How much would you spend on your pet's health?

[GregoryPalamas]

10-15 dollars wouldn’t cover county fees here, nor would it cover distemper/rabies shots, or even the yearly checkup. I’m not even going to ask what you would feed a pet… So, tell me, what can you do for a pet over their lifetime that would cost $10-15? You can’t even keep a fish for that little. (well maybe the carnival gold fish, assuming you stick it in grandma’s old oversized vase that you didn’t pay for. And assuming it dies within a year or two…)

Cute, I’ve seen this joke on the internet for about 10 years now, but it still makes me smile…

I was mainly referring to vet bills, not license and food. And I didn’t really take the post all that seriously. I didn’t know that the joke about tutoring existed outside my wife telling it to me.

Dan L

 

[Zooey]

This is a question that I have asked myself…I have a cat whom I dearly love. But I live on a fixed income. What would I do?? One part of me says, I could not afford large amounts of money, another says that I could not bear to let her go, when it might be possible to make her better.
I am fortunate so far; she is a happy healthy cat. She lives entirely indoors, so has no exposure to other animals’ illnesses. I hope I have her for a long long time.
I think that this is something that each person has to work out on an individual basis.
I would like to add that, since your pet is a cat, you might want to add St Gertrude of Nivelles to how you pray for the kitty; she is the patron saint of cats (& cat people).
I hope that all goes well. God bless.

 

[Feanaro_s_Wife]

I respect your dilema. I am the type (as I have been brought up to be) that believes pets are a part of the family. No, I do not think they are equal to human beings… but they are very important to me.

How much money or what kind of care to give a pet is a very personal decision that only you can make. Don’t let anyone make you feel guilty for spending or not spending money to care for your beloved pet. The decision is yours alone.

I second the post by kage_ar about dietary treatments. Our 6 year old Bouvier has had health problems since day one. We did what the vet told us, we had him on “prescription” food that cost a fortune…etc.

He wasn’t getting better. When the vet told me Bear would need to be on cortisone for the rest of his life I decided there had to be a better way.

I started to research online. Long story short, he is now on a raw food diet and doing wonderfully! No medication, no vet visits multiple times per month, and the “side effects” are a beautiful coat, clean white teeth, a cloudy eye that has cleared up, and numerous other benefits.

There is a wonderful site by a vet for cats. Here is the link if you are interested:

catinfo.org/

Last year my parents had to put down our beloved 17 year old Olly Bella. Her brother, Tigger, is still with us, but has a lot of urinary trouble. He has greatly improved (no surgery or meds) with a change in diet.

When I think of all that our pets do for us, the least I can do for them is my best. But I would not spend money on them that I just didn’t have.

I would try to find a charitable organization that could help, see if my vet would accept monthly payments, put it on a credit card (within reason for our family) or have the pet put down humanely if there was no other choice.

I will pray for you to come to a decision that is best for you and your cat.

I also belong to a forum for taking care of cats…it has a lot of great info and very helpful people. You need to be referred to join, so just PM me if you’d like more info. I’m sure they could help you out.

Malia

 

[Bootoo]

I would spend however much it takes, and have. My cat has major heart disease, and the amount that I have spent on her health care and to board her when I am away (billed as “medical care” rather than regular boarding, due to her condition) adds up to more thousands already than I can keep track of. And she is doing relatively well, and I can only assume that I will spend many thousands more. And why not? Aside from my family, she is the living creature most important in my life. And my family does fine financially, and needs nothing monetary from me (and of course, if I had to choose between her and them, it would be them). And I do well enough financially that I don’t miss what I spend on her. And incidentally, I give more than 1/10 of my income to the Church and other charities.

It is interesting to me how this question seems to come up so often in regard to the healthcare of pets, and not so often in other areas. If I wanted to take a cruise to Hawaii, or or spend three months in Europe, or buy a diamond necklace, or drive a Mercedes instead of my Saturn, there would be few people who would ask whether I think that it is really appropriate to be spending my money that way rather than donating it to the homeless people, or other charities. Most people, I think, make the assumption that if you make enough to support yourself and your family, and give enough to charity, and still have “discretionary income” left over, that there is nothing wrong in spending it in a way that give you pleasure…as long as that “pleasure” is something society considers acceptable, such as a cruise to Hawaii. For me, there is nothing that would or could give me more pleasure than giving my cat the best quality of life for the most amount of years.

