Would you ever euthanize a pet that had medical issues that were not terminal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the pet has a low quality of life because of those medical issues, then yes.

+1 its about quality of life.

Dealing with this now as our dog is almost completely blind. I’m trying to determine if they can settle into a new blind life or will forever be confused and scared.

We had a blind dog. He adapted, but would occasionally get into a squabble with our other dog when startled. He was a cattle dog though; those are very tough and resilient dogs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If the pet has a low quality of life because of those medical issues, then yes.

+1 its about quality of life.

Dealing with this now as our dog is almost completely blind. I’m trying to determine if they can settle into a new blind life or will forever be confused and scared.

We had a blind dog. He adapted, but would occasionally get into a squabble with our other dog when startled. He was a cattle dog though; those are very tough and resilient dogs.

Our dog went blind at age 5 from a retinal disorder. I’m sure it’s very different for an older dog who is getting frail in other ways. Our dog adapted so well, we didn’t realize he was nearly blind until we brought him to my parents’ house. Out of his usual environment, it was clear he couldn’t see stair steps and was navigating them by feeling for them with his front paws. At home, he takes the stairs like a pro. We taught him a few commands that help him in daily life. When we approach a curb or stairs, we tell him “step up” or “step down.” He understands the difference. If we say “careful,” he knows he’s about to walk into something and he slows down or changes direction.

[Anonymous]

Dog is 13+, suddenly blind. We got him a halo collar (protects his head). He is so happy to sense when I am home from work and still enjoys slow dawdling walks. Pees and poops 1-2 week inside (we have puppy pads down). He gets the holidays and hopefully Spring and Summer. Try to make the dog’s last months/year+ golden.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

Ethics dictate that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of caring for a helpless dependent, you must take care of that dependent’s basic needs. 2-4 vet visits and $1k of medical expenses spread out over a year is very, very basic care: no cancer treatment, no surgeries, no overnight hospital stays, no specialists, just routine checkups, vaccinations, a yearly heart worm test, and monthly heart worm and flea/tick preventatives.

Why am I obligated to take my indoor cat to the vet 4 times a year? Who decides this? My kids don’t go to the doctor 4 times a year.

I’ve never had a cat and don’t know anything about cats. I was talking about a dog. They usually need vaccinations multiple times per year.

Between a yearly well exam and dentist visits every 6 months, you should be taking your kids to see a doctor 3 times per year even if they have zero illnesses or injuries and don’t go to the eye doctor. That’s the minimum standard of care recommended.

Dogs older than a year only need annual shots, a few of which are optional, provided your dog is kept indoors/on leash and you don't board to use a pet sitter/dog walker who could spread contagious diseases between households/packs. Mandatory vaccines (like rabies) are often offered at shot clinics at shelters for less than $30/shot, or even free with the purchase of a license (because it's a public health issue). Indoor-only cats may not require annual vetting at all unless there's some kind of issue.

As for your second comment, not only are pets not people, but people have insurance coverage that makes annual wellness checks a minimal expense. Dental cleanings, even without insurance, aren't usually cost-prohibitive either.

Because we have a social safety net for children that we don’t have for pets, people who are financially strapped should not take on the financial strain of pet ownership. There are programs to make sure your children are fed and receive medical care. That doesn’t exist for pets (and I’m not arguing that any public funds should be used for that purpose). Just deciding that your pet will never need medical care beyond yearly vaccinations is magical thinking. Stuff happens.

Yes, and when that "stuff happens", and you can't afford it, putting your pet down gently is an acceptable route.

Yet another way that pets are not the same as people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes OP, I was would euthanize an older pet whose quality of life is going down and for whom you can't afford care.

One of my friends couldn't even afford to euthanize her dog recently and the poor animal had to suffer at the end.

Unfortunately it's getting too expensive for extensive pet medical care for most of us, and I would.hate to re-home an older animal just to have someone else not be able to afford the medical care either.

It's not even just concerns that the new family might not be able to afford it. Rehoming a pet is a MASSIVE quality of life issue, even under the best of circumstances. Younger animals are both easier to place and easier to integrate into a new situation. But an older pet, especially one that has lived basically its whole life in one home with one family? They are devastated to be removed from their pack. Doing this to a healthy pet is incredibly cruel. Doing this to a pet who is also dealing with health issues? That's inhumane. Better that the pet should meet a gentle end with its familar people than have to go through the hardship of adjusting to a whole new household while in pain/struggling.

