through painful procedures that have a poor net result to get more time with their pet who’s still suffering (albeit less). That is sinful in my opinion. While I’ll cede to you the point of redemptive suffering, I do see the above as a huge difference to what is owed to humans vs what is cruel to animals.

Do you have any stats on this? Cause right now you are generalising. You are speaking uncharitably about the veterinary profession and pet/livestock/animal industry people.

Any expensive vet procedure is going to come with a great big discussion about its benefits, drawbacks, etc. vets can and do say no.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If the person has $5,000 to spend and is not stealing the money, making his children go without necessities, or running himself into unpayable debt, it’s not my place to be telling him his expenditure is “immoral” unless the purchase is clearly sinful (example: spending 5 grand on heroin or prostitutes). Even if I did feel it was my place, there are plenty of things people routinely spend 5 grand on, such as designer clothes and other luxury items, that I see as being much more useless and potentially immoral than treating the health of a living creature who has emotions, feels pain and in cases of a household pet, gives and receives love.

I love my pets and once had a cat with diabetes whose health care over several medical emergencies and vet stays probably cost in the 4 or 5 grand range and extended her life by probably 3 years. I was working at the time and we had the money to pay for her care without creating a hardship for the family. When she became ill for the last time, I decided to not seek treatment and let her go, because her age and symptoms indicated to me that it was likely her time to depart the earth, but I didn’t make the decision based on cost. If I had not had the money then it might have been a different story altogether, although now that we have the Internet, it’s easier for people to crowdfund medical bills for their pets, or seek assistance from charities that specialize in helping people pay for or get reduced cost vet care. I also never once thought of a vet healthcare expenditure of any sort (I have a lot of pets and spend a lot of money at the vet every year) as being immoral and if anyone suggested to me that it was, I would have some choice words for them.

If you love an animal, he or she is a member of your family and you try to do right by them as a living creature. About the only difference in my mind between an animal and a human with respect to health care is that you are morally permitted to euthanize an animal when he or she is very ill or in pain, whereas you can’t do that for a human.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Any expensive vet procedure is going to come with a great big discussion about its benefits, drawbacks, etc. vets can and do say no.

This is true, and the vast majority of pet owners will be looking at things like quality of life for the animal during and after the medical procedures, to balance the suffering the animal will feel from its treatment with the expected benefit.
It would be morally questionable to keep extending the life of an animal because you couldn’t bear to let it go, when the animal was clearly in pain or suffering, but that’s based on the feelings of the animal, NOT on whether it costs 5000 or 10 dollars.

 

[Peebo]

It’s none of any ones business what I do with my money…that’s between God and me…so…to put it bluntly…butt out.

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

Xanthippe_Voorhees:

There are also an enormous amount of vets out there who are “treating” things like cancer, seizures, heart and joint issues to the tune of thousands that keep an animal in pain but able to live longer. Sometimes, it’s just the fact that the animal has a lengthy recovery process that causes them to suffer unnecessarily.

There are many people who selfishly put their pets through painful procedures that have a poor net result to get more time with their pet who’s still suffering (albeit less). That is sinful in my opinion. While I’ll cede to you the point of redemptive suffering, I do see the above as a huge difference to what is owed to humans vs what is cruel to animals.

Do you have any stats on this? Cause right now you are generalising. You are speaking uncharitably about the veterinary profession and pet/livestock/animal industry people.

Any expensive vet procedure is going to come with a great big discussion about its benefits, drawbacks, etc. vets can and do say no.

No, no I’m not. I had a good friend who had a dog with congenital heart disease and he commonly posted on a dog forum. There were a large, large number of posters who acted in this manner. One could say that a forum is not a good sample representation as people had to seek out the forum, but there were enough people sharing their own experience to safely say by the quantity of respondees and threads that their numbers were in the hundreds, if not thousands.