I don't have a pet at the moment, but I would have given anything to save my cockatiel that died a year ago. seriously, she was the BEST. even so, all life is worth A LOT. that's why i'm vegan. i just can't handle lives being taken away left and right. if i can do something, i will. i hope your dog is going to be okay! :flowerforyou:

I find myself inclined to agree with your husband's friend. I love my Dogs and rescued both from the pound and have put quite a bit of money into keeping them happy and healthy. But honestly I could never spend that much on a procedure for a pet. I would have to say my limit on any one procedure would have to Be $500. My one dog is 13 yrs old and I have had her since she was a puppy but that being said I can not put my family in debt for a pet. Yes they add to a family but are in the end replaceable.

We actually had this put to the test recently.

A few years ago, we adopted a shepherd mix from the local shelter. They guessed he was one or two at the time, which put him around 7 this year. At an initial checkup with a new vet, they found that his red blood cell count was dangerously low (the day before, he became extremely lethargic). It's a condition called Immune Mediate Hemolytic Anemia (IMHA), where basically, his body was still making red blood cells, but it was also destroying them too rapidly. It has a low survival rate, but he was otherwise healthy, so we took him to emergency care and got him a blood transfusion and started him on Prednisone and supplements. His red blood cell count bounced back greatly, but he started having trouble breathing, and the vet found "nodules" in his lungs. The suspicion was that he had cancer somewhere (which caused the initial IMHA), and being on the Prednisone (which suppresses the immune system) allowed it to spread to his lungs, but the theory was never confirmed. He ultimately died of a blood clot near his brain (instant, thankfully).

I've always been of the opinion that it's more cruel to prolong a life without regard to the quality of said life. This goes for human or non-human. I simply don't feel that death is the worst thing to happen to a being. It's a natural part of life, and a fate that we all eventually share. Prolonging a life for the sake of delaying death, even when the quality of life is non-existent, is, in my opinion, more cruel than just ending it humanely.

That doesn't make it an easy decision, though, we didn't want to lose him. We did the transfusion to give our dog a chance to recover, and had that been the only issue, he would have. He hated, with the passion of a thousand suns, vets and medical facilities, so had we had the time to find out it was cancer, or something that required a prolonged hospital stay, we would have said no and were planning to arrange for putting him down at home. At that point, he barely had the energy to climb stairs, and could barely breathe in general (much less after the effort of going up and down stairs, and because we live in a split-level house, going up stairs is required, unless you want to live on the landing, or outside). We decided that he had lived a long, happy (once we got him), full life, and that he was currently miserable and suffering, and was in for more suffering and misery had we tried to prolong his life for a highly questionable amount of time (the IMHA alone, typically only bought a couple months at best, and that was with higher starting levels than he had, let alone whatever it was that caused it).

One thing we found in light of this, though, was that pet insurance isn't a bad investment. We calculated it out and found that we would have paid less overall, had we had it even since the day we got him, because it would have covered everything. After what happened, it makes the idea of having health insurance for our pets seem far less absurd, especially since we're the type that are willing to do some amount of higher-cost care to give them a chance to recover.

I raised an American bulldog from the time he was a puppy until the age of 3 when I had to put him down. Twice before he had swallowed something too large to digest (6 inch rope toys, ect.) I paid for the two surgeries to open him up and it cost me nearly 3,000 dollars combined. The third time he did it, we had a little in our savings account, but having started a family I decided that I couldn't put our household, now with children, at financial risk, and there was no guarantees that he would not continue finding strange things to swallow. I asked the vet if there was any way someone would adopt him and do the surgery ( vets sometimes do this) and she said no, so I put his head in my lap, had them administer the drugs, and cried my eyes out as he took his last breath. If I were a millionaire he would still be alive, but I'm not. I still miss that dog, but I felt that even though the decision I made was a painful one, it was the right one.

I'm a dog person, but not a DOG PERSON, and I think there is a difference. I have and will always love my pets, especially dogs because I think they are the only animal that has evolved along side humans and are our true companions, but there are times I think that we americans take our pet obsessions to the extreme. I guess I look at it this way...if the **** really hit the fan tomorrow, armeggedon, apocalypse, meteor strike, tidal waves, ect...and my family is starving, fido goes on the menu long before the humans, but that's just me.

I've always been of the opinion that it's more cruel to prolong a life without regard to the quality of said life. This goes for human or non-human. I simply don't feel that death is the worst thing to happen to a being. It's a natural part of life, and a fate that we all eventually share. Prolonging a life for the sake of delaying death, even when the quality of life is non-existent, is, in my opinion, more cruel than just ending it humanely.