And I'm describing a situation where it's a home to home transfer. If you add a stop at a shelter in the middle, it's even more traumatizing to the animal. Some of y'all don't seem to understand the alternatives here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to "his is part of our family. We love him like our kids."?? Now, it's "he is too expensive, let's just cut him loose"...

If anyone loves their pet like a kid I feel sorry for their kids.

Agreed. Our relationship and obligations to pets and kids are really different. A huge component to parenting is raising your kid to be a functional adult who will be independent and perhaps even have kids of their own. This is not just some bespoke idea about parenting, it's built in -- most kids outlive their parents (thankfully) so they need to be at a point where they can take care of themselves before you die. So much of what we do for kids is done with this in mind. This is why you treat a baby, a 2 year old, an 8 year old, a 15 year old, and a 30 year old really differently.

But that's not how it works for pets. You are responsible for your pet for the duration of your life and most of us will outlive our pets by decades. My obligation to my pet is to give him the best possible life I can in our home, to make sure he's got nutrition, safety, and hopefully comfort and joy. He will never live independently from me (or independently at all -- if he lived on his own he'd probably be dead within the year). So yeah, I assume I'm going to watch him die. I take no pleasure in that and don't want to hasten it, but it also changes the equation when he's very sick and likely nearing the end of his functional life, even if he does not technically have a terminal disease that will kill him imminently.

A pet dying is an inevitability. A child dying is a tragedy. Confusing these is just weird.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assume elderly (10+ years) and the pet had a good life but had slowed down a lot, and is now having regular medical issues that require vet visits. We’ve looked for more economical vets but every visit is $200 or more plus meds.

As my pet ages and with a job loss in our family, I’m just not sure I can afford all of the medical care that will likely be encouraged to prolong his life, and I don’t want to go into debt.

Flame away, and no, I’m not providing more details.

Absolutely. Though, to be fair, I'd say the same thing if it was a parent instead of a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

Ethics dictate that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of caring for a helpless dependent, you must take care of that dependent’s basic needs. 2-4 vet visits and $1k of medical expenses spread out over a year is very, very basic care: no cancer treatment, no surgeries, no overnight hospital stays, no specialists, just routine checkups, vaccinations, a yearly heart worm test, and monthly heart worm and flea/tick preventatives.

Why am I obligated to take my indoor cat to the vet 4 times a year? Who decides this? My kids don’t go to the doctor 4 times a year.

I’ve never had a cat and don’t know anything about cats. I was talking about a dog. They usually need vaccinations multiple times per year.

Between a yearly well exam and dentist visits every 6 months, you should be taking your kids to see a doctor 3 times per year even if they have zero illnesses or injuries and don’t go to the eye doctor. That’s the minimum standard of care recommended.

why do dogs need vaccines multiple times a year? so you get to decide how often my pet goes to the vet? interesting.

Nobody here can make you take your pet to the vet. Nobody here can stop you from killing your pet with a shovel, either. We can only say you're a trash person who shouldn't own a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

Ethics dictate that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of caring for a helpless dependent, you must take care of that dependent’s basic needs. 2-4 vet visits and $1k of medical expenses spread out over a year is very, very basic care: no cancer treatment, no surgeries, no overnight hospital stays, no specialists, just routine checkups, vaccinations, a yearly heart worm test, and monthly heart worm and flea/tick preventatives.

Why am I obligated to take my indoor cat to the vet 4 times a year? Who decides this? My kids don’t go to the doctor 4 times a year.

I’ve never had a cat and don’t know anything about cats. I was talking about a dog. They usually need vaccinations multiple times per year.

Between a yearly well exam and dentist visits every 6 months, you should be taking your kids to see a doctor 3 times per year even if they have zero illnesses or injuries and don’t go to the eye doctor. That’s the minimum standard of care recommended.

why do dogs need vaccines multiple times a year? so you get to decide how often my pet goes to the vet? interesting.

Nobody here can make you take your pet to the vet. Nobody here can stop you from killing your pet with a shovel, either. We can only say you're a trash person who shouldn't own a pet.

Dp. I disagree. And I recognize your argument style. argumentum ad extremum. You use it a lot on here. It connotes a personality disorder fwiw.

