How much would you spend on your pet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have felt the same way when talking with my vet, where they've suggested we take our cat to all kinds of specialists as if that was expected. My friend is a vet and I asked her about this scenario and she says that these conversations are driven by malpractice concerns just like with doctors for humans. She said she's under an ethical obligation to present all of the options up to the gold standard for everything, and she can never make assumptions about who is willing to spend an astronomical amount of money on their pet. In her experience, what people are willing to spend doesn't correlate with her perceptions of their income. But she also acknowledged that it's just an awkward conversation for a vet to have - about money and love, and the person on the other side thinks of pet care as an essential or a frivolity.

She also said that she understands the challenges people face in paying for vet care (which she also experiences as a pet owner - medications, special diets, etc aren't free for her). She said she only thinks that families have an obligation to pay for routine medical care (vaccinations, preventative medication for routine things like fleas, etc) and care that alleviates suffering (which could be euthanasia in the case of an illness/injury that the pet will definitely die from or medication to treat a chronic condition). She would say that if you can't afford or are unwilling to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering, then you can't afford/shouldn't have a pet. But beyond that, she's not judging anyone for any financial decisions around care.

That conversation with my friend informed how I talk to my vet about care. I'm always mindful of telling my vet that we're willing to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering. I will never take my pet to a specialist, and I will never pay for surgery. I will never pay for cancer treatment. It's completely unrelated to my income - I don't care how much money I have. I'm just not willing to go through such treatments for a pet. Of course, this stance doesn't always mean care is cheap - for example, I put dental work into the category of routine care, and that can be quite expensive. And even small things like our cat recently went through a phase where she wasn't using the litter box and the vet visits, lab tests, and medication cost $350. Either way, pets just cost money.

This is kind of an insane position. I'd say don't get a pet in this instance. What if your two-year-old dog or cat ingests something you left out and they need surgery to remove it? The surgery will totally fix the problem and will not prolong suffering. You would never pay for it?

Right? What about a broken leg or a knee surgery where the animal has a full recovery?

DP but for me it’s not about the money. A pet can’t consent to having surgery, and they don’t understand why they’re in a painful recovery. I would consider a surgery for an ingested object where the recovery was just the incision healing. I would have a really hard time with a broken leg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have felt the same way when talking with my vet, where they've suggested we take our cat to all kinds of specialists as if that was expected. My friend is a vet and I asked her about this scenario and she says that these conversations are driven by malpractice concerns just like with doctors for humans. She said she's under an ethical obligation to present all of the options up to the gold standard for everything, and she can never make assumptions about who is willing to spend an astronomical amount of money on their pet. In her experience, what people are willing to spend doesn't correlate with her perceptions of their income. But she also acknowledged that it's just an awkward conversation for a vet to have - about money and love, and the person on the other side thinks of pet care as an essential or a frivolity.

She also said that she understands the challenges people face in paying for vet care (which she also experiences as a pet owner - medications, special diets, etc aren't free for her). She said she only thinks that families have an obligation to pay for routine medical care (vaccinations, preventative medication for routine things like fleas, etc) and care that alleviates suffering (which could be euthanasia in the case of an illness/injury that the pet will definitely die from or medication to treat a chronic condition). She would say that if you can't afford or are unwilling to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering, then you can't afford/shouldn't have a pet. But beyond that, she's not judging anyone for any financial decisions around care.

That conversation with my friend informed how I talk to my vet about care. I'm always mindful of telling my vet that we're willing to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering. I will never take my pet to a specialist, and I will never pay for surgery. I will never pay for cancer treatment. It's completely unrelated to my income - I don't care how much money I have. I'm just not willing to go through such treatments for a pet. Of course, this stance doesn't always mean care is cheap - for example, I put dental work into the category of routine care, and that can be quite expensive. And even small things like our cat recently went through a phase where she wasn't using the litter box and the vet visits, lab tests, and medication cost $350. Either way, pets just cost money.

This is kind of an insane position. I'd say don't get a pet in this instance. What if your two-year-old dog or cat ingests something you left out and they need surgery to remove it? The surgery will totally fix the problem and will not prolong suffering. You would never pay for it?

No, I wouldn't pay for it. I think that pets are fungible and if this dog doesn't live because I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on surgery, I can get another dog. I just don't think the bill is worth it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have felt the same way when talking with my vet, where they've suggested we take our cat to all kinds of specialists as if that was expected. My friend is a vet and I asked her about this scenario and she says that these conversations are driven by malpractice concerns just like with doctors for humans. She said she's under an ethical obligation to present all of the options up to the gold standard for everything, and she can never make assumptions about who is willing to spend an astronomical amount of money on their pet. In her experience, what people are willing to spend doesn't correlate with her perceptions of their income. But she also acknowledged that it's just an awkward conversation for a vet to have - about money and love, and the person on the other side thinks of pet care as an essential or a frivolity.