I share this opinion.

The choice to get a pet shouldn't be a frivolous one, they need dentist visits, vet visits, shots, food and a ton of other things. They get sick just like humans, they have accidents that require surgery and sometimes they develop conditions that require longer term care.

Pets are NOT cheap. They are family members and require much the same care as a small child. Yet so many people will just get a pet and do nothing else, no dentists, no vets, nothing extra..if the pet gets sick they put them down and just buy another one. The complete disrespect for life just makes me want to puke. If you aren't willing to take care of your animals then why get them at all? They are not just there for your amusement. I couldn't justify taking responsibility for a living creature and then NOT providing that creature the things that will allow it to remain comfortable and healthy. Getting a pet is like having a 3 yr old kid around ALL THE TIME. You need to keep things out of reach, close closets, place chemicals out of the way, make sure you don't have things laying around that can cause harm to them. If you choose not to do these things you are contributing to the death of that animal and having them put down because you can't afford to help them is the same to me as putting your child down because they keep choking on food when learning to eat.

If you aren't willing to take the responsibility, financial or otherwise please don't have pets OR kids.

So lets be frank...I am pretty sure after telling my story that a lot of what was just written was directed at me, and any pretense that it isn't is immature. You start off so reasonable. Vet trips, responsible ownership...all things that people who want to be responsible pet owners should do, things that my wife and I do for all of our adopted animals.

And then you begins the insanity. First and foremost...you make huge assumptions that in my scenario or others that steps were not taken to ensure the pets safety. They were, but when you have an animal that is as large as a grown man, the things he was able to swallow if he put his mind to it is endless. Branches, shoes, socks, toys, baseballs, who knows why he did it or why he developed the compulsion to do it, but even the most vigilant eye could not have kept an eye on him at all times. Accidents happen.

And secondly, and maybe more importantly, anyone, and I mean anyone, who equates the life of a dog to that of a child is insane. No debate. I have lost pets. My friends have lost pets. But anyone with once iota or perception or common sense can see the huge, epic differences between losing a pet and losing a child. Yes, I agree, pets are part of the family. But not the main parts. I have seen dead children, there parents grieving on the side of the road cradling their child's tattered body screaming their heads off and tearing their own faces with their nails. Equal? Not even close.

My best friend of 20 years just lost his one year old son to cancer. One year old. That funeral was unreal...and to think that American's can equate that sorrow with losing a pet shows how far removed from humanity some people are. Do I believe in dog fighting. Hell no. Do I believe in animal cruelty, absolutely not. Do I hunt, nope. I have no desire to ever kill anything needlessly. But when I hear stories of victims of natural disasters who are unwilling to give up their pets to make room in the rescue vehicles for other HUMANS, I also want to puke in my mouth.

YOu guys are gonna hate me but I'm old school when it comes to pets.. I have a very tight budget as a single mom. If something happen to my cat that required 100 dollarsw or more of unexpected expenses then it would probably be bye bye kitty cat......

I had a friend spend 7000 dollars on her cat and then she didn't have grocery oney for her or her son.... sorry priorities

And that's the thing. I am more than willing to spend 100 bucks, but I don't judge because everyone's finances are different. But what the pet zealots amaze me at is their obsession to get every animal adopted.....and when you adopt them if you aren't willing to spend thousands of dollars on them, not only are you a bad pet owner, you shouldn't have kids. Craziness.

Anyone who knows me will say that any pet that lives with me has won life's lottery. I put up with a lot more than most people would - the dog is special needs and kind of a *kitten*, and my cats are all former feral strays, some still pretty shy and weird.

I've worked in a shelter. I've worked as a vet tech. I'm at once extremely compassionate, and almost cold-heartedly practical. As much as my pets mean to me, as much as I don't think they're "replaceable," there are so many homeless pets being euthanized every damn day that I don't think I could justify going to heroic measures to prolong one's life. Other than they had the good luck to wander into my yard, what makes my cats any more valuable than the ones getting an injection of pentobarbitol at the shelter? In the past seven years, I've lost three cats... and both my parents and a brother. The cats meant a lot to me, but they're not just like people.

I might not be willing or able to do major life-saving heroics for all my pets, but I know that I do everything in my power to keep them happy and safe.