Obviously a mentally healthy person knows that no one is suggesting hitting their pet with a shovel or anything close to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The expense would have to be astronomical before I would ever consider it. I have pet insurance so hopefully I won't be in this position. I would give up a lot of things before I'd euthanize my pets for financial reasons.

I mean, if you don't have the money to pay for pet insurance (that doesn't suck), most long-term illness vet bills ARE astronomical.

Clearly you're not in the same financial situation OP is describing. Lucky you.

If I couldn't afford pet insurance I wouldn't have a pet. Vet bills are part of being a pet owner. I have pet insurance because I don't want to be in a position where I have to put down my pet strictly for financial reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The expense would have to be astronomical before I would ever consider it. I have pet insurance so hopefully I won't be in this position. I would give up a lot of things before I'd euthanize my pets for financial reasons.

I mean, if you don't have the money to pay for pet insurance (that doesn't suck), most long-term illness vet bills ARE astronomical.

Clearly you're not in the same financial situation OP is describing. Lucky you.

If I couldn't afford pet insurance I wouldn't have a pet. Vet bills are part of being a pet owner. I have pet insurance because I don't want to be in a position where I have to put down my pet strictly for financial reasons.

I pay $110/month to insure my two dogs. That's with a $1000 deductible. My policy doesn't cover regular maintenance issues, vaccines, flea and tick preventatives. It just exists in case my dog breaks a leg, gets cancer, something major. The $1300ish I pay just for the insurance is also about what I have to pay annually for a wellness check, fecal float, and their vaccines, plus another $1000 to keep them both on Trio.

Before ANYTHING goes even remotely wrong, and before factoring in food, treats, coats, shampoo (I groom my own dogs, but there's another common expense), I pay about three and a half grand. Just to have them. Don't get me started about the cost of feeding them!

I don't fault anyone for not having that kind of money just to have a pet. I'm extremely lucky, and I haven't always been. While past iterations of me have had pets, they were mostly found rescues with barebones care, cheap food, and only the required shots at whatever clinic was cheapest. Mercifully, most escaped major calamities and I wasn't often faced with the necessity of putting one down to avoid catastrophic financial damage. I don't envy anyone that decision, and it IS a valid decision. The alternative is saying "only rich people can have pets" and that's ridiculous.

People need to stop shaming pet owners for being both humane to their animals AND reasonable about their financial health. Not everyone can afford pet insurance and premium care. That shouldn't preclude people from having a pet in their life, provided they can afford basic care standards and annual wellness expenditures within reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The expense would have to be astronomical before I would ever consider it. I have pet insurance so hopefully I won't be in this position. I would give up a lot of things before I'd euthanize my pets for financial reasons.

I mean, if you don't have the money to pay for pet insurance (that doesn't suck), most long-term illness vet bills ARE astronomical.

Clearly you're not in the same financial situation OP is describing. Lucky you.

If I couldn't afford pet insurance I wouldn't have a pet. Vet bills are part of being a pet owner. I have pet insurance because I don't want to be in a position where I have to put down my pet strictly for financial reasons.

I pay $110/month to insure my two dogs. That's with a $1000 deductible. My policy doesn't cover regular maintenance issues, vaccines, flea and tick preventatives. It just exists in case my dog breaks a leg, gets cancer, something major. The $1300ish I pay just for the insurance is also about what I have to pay annually for a wellness check, fecal float, and their vaccines, plus another $1000 to keep them both on Trio.

Before ANYTHING goes even remotely wrong, and before factoring in food, treats, coats, shampoo (I groom my own dogs, but there's another common expense), I pay about three and a half grand. Just to have them. Don't get me started about the cost of feeding them!

I don't fault anyone for not having that kind of money just to have a pet. I'm extremely lucky, and I haven't always been. While past iterations of me have had pets, they were mostly found rescues with barebones care, cheap food, and only the required shots at whatever clinic was cheapest. Mercifully, most escaped major calamities and I wasn't often faced with the necessity of putting one down to avoid catastrophic financial damage. I don't envy anyone that decision, and it IS a valid decision. The alternative is saying "only rich people can have pets" and that's ridiculous.

People need to stop shaming pet owners for being both humane to their animals AND reasonable about their financial health. Not everyone can afford pet insurance and premium care. That shouldn't preclude people from having a pet in their life, provided they can afford basic care standards and annual wellness expenditures within reason.