It is when I hear someone say the equivalent of “I could have spent $1500 on my cat’s operation, but I needed it to take my cruise to Hawaii next summer, so I had her euthanized instead” that I really question their values.

 

[Zooey]

Bootoo:

It is when I hear someone say the equivalent of “I could have spent $1500 on my cat’s operation, but I needed it to take my cruise to Hawaii next summer, so I had her euthanized instead” that I really question their values.

If I had to go without something else, I would care for my cat…My problem is knowing that I might not :nope: be able to afford it some day…
You make a very valuable point. If I had a lot of money, I can’t imagine spending it on material things instead of my cat. Other than my church, the one thing that I do contribute to, is my local Humane Society. I can’t do much, but I also don’t have to worry where the money is going. (By the way, when you do lose a pet, a donation in the pet’s name to the Humane society is a very healing feeling…can really help you through the grieving!!).

 

[EsclavoDeCristo]

I haven’t read the entire thread but want to answer the question in the subject line.

I recently spent over a year in Latin America working as a missionary. Being a new missionary group, this is one of the many ethical questions we had to tackle. “How much money can we spend on our dog?” We had a dog for security reasons.

At first we tried not to spend anything, only giving the dog bones and scraps. It made no sense for us to buy food for an animal when there are many people who do not have adacuate food for themselves and families. That was always the sticking point. “Should we be spending money on this dog when we could be spending it on a person who needs healthcare, food or shelter?” Eventually we did break down and buy some dog food (during lent we didn’t have many left-overs/scraps due to fasting).

Personally, I would not spend much money at all on a pet. I would provide for its basic necessities but any thing more I would consider wasteful. I don’t want God to say to me on judgement day “why didn’t you take care of your brother?” and when I say “I’m sorry Lord but I couldn’t” He’ll show me the many wasteful things I bought/did for my dog!

Of course I realize that the USA is different from 3rd world Latin America and thus there is room for differences. However I would like to remind you all that there are still many people starving and suffering in this world. Keep that in mind when you spend your money. All that we have comes from God. We are only stewards of what He has entrusted us with!

God bless you all!

 

[Catholic90]

GregoryPalamas:

Maybe $10-15 for the lifetime of the pet not including nuetering which I think is necessary. I might consider more if I were alone and elderly and didn’t have much else to spend my money on.
Dan L

Yearly checkups, heartworm prevention, rabies, distemper shots…all those add up alot more than $10-15!!!

 

[catsrus]

Feanaro’s Wife, thank you very much for the website. I have added it to my “favorites” for further reading. Hopefully, I’ll find something that can help me to avoid future health problems with my younger cats.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Don’t fool yourself! That $1500 is not spent on the pet, it is being spent on yourself! You spend the $1500 because you can’t bare the heartache of losing a loved pet - plain and simple.

Unlike humans, there is NO REDEMPTIVE VALUE in animal suffering. That is why it is OK to euthanise them. A quick and humane death is not a bad thing for an animal - they go straight to heaven (if this is possible). Their souls are not fallen like ours. They have no need for purgatory. So if there is a heaven for critters, their transition from this life to the next is as instantaneous as the dieing process.

Is it sinful to spend $1500 for medical treatment of a pet? It can be. And it can be justified. Remember though you are spending it on yourself, you are doing the animal NO FAVORS!

Look at it similar to spending $1500 on a vacation. Can you morally justify it?

You may consider what the animal is used for. If it’s just for petting, and you didn’t spend that much to get the pet, then $1500 isn’t really worth it. However, there are some animals that are worth a lot of money to begin with. Certain dogs can cost lots of money because they are capable of performing certain tasks, like fetching ducks out of near-freezing water, or pulling sleds. Sometimes it just makes good sense to spend the money on medical treatment to get the animal reinstated.

Face it, you are going to outlive your pet (unless you have a tortoise). So you are going to have to feel the pain of losing the animal sooner or later. Why put it off?