As much as my pets mean to me, as much as I don't think they're "replaceable," there are so many homeless pets being euthanized every damn day that I don't think I could justify going to heroic measures to prolong one's life. Other than they had the good luck to wander into my yard, what makes my cats any more valuable than the ones getting an injection of pentobarbitol at the shelter?

Interesting point. A friend of mine was fostering a very sick kitten that was born with a portosystemic shunt. The kitten was unlikely to be cured by a very expensive surgery but it was the only alternative to putting it down. My friend raised about $3000 on Facebook for the surgery and I know her husband raised the same point -- think of how many animals you could save with that money.

The thing is, emotion doesn't work that way. My dog is not inherently more valuable than any dog in the shelter, but it is the dog that I have a relationship with. It is the dog that I have an agreement with -- we look out for each other. I can't help every dog, but maybe I can be there for a few over the course of my life. It's no different with people -- my friends and family aren't inherently better people than someone across the world, but I certainly react differently when they are in trouble than if they were a stranger. I guess it is fundamentally a selfish impulse, because they are "mine".

But here is another interesting point. How many children around the world could 3,000 dollars feed, cloth, ect? I love animals....but I am disturbed at how much money charities can raise for our furry friends when so many human charities are suffering. I'm not sure of the national totals, but I can speak from first hand experience that I have seen in one county, when they have their largest festival during the 4th of July and all of the charities are out collecting....The Humane Society not only out raises charities for the poor, homeless veterans, abused women and children and so on....it beats them all COMBINED. Sort of strange.

As much as my pets mean to me, as much as I don't think they're "replaceable," there are so many homeless pets being euthanized every damn day that I don't think I could justify going to heroic measures to prolong one's life. Other than they had the good luck to wander into my yard, what makes my cats any more valuable than the ones getting an injection of pentobarbitol at the shelter?

Interesting point. A friend of mine was fostering a very sick kitten that was born with a portosystemic shunt. The kitten was unlikely to be cured by a very expensive surgery but it was the only alternative to putting it down. My friend raised about $3000 on Facebook for the surgery and I know her husband raised the same point -- think of how many animals you could save with that money.

The thing is, emotion doesn't work that way. My dog is not inherently more valuable than any dog in the shelter, but it is the dog that I have a relationship with. It is the dog that I have an agreement with -- we look out for each other. I can't help every dog, but maybe I can be there for a few over the course of my life. It's no different with people -- my friends and family aren't inherently better people than someone across the world, but I certainly react differently when they are in trouble than if they were a stranger. I guess it is fundamentally a selfish impulse, because they are "mine".

But here is another interesting point. How many children around the world could 3,000 dollars feed, cloth, ect? I love animals....but I am disturbed at how much money charities can raise for our furry friends when so many human charities are suffering. I'm not sure of the national totals, but I can speak from first hand experience that I have seen in one county, when they have their largest festival during the 4th of July and all of the charities are out collecting....The Humane Society not only out raises charities for the poor, homeless veterans, abused women and children and so on....it beats them all COMBINED. Sort of strange.

That is an interesting point! Why do you think that is?

I see it as an issue of psychology rather than morality (reading between the lines of your posts I am guessing that you see the valuation of animal over human well-being as a moral issue, forgive me if that's incorrect). In regards to charitable donations, I wonder if a lot of it is very effective advertising as dragonwolf said. I also agree pets can elicit a maternal/paternal response. I think part of it is that the impulse to help is stronger if the situation is more concrete, so for instance studies have shown that people are more likely to donate to one specific child or family in need than they are to donate to "families in need" in general. So people may donate to help a specific kitten on FB, when otherwise they would not be donating that money at all (it's not like they're *not* donating to X charity solely because of the kitten). A picture of a dog or cat that looks like your dog or cat on an SPCA ad with the looming image of a gas chamber behind it will likely illicit a stronger impulse to donate than an image that is more foreign or outside the realm of your experience, no matter how worthy the other cause is.

In regards to companion animals, studies on the human-animal bond have shown how closely people relate to their pets and how much people value those relationships. Relationships with animals are much less complicated than our relationships with other people, involve much less judgement, criticism, and conflict and much more unconditional love.

Here are just a couple I found on a quick google search.

http://jeps.efpsa.org/article/view/jeps.ao/56
http://www.petpartners.org/Document.Doc?id=147 (abstract only)

As I alluded to above, I'm not sure the animal charities are taking away from the human ones, or that people spending thousands of dollars on their animal should feel guilty for not donating to a homeless shelter instead. The money and the impulse to spend it is not interchangeable.