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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A cat who is 10 or 11 and not in any pain. No. Not unless I’d exhausted all options to rehome my pet (with someone trusted or through a rescue). At the same time, I have a cat who had a chronic health issue around that age that could only be cured through surgery. At the time of diagnosis we could not afford it. The surgery estimate was close to 7k. So I get that sometimes it is just not possible to do more. The vet assured us it would be ok to euthanize when his quality of life became severely impacted. I spent a lot of time researching more affordable care and even contemplated traveling out of state to a vet school. I dreaded reaching the point in time when we’d have to make a final decision. Fortunately, his condition was able to be controlled for a while through meds and he deteriorated very slowly. 2 years later when surgery was unavoidable, a caring vet helped us to identify a surgeon who could do the surgery for far less - 4k. By then we had a little extra money set aside and were relieved to be able to do it. If it wasn’t curative, I would not have.

We have an elderly dog -13 - and I question his quality of life. He doesn’t have cancer and can move about without pain. But he has slowed down a lot and seems confused and anxious. We will not be treating any more medical conditions beyond antibiotics.

Hi PP. Regarding your dog - doggy dementia is real, and is a QOL issue. It can also be pain-related - it's not always easy to tell if dogs have pain. We had an elderly dog who could move around okay but tended to pace, lick joints, and generally be distressed. The vet suggested it could be joint pain, and pain med rx helped (for a while).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding a vet who will euthanize a sickly and aging but not yet terminal pet. Our 19-year-old cat stopped eating and drinking and started having trouble walking, so we took him to the vet to be put to sleep. They wanted to do $1000+ of tests, so we brought him home. He resumed eating and drinking (not much) and is still hobbling around and sleeping all the time. I guess the idea is that he has to suffer more before he can be put down, because that is humane?

Find an independent vet. The one you went to was almost certainly owned by a private equity firm. You saw firsthand that their commitment is to profit, not to you or to your pet's quality of life.

This. If your vet won't put a pet down at the owner's request and expense, they're a bad vet. Nobody willing to pay a vet to euthanize an animal has better options for that animal, and rehoming animals is a lot harder than you might think (especially with all the post-covid pets being returned). Smart vets know what to expect if the original owners skip out, and putting an animal down is often the kindest option. Vets who are just in it for the $$$ will try to pad your bill and squeeze your wallet first.

+1, I'm surprised at all these PPs who think vets won't put animals down. They will. I have had vets who I consider to be profit-seeking that declined to advise me to put the animal down when really that was the only sane option, but I've never had one refuse when asked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We had a cat that was routinely going outside the litter box due to medical issues. Yeah, it's a shame, but that's the end of the road.

Oh no. Did the vet agree to euthanize?

Of course.

[Anonymous]

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

So all children should have ponies? Listen, pets are great, and they're luxury items. Not every family can afford a pet just like not every family has a pony. If you have a pet you have to part with because you can't afford it, that's reasonable. Life happens. If you have to part with a pet because you can't afford it and then go to the pet store and get a new one, that's ridiculous. PP's comment wasn't the "never get a pet again, you filthy poors!" you're apparently interpreting it to be. It was the simple logic of "if you can't afford the pet you have, you can't afford new pets" and they're correct. Maybe, years later, your circumstances will improve to a point where you have ample savings and budget flexibility such that pet ownership is once again an option. But if you're thinking about jettisoning your pets to make ends meet, that time is NOT now.

Getting "disgusted" by your own misinterpretation of a factual statement is wild. Get help.

If you think you’re a good person for spending 1k and up on a pet visit while families and children are going without food, then yes, you’re disgusting

That's ridiculous. People can prioritize their pets if that's part of their value system and they can afford it.
Have you chosen to live in a squalid apartment, with no car, and donate your salary to the poor and hungry? If not, be quiet.

[Anonymous]

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

So all children should have ponies? Listen, pets are great, and they're luxury items. Not every family can afford a pet just like not every family has a pony. If you have a pet you have to part with because you can't afford it, that's reasonable. Life happens. If you have to part with a pet because you can't afford it and then go to the pet store and get a new one, that's ridiculous. PP's comment wasn't the "never get a pet again, you filthy poors!" you're apparently interpreting it to be. It was the simple logic of "if you can't afford the pet you have, you can't afford new pets" and they're correct. Maybe, years later, your circumstances will improve to a point where you have ample savings and budget flexibility such that pet ownership is once again an option. But if you're thinking about jettisoning your pets to make ends meet, that time is NOT now.

Getting "disgusted" by your own misinterpretation of a factual statement is wild. Get help.

If you think you’re a good person for spending 1k and up on a pet visit while families and children are going without food, then yes, you’re disgusting

That's ridiculous. People can prioritize their pets if that's part of their value system and they can afford it.
Have you chosen to live in a squalid apartment, with no car, and donate your salary to the poor and hungry? If not, be quiet.