It frankly disgusts me when people talk about the sacrifices they make for their animals, as if they are heroes for saving the critters life.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Black Jaque:

It frankly disgusts me when people talk about the sacrifices they make for their animals, as if they are heroes for saving the critters life.

Animals are God’s creatures and we have a duty to care for and protect them. It disgusts me when people neglect and abuse their animals because they “are just animals”. :nope: I don’t think the OP considers herself a hero; she loves her pet and wants to provide a good home for the animal she rescued.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Catholic90:

Yearly checkups, heartworm prevention, rabies, distemper shots…all those add up alot more than $10-15!!!

That makes it easy. I wouldn’t have a pet. As a matter of fact, we don’t.

Dan L

 

[Black_Jaque]

It disgusts me when people neglect and abuse their animals because they “are just animals”.

Maybe it’s just me, but I can see a big black line between neglect and abuse, vs. humane euthanasia.

It’s quite simple, always work towards minimizing the animals suffering - that is our duty. Sometimes euthanasia causes less suffering than the medical treatment, but sometimes the medical treatment causes less suffering.

Animals are God’s creatures and we have a duty to care for and protect them.

Right, and that duty only goes so far. It does not mean that other duties go by the wayside for our pets.

I actually think this PeTA mentality is another tenticle of the culture of death. Along with undervaluing human life through contraception, euthanasia, and abortion, there is another faction that is simultaneously over-valuing animal life.

Yep, you read it correctly, I wrote euthanasia as if it were a good thing for animals, and euthanasia as if it were a bad thing for humans.

 

[yochumjy]

Black Jaque:

Maybe it’s just me, but I can see a big black line between neglect and abuse, vs. humane euthanasia.

You are the only person talking about human euthansia. Why bring it up? No one here is saying that animals should trump humans, no one. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulders about animals…
Black Jaque:

It’s quite simple, always work towards minimizing the animals suffering - that is our duty. Sometimes euthanasia causes less suffering than the medical treatment, but sometimes the medical treatment causes less suffering.

Tell, me, when is any treatments that makes an animal better going to be entail less suffering on the animal than a nice shot that just puts them to sleep forever? That is a silly way to think about it. Either the animal can get better without excessive known pain (they do hide it pretty well) or not. There is of course probability figured into this also. Then there is cost, many times cost can be negotiated or supplemented, but not always. So, no it is not always quite simple.
Black Jaque:

Right, and that duty only goes so far. It does not mean that other duties go by the wayside for our pets.

I actually think this PeTA mentality is another tenticle of the culture of death. Along with undervaluing human life through contraception, euthanasia, and abortion, there is another faction that is simultaneously over-valuing animal life.

Yep, you read it correctly, I wrote euthanasia as if it were a good thing for animals, and euthanasia as if it were a bad thing for humans.

Euthanasia for humans is not being considered here, you can drop that. Euthanasia for animals is a possibility, and can be a good one, but any general statement that euthanasia for animals is good does not make sense. If we accept an animal into our lives and we are just killing it off because it is inconveniant, what does that say about us? Isn’t that just a little sub-part of the culture of death. Don’t like something, kill it. Something inconveniances me, kill it. Then all we have to do is dehumanize anything else that inconveniances us.

 

[MooCowSteph]

Black Jaque:

Maybe it’s just me, but I can see a big black line between neglect and abuse, vs. humane euthanasia.

It’s quite simple, always work towards minimizing the animals suffering - that is our duty. Sometimes euthanasia causes less suffering than the medical treatment, but sometimes the medical treatment causes less suffering.

I agree- putting a pet down does not equal abuse. It is often the kind thing to do. You said it “disgusts” you when people make sacrafices for their animals and act like heros. You voiced your opinion on the care of animals and I voiced mine - that I find it disgusting when people abuse and neglect animals. What I view as basic care you may view as a sacrafice. What I veiw as neglect, you may well view as standard care.

Right, and that duty only goes so far. It does not mean that other duties go by the wayside for our pets.

No one is advocating the OP let other duties go by the wayside. In fact, we’ve all said what is too much money for one family may be no big deal for another. It’s a personal situation. If her children go without food so that her cat can have a new rhinestone collar, that’s too far. But we do not know this person’s situation. She needs to evaluate her financial situation, the value of her pet to her, and see what she can afford.