This. If you required pet insurance for people to have pets, we'd wind up euthanizing many, many more animals in shelters than we currently do, because it's actually a pretty small percentages of pet owners who can afford the premiums and deductible.

It's okay, if you pet gets very sick, to not pay for expensive measures to save them. An animals life is not worth less than a human life, but it is worth *different* than human life. Pets don't dream of being parents one day, don't have career ambitions. They live a much more basic existence. They want comfort, security, food, sleep. Some pets need something to do or a job of some kind to be happy. If they have those things, they are mostly happy and do not experience existential anxiety about the meaning or worth of their lives. It's one of the things I love about them! They simply live, for its own sake, without spending time or energy thinking about living.

Letting an animal die of natural causes, or hastening their end if those natural causes are going to kill them very slowly with low quality of life, is not cruelty. They still got to achieve the apotheosis of their life. That is more than many humans get. It's okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The expense would have to be astronomical before I would ever consider it. I have pet insurance so hopefully I won't be in this position. I would give up a lot of things before I'd euthanize my pets for financial reasons.

I mean, if you don't have the money to pay for pet insurance (that doesn't suck), most long-term illness vet bills ARE astronomical.

Clearly you're not in the same financial situation OP is describing. Lucky you.

If I couldn't afford pet insurance I wouldn't have a pet. Vet bills are part of being a pet owner. I have pet insurance because I don't want to be in a position where I have to put down my pet strictly for financial reasons.

Just because their life can be prolonged doesn’t mean it should - just like humans. Some humans should also have option for dignified death

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The expense would have to be astronomical before I would ever consider it. I have pet insurance so hopefully I won't be in this position. I would give up a lot of things before I'd euthanize my pets for financial reasons.

I mean, if you don't have the money to pay for pet insurance (that doesn't suck), most long-term illness vet bills ARE astronomical.

Clearly you're not in the same financial situation OP is describing. Lucky you.

If I couldn't afford pet insurance I wouldn't have a pet. Vet bills are part of being a pet owner. I have pet insurance because I don't want to be in a position where I have to put down my pet strictly for financial reasons.

I pay $110/month to insure my two dogs. That's with a $1000 deductible. My policy doesn't cover regular maintenance issues, vaccines, flea and tick preventatives. It just exists in case my dog breaks a leg, gets cancer, something major. The $1300ish I pay just for the insurance is also about what I have to pay annually for a wellness check, fecal float, and their vaccines, plus another $1000 to keep them both on Trio.

Before ANYTHING goes even remotely wrong, and before factoring in food, treats, coats, shampoo (I groom my own dogs, but there's another common expense), I pay about three and a half grand. Just to have them. Don't get me started about the cost of feeding them!

I don't fault anyone for not having that kind of money just to have a pet. I'm extremely lucky, and I haven't always been. While past iterations of me have had pets, they were mostly found rescues with barebones care, cheap food, and only the required shots at whatever clinic was cheapest. Mercifully, most escaped major calamities and I wasn't often faced with the necessity of putting one down to avoid catastrophic financial damage. I don't envy anyone that decision, and it IS a valid decision. The alternative is saying "only rich people can have pets" and that's ridiculous.

People need to stop shaming pet owners for being both humane to their animals AND reasonable about their financial health. Not everyone can afford pet insurance and premium care. That shouldn't preclude people from having a pet in their life, provided they can afford basic care standards and annual wellness expenditures within reason.

This. If you required pet insurance for people to have pets, we'd wind up euthanizing many, many more animals in shelters than we currently do, because it's actually a pretty small percentages of pet owners who can afford the premiums and deductible.

It's okay, if you pet gets very sick, to not pay for expensive measures to save them. An animals life is not worth less than a human life, but it is worth *different* than human life. Pets don't dream of being parents one day, don't have career ambitions. They live a much more basic existence. They want comfort, security, food, sleep. Some pets need something to do or a job of some kind to be happy. If they have those things, they are mostly happy and do not experience existential anxiety about the meaning or worth of their lives. It's one of the things I love about them! They simply live, for its own sake, without spending time or energy thinking about living.

Letting an animal die of natural causes, or hastening their end if those natural causes are going to kill them very slowly with low quality of life, is not cruelty. They still got to achieve the apotheosis of their life. That is more than many humans get. It's okay.

Finally some smart, mentally healthy people on the pet board. It’s nice to finally see it