She also said that she understands the challenges people face in paying for vet care (which she also experiences as a pet owner - medications, special diets, etc aren't free for her). She said she only thinks that families have an obligation to pay for routine medical care (vaccinations, preventative medication for routine things like fleas, etc) and care that alleviates suffering (which could be euthanasia in the case of an illness/injury that the pet will definitely die from or medication to treat a chronic condition). She would say that if you can't afford or are unwilling to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering, then you can't afford/shouldn't have a pet. But beyond that, she's not judging anyone for any financial decisions around care.

That conversation with my friend informed how I talk to my vet about care. I'm always mindful of telling my vet that we're willing to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering. I will never take my pet to a specialist, and I will never pay for surgery. I will never pay for cancer treatment. It's completely unrelated to my income - I don't care how much money I have. I'm just not willing to go through such treatments for a pet. Of course, this stance doesn't always mean care is cheap - for example, I put dental work into the category of routine care, and that can be quite expensive. And even small things like our cat recently went through a phase where she wasn't using the litter box and the vet visits, lab tests, and medication cost $350. Either way, pets just cost money.

This is kind of an insane position. I'd say don't get a pet in this instance. What if your two-year-old dog or cat ingests something you left out and they need surgery to remove it? The surgery will totally fix the problem and will not prolong suffering. You would never pay for it?

No, I wouldn't pay for it. I think that pets are fungible and if this dog doesn't live because I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on surgery, I can get another dog. I just don't think the bill is worth it.

Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: No, I wouldn't pay for it. I think that pets are fungible and if this dog doesn't live because I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on surgery, I can get another dog. I just don't think the bill is worth it.

Damn. That's terrible. Please don't own pets. Also, you might be overestimating how much surgeries cost. There's quite a range.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

Why get a pet if you're unwilling but financially able to cure a completely curable medical condition? Just don't have pets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

Why get a pet if you're unwilling but financially able to cure a completely curable medical condition? Just don't have pets.

Most people have to draw the line and make decisions about what vet care they're willing to pay for and what they're not willing to pay for. Just because I draw the line in a different place than you do doesn't mean I shouldn't have a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a nurse I've debated getting shots from farm stores and giving them to my dogs. You go in for a Rabies shot and you need a full physical and everything else and it's $250. I realize vets need to earn a living, but there has to be a cheaper way.

The local humane society where I am has community shot clinics and a 3-year rabies vax is $25. Look into local shelters, especially gov't run organizations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

Why get a pet if you're unwilling but financially able to cure a completely curable medical condition? Just don't have pets.

Most people have to draw the line and make decisions about what vet care they're willing to pay for and what they're not willing to pay for. Just because I draw the line in a different place than you do doesn't mean I shouldn't have a pet.

But in most cases, it's not like "here's a 15K surgery." It's just a lot of expenses that add up, particularly as a pet gets older or they develop a condition that starts to flare up more and more frequently. And then your question becomes, is my pet's life worth $2k so they can continue to live, recognizing that even euthanasia is expensive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

Why get a pet if you're unwilling but financially able to cure a completely curable medical condition? Just don't have pets.

Most people have to draw the line and make decisions about what vet care they're willing to pay for and what they're not willing to pay for. Just because I draw the line in a different place than you do doesn't mean I shouldn't have a pet.

Your line has nothing to do with money or quality of life, which is what I think is unreasonable. "No surgery no matter what" means that you're happy to kill your pet with a totally curable condition or let it suffer indefinitely until it dies of other causes.

And your position that pets are entirely fungible borders on sociopathic. Most people who take that view on animals simply don't have pets because they don't value the emotional relationship with the animal. It's perplexing how you could be a pet person yet believe "total cat replacement" is a better option than treating a curable condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Also, I also think your stance - your willingness to spend thousands on a pet - is equally insane.

Why get a pet if you're unwilling but financially able to cure a completely curable medical condition? Just don't have pets.

Most people have to draw the line and make decisions about what vet care they're willing to pay for and what they're not willing to pay for. Just because I draw the line in a different place than you do doesn't mean I shouldn't have a pet.

Your line has nothing to do with money or quality of life, which is what I think is unreasonable. "No surgery no matter what" means that you're happy to kill your pet with a totally curable condition or let it suffer indefinitely until it dies of other causes.

And your position that pets are entirely fungible borders on sociopathic. Most people who take that view on animals simply don't have pets because they don't value the emotional relationship with the animal. It's perplexing how you could be a pet person yet believe "total cat replacement" is a better option than treating a curable condition.