No, I choose to prioritize people. I treat my pets well and they have a VERY good quality of life, but yes, when they start to age and have health issues, I won’t feel guilty if I choose not to start spending hundreds of dollars on them a year. It’s all relative. One shouldn’t feel guilted into paying hundreds for care of an elderly pet. You are only serving your own needs. That’s what people on here are doing and they think it makes them good people. It doesn’t.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

For the same reason it's okay to say, "If you can't afford to buy dog food, you shouldn't get a dog."
Caring for a pet adequately includes both food and regular veterinary care. You should not take on responsibility for another living being for which you cannot or will not provide a basic minimum of care.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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

So all children should have ponies? Listen, pets are great, and they're luxury items. Not every family can afford a pet just like not every family has a pony. If you have a pet you have to part with because you can't afford it, that's reasonable. Life happens. If you have to part with a pet because you can't afford it and then go to the pet store and get a new one, that's ridiculous. PP's comment wasn't the "never get a pet again, you filthy poors!" you're apparently interpreting it to be. It was the simple logic of "if you can't afford the pet you have, you can't afford new pets" and they're correct. Maybe, years later, your circumstances will improve to a point where you have ample savings and budget flexibility such that pet ownership is once again an option. But if you're thinking about jettisoning your pets to make ends meet, that time is NOT now.

Getting "disgusted" by your own misinterpretation of a factual statement is wild. Get help.

If you think you’re a good person for spending 1k and up on a pet visit while families and children are going without food, then yes, you’re disgusting

Hey weirdo, take this up with the billionaires in the world before you start attacking working families. The world’s wealthiest 1% actually could end world hunger if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

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

So all children should have ponies? Listen, pets are great, and they're luxury items. Not every family can afford a pet just like not every family has a pony. If you have a pet you have to part with because you can't afford it, that's reasonable. Life happens. If you have to part with a pet because you can't afford it and then go to the pet store and get a new one, that's ridiculous. PP's comment wasn't the "never get a pet again, you filthy poors!" you're apparently interpreting it to be. It was the simple logic of "if you can't afford the pet you have, you can't afford new pets" and they're correct. Maybe, years later, your circumstances will improve to a point where you have ample savings and budget flexibility such that pet ownership is once again an option. But if you're thinking about jettisoning your pets to make ends meet, that time is NOT now.

Getting "disgusted" by your own misinterpretation of a factual statement is wild. Get help.

If you think you’re a good person for spending 1k and up on a pet visit while families and children are going without food, then yes, you’re disgusting

That's ridiculous. People can prioritize their pets if that's part of their value system and they can afford it.
Have you chosen to live in a squalid apartment, with no car, and donate your salary to the poor and hungry? If not, be quiet.

No, I choose to prioritize people. I treat my pets well and they have a VERY good quality of life, but yes, when they start to age and have health issues, I won’t feel guilty if I choose not to start spending hundreds of dollars on them a year. It’s all relative. One shouldn’t feel guilted into paying hundreds for care of an elderly pet. You are only serving your own needs. That’s what people on here are doing and they think it makes them good people. It doesn’t.

That may be your opinion of how you behave, we have no evidence of that. If you think that your pets life should end because "hundreds of dollars" is too much for you to spend on medical care for an animal, and prefer to spend your money on cars and a big house, and leisure travel, you're serving your own needs, and shouldn't be a pet owner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A cat who is 10 or 11 and not in any pain. No. Not unless I’d exhausted all options to rehome my pet (with someone trusted or through a rescue). At the same time, I have a cat who had a chronic health issue around that age that could only be cured through surgery. At the time of diagnosis we could not afford it. The surgery estimate was close to 7k. So I get that sometimes it is just not possible to do more. The vet assured us it would be ok to euthanize when his quality of life became severely impacted. I spent a lot of time researching more affordable care and even contemplated traveling out of state to a vet school. I dreaded reaching the point in time when we’d have to make a final decision. Fortunately, his condition was able to be controlled for a while through meds and he deteriorated very slowly. 2 years later when surgery was unavoidable, a caring vet helped us to identify a surgeon who could do the surgery for far less - 4k. By then we had a little extra money set aside and were relieved to be able to do it. If it wasn’t curative, I would not have.

We have an elderly dog -13 - and I question his quality of life. He doesn’t have cancer and can move about without pain. But he has slowed down a lot and seems confused and anxious. We will not be treating any more medical conditions beyond antibiotics.

Hi PP. Regarding your dog - doggy dementia is real, and is a QOL issue. It can also be pain-related - it's not always easy to tell if dogs have pain. We had an elderly dog who could move around okay but tended to pace, lick joints, and generally be distressed. The vet suggested it could be joint pain, and pain med rx helped (for a while).

Thank you for this feedback. Our old vet insisted he was not in pain but I know animals can hide pain. I’m also thinking dementia is an issue. I’m going to seek another opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to be brave, and do the right thing for an animal that doesn't have any autonomy.

Please ignore the posts comparing dogs to human children. They are probably bots bought and paid for by the private equity veterinary industry. Which