Yep, you read it correctly, I wrote euthanasia as if it were a good thing for animals, and euthanasia as if it were a bad thing for humans.

I agree. Euthanasia can be a good thing for an animal. Part of being a responsible and caring pet owner means doing what’s best for the pet, including knowing when their best years are gone and they are suffering to be here.

 

[Black_Jaque]

You voiced your opinion on the care of animals and I voiced mine - that I find it disgusting when people abuse and neglect animals. What I view as basic care you may view as a sacrafice. What I veiw as neglect, you may well view as standard care.

No, this is moral relativity and I don’t buy it! There is a line between neglect and basic care. Just because Americans have become over-indulgent doesn’t move that line.

You are the only person talking about human euthansia. Why bring it up? No one here is saying that animals should trump humans, no one. Sounds like you have a chip on your shoulders about animals…

Ahhh, that would be humane, with an E. I brought in human euthanasia later on in the post.

Euthanasia for humans is not being considered here, you can drop that. Euthanasia for animals is a possibility, and can be a good one, but any general statement that euthanasia for animals is good does not make sense. If we accept an animal into our lives and we are just killing it off because it is inconveniant, what does that say about us? Isn’t that just a little sub-part of the culture of death. Don’t like something, kill it. Something inconveniances me, kill it. Then all we have to do is dehumanize anything else that inconveniances us.

Yess! Yes! Exactly! The culture of death has blurred the line between human and animal - they’ve dehumanized us, and simultaneously they’ve humanized animals (animals are people too).

Perhaps I’m a bit vehement about this because it is the distinction the Church draws between human life and animal life that helped me accept the Church’s teaching on contraceptives.

Look at Catholic teaching on various issues:

Contraception: human evil, animal OK
Invitro fertilization: human evil, animal OK
Killing: human evil, animal OK
Cloning: human evil, animal OK
Euthanasia: human evil, animal OK
Genetic engineering: human evil, animal OK

On all these activities the Church clearly draws the line between human and animal, not between life and death. There are two ways for Satan to blur the lines; dehumanize us, or humanize animals. Once the lines are blurred, we won’t be able to distinguish which activity is ok for which critter.

Heck, grizzly bears eat their young, and grizzly bears are people too, so why can’t people eat their young? (you’ll see the same justification used for homosexuality and chimpanzees)

Man, autumn is a long way off. When can I go kill something and eat it?

 

[Risorgimento]

Well, my gut reaction just of the top of my head was “absolutely no more than $1000 bucks!” Not that I think that amount is normal, but depending on the situation, the age of the pet, and the desposable income of the owner, I would say anywhere between $1000 and $2000 is a justifiable number for a major operation that might save the life of a family pet. (Anyone that has a pet and goes to the vet knows that at some point these kinds of numbers will arrive)

That being said, I completely agree with all of the reasons not to do this: there are people that are starving and impoverished, pets don’t have souls, its excessive, etc, etc.

Our 13 year old beloved golden retriever had tumors that would have cost $1,000-2,000 to have removed. My parents said, “Too bad, no way.” And I agree with this decision they made. She died. For her age and our income, this would have been silly.

That being said, and stating that I am a Catholic and want to follow church teaching and advisement on how we should spend our money and such, I could not disagree more with the statements made that is is “a sin to spend that much on an animal.” Where in the hell is that statement in the Catechism? It is our money to decide what we will and will not do with it. God will judge you for how you spend your money. This is one reason the Church has never required a “tithe” like the Protestants do. They believe you should give what you can and be generous to the poor. If you have tons of money, and furthermore give tons away to charity and the Church, and you still have money to pay for a $1500 operation to save the life of a beloved pet, I would say “you bet your bippy you can spend that.”

I am about to graduate from college. I am married and expecting a child soon. My wife and I have a 1 yr old chocolate lab. I have no money and spend virtually nothing on this dog. If these kinds of numers were laid on me now, I and my parents would probably just say, “Thy will be done” and not spend that kind of money… but looking down the road…if this dog needs and operation to save her life and it looks like she would have a lot of life left to live otherwise and I had a bunch of kids that loved this dog and I had a job and could financially afford to pay for an operation to save her life then, yes, I would absolutely do it and damn the person to tell me otherwise.

