How much would you spend on your pet?

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have 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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

Nonsense. Even a simple surgical procedure can easily cost several thousand dollars. Complicated procedures with aftercare and multiple follow-ups could be tens of thousands. Unless you can afford insurance, that's cost-prohibitive for most reasonable people, and it DOES cause prolonged suffering: to your budget and financial health (and probably your mental health as a result). It's perfectly acceptable to draw a financial line that says "I will do my best to pay for your basic needs, but care beyond _____ is outside of my means, in which case, I will do what I can to ease your pain and make sure you're comfortable, and will see to it that you're given a humane, dignified exit from this world.

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

NP I wouldn’t have my pet undergo surgery. That’s crazy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

you owned street cats who thrived off eating rodents. I don't think this data point is very relevant to domesticated pets who are family members.

:lol: What a weird response. Plenty of people have indoor outdoor cats. It doesn't make them street cats. They can still be domestic animals and part of the family.

[Anonymous]

I’m paying $2000 for dental today on my 12 year old lab. At her age, anesthesia is a concern and this is the last time I plan to put her under barring a necessary surgery with positive prognosis.

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

NP I wouldn’t have my pet undergo surgery. That’s crazy

Really? No spay/neuter either? No dental procedures? Nothing? Yeah, you don't need pets.

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

I hope you know that there's an overflow of animals that need forever homes. According to what I read on AI, about 600,000 are euthanized every year down from a high of 1.5 million. I mention this because if only people with thousands to spend were allowed to adopt pets from shelters, the numbers would be much higher. Many pets need homes, it shouldn't be that only people with tens of thousands of dollars are allowed to have a pet.

If you adopt a pet from a shelter, you do the best you can. It's better than leaving animals at the shelter to be euthanized.

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

Nonsense. Even a simple surgical procedure can easily cost several thousand dollars. Complicated procedures with aftercare and multiple follow-ups could be tens of thousands. Unless you can afford insurance, that's cost-prohibitive for most reasonable people, and it DOES cause prolonged suffering: to your budget and financial health (and probably your mental health as a result). It's perfectly acceptable to draw a financial line that says "I will do my best to pay for your basic needs, but care beyond _____ is outside of my means, in which case, I will do what I can to ease your pain and make sure you're comfortable, and will see to it that you're given a humane, dignified exit from this world.

But my objection is that "no surgery ever" is not actually a financial line at all. Some surgeries are not that expensive (less than $1,000) and cost a lot less the medication to manage chronic health conditions. A dollar line makes sense, whereas "no surgery" is entirely arbitrary and at times unnecessarily cruel. Also, spay/neuter? That's surgery.

[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?

+1 If you're unwilling to pay for ANY surgery, don't have pet.

I hope you know that there's an overflow of animals that need forever homes. According to what I read on AI, about 600,000 are euthanized every year down from a high of 1.5 million. I mention this because if only people with thousands to spend were allowed to adopt pets from shelters, the numbers would be much higher. Many pets need homes, it shouldn't be that only people with tens of thousands of dollars are allowed to have a pet.

If you adopt a pet from a shelter, you do the best you can. It's better than leaving animals at the shelter to be euthanized.

What I find crazy is that there are animal fostering groups that know that money=lives for these animals and they spend money on cancer treatments for cats.