I am a pet person who accepts that death is part of life. Sometimes pets (and people) die from accidents, or because they can't access care for a treatable condition. Just because I have money doesn't mean I'm willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on pet care. Vet care has to be rationed because it comes with a cost. I'm not willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on vet care just because I have money. In a world where I got my last cat from the shelter for $31, I'm not willing to spend money on a pet in a way that undermines my financial life. If that makes me a sociopath, so be it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a pet person who accepts that death is part of life. Sometimes pets (and people) die from accidents, or because they can't access care for a treatable condition. Just because I have money doesn't mean I'm willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on pet care. Vet care has to be rationed because it comes with a cost. I'm not willing to spend an unlimited amount of money on vet care just because I have money. In a world where I got my last cat from the shelter for $31, I'm not willing to spend money on a pet in a way that undermines my financial life. If that makes me a sociopath, so be it.

To be clear, your standard had nothing to do with money. You said no surgery and no cancer treatment no matter what. Perplexingly, you WILL pay for dental care, bloodwork, and chronic med treatment. A dental cleaning (at least around here) is $1,000 a pop minimum and requires full anesthesia. Willingness to pay for dental cleanings but not a surgery (that's not terribly expensive) that would cure your pet's illness is bizarre.

And also, the sociopathic comment is not because you have a financial limit on what you can afford or are willing to pay for a pet. It's because you said: "I think that pets are fungible and if this dog doesn't live because I don't want to spend thousands of dollars on surgery, I can get another dog."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have felt the same way when talking with my vet, where they've suggested we take our cat to all kinds of specialists as if that was expected. My friend is a vet and I asked her about this scenario and she says that these conversations are driven by malpractice concerns just like with doctors for humans. She said she's under an ethical obligation to present all of the options up to the gold standard for everything, and she can never make assumptions about who is willing to spend an astronomical amount of money on their pet. In her experience, what people are willing to spend doesn't correlate with her perceptions of their income. But she also acknowledged that it's just an awkward conversation for a vet to have - about money and love, and the person on the other side thinks of pet care as an essential or a frivolity.

She also said that she understands the challenges people face in paying for vet care (which she also experiences as a pet owner - medications, special diets, etc aren't free for her). She said she only thinks that families have an obligation to pay for routine medical care (vaccinations, preventative medication for routine things like fleas, etc) and care that alleviates suffering (which could be euthanasia in the case of an illness/injury that the pet will definitely die from or medication to treat a chronic condition). She would say that if you can't afford or are unwilling to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering, then you can't afford/shouldn't have a pet. But beyond that, she's not judging anyone for any financial decisions around care.

That conversation with my friend informed how I talk to my vet about care. I'm always mindful of telling my vet that we're willing to pay for routine care and care to alleviate suffering. I will never take my pet to a specialist, and I will never pay for surgery. I will never pay for cancer treatment. It's completely unrelated to my income - I don't care how much money I have. I'm just not willing to go through such treatments for a pet. Of course, this stance doesn't always mean care is cheap - for example, I put dental work into the category of routine care, and that can be quite expensive. And even small things like our cat recently went through a phase where she wasn't using the litter box and the vet visits, lab tests, and medication cost $350. Either way, pets just cost money.

This is kind of an insane position. I'd say don't get a pet in this instance. What if your two-year-old dog or cat ingests something you left out and they need surgery to remove it? The surgery will totally fix the problem and will not prolong suffering. You would never pay for it?

Right? What about a broken leg or a knee surgery where the animal has a full recovery?

DP but for me it’s not about the money. A pet can’t consent to having surgery, and they don’t understand why they’re in a painful recovery. I would consider a surgery for an ingested object where the recovery was just the incision healing. I would have a really hard time with a broken leg.

A pet can't consent to anything?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you have a pet, do you have a limit that you would spend on its care? At what point would you say the expense is unreasonable given the fact that the patient is a pet vs a human? I love my pet, but vet bills are astronomical. After this one, no more pets for me.

When our 35 pound, 10 year old mutt was in pain, we tried physical therapy, we tried acupuncture, we tried a few other things as well to try and help him. It was several thousands of dollars, and when it didn't help, we called laps of love. We couldn't keep him alive and in so much pain, it wasn't fair to him. It was the hardest thing I've ever done, and incredibly painful. I don't regret spending the money - and would do it again if I thought it would help our beloved furry family member

[Anonymous]

$0. Plenty of squirrels in the backyard.

[Anonymous]

You people are very unlucky with your pets.

My family had 2 cats when I was a child. The cats were indoor/outdoor cats and were never taken to the vets and they both lived long lives.

Even spending $100 on a vet visit would have seemed wasteful.