My advise…in any situation, especially one like this where a significant amount of money is involved and it is just an animal, not a human…would be to ask your priest. Tell him the situation and see what he says is the right, Christian, Catholic thing to do…then do that.

P.S. Dogs are what the Church calls “companion animals” and they are more important than other kinds of animals.

 

[skatepixie]

In our family, we’ve had that decision several times.

With our malamute, he had his stomach twist when he was around 6 years old. Prognosis was good, he had surgery, and lived to be nearly 14.

With our other dog, when she got cancer at 12, we were told by our vet that it really didn’t look good. We decided not to put her through chemo. Instead, we gave her anti-acid tablets to keep her comfortable, and spoiled her and loved her as long as we could.

It’s really about age, prognosis, and if we have the money…also, the temperment of the animal comes into play. With the dog we lost to cancer, we knew she really didn’t do well with medical stuff…and didn’t want to make her miserable. She also had other health problems, too.

In the end, it’s your decision, but I’d have an honest talk with your vet about how much it will cost and what he feels your cat’s prognosis is.

 

[LSK]

I absolutely agree that one needs to go on a case by case basis. I had a five year old scotty that came down with cancer. I was told I could put him through extensive chemo and other treatment and he would live another 18 months or so, and be miserably sick the entire time. I chose, instead, to let him come home and get lots of love and attention … he lived for about 3 more weeks and died in his sleep.

I have a 12 year old cat who was diagnosed three months ago with diabetes. I was told what treatment of diabetes for a cat would entail. Not only was I unable to keep to the schedule that would have been required I would not have been able to afford the medicine or vet visits…and the cat would have been miserable getting daily shots and being hauled to the vet for blood work. I decided, no treatment…lots of love and attention. I was told what to watch for in terms of deterioration and he is just NOW starting to show definite signs of being sick…so I will probably have him put to sleep after Christmas day. I love him and I will miss him terribly, but I will NOT put an animal through extensive treatment just to asuage my own ego.

Now, my new scotty is just over a year old. If he got sick or hurt I would have him treated - unless it was a terminal illness like cancer. Again, I would not put the animal through hell on earth just to make me feel better - but a stomach twist that could be cured with surgery is different, or stitches, or antibiotics…simple stuff, I will do.

 

[bunnynessuk]

I have two gorgeous pugs and I would spend what ever money was neccessary to keep them happy and healthy - but I also have pet insurance (not to sure about the system in the US) but here I pay £300 a year (roughly$600) per animal and I am insured for all illnesses and accidents etc. Animals become part of the family - I know after my miscarriage my dogs have become my babies.

It is a personal choice - if spending the £1500 has stopped you from affording food or clothing or transport then it was too much if not and your happy your pet has lived then fine. No one can put an amount on how much is too much because it is all relative whats expensive to one isnt to another.

 

[Sierrah]

Ok well everyone has mentioned good points here. But it really comes down to what the pet or animal means to you. In my own experience I can’t handle seeing animals suffer and am willing to put forth a reasonable sum of money to keep them comfortable or get them well. I recently had to do this for my own cat who tends to get sick at least once a year. Turns out he has a condition that is managable but needs to be monitored and requires a special diet. He’s off medication now but it costs me 4 times as much to feed him as it did before he got sick. Is it worth the investment…yes for the amount of affection I feel for him yes. Logically in the cold hard world of the wallet and bank account not really but then again I never could be cold and logical when it comes to a suffering animal or person. For all those who say the money should rather be spend on the poor. I already give to the poor and the additional sum I spend on my cat wouldn’t make any difference here or there…anything I give to charity is only a drop in the bucket anyway in the big picture. I feel that God gave us a responsibility to watch over and protect animal as well the eachother and the evironment. So anything we can do the further that or maintain that is just doing his will. Of course there comes a time when an animal is suffering and the cost is too great in those cercumstances it should be a given to let the animal go. But if you feel that you can afford it and just forego an ipod or new computer or dining out a few times and the animal has a good chance for a decent quality of life then I would invest the money in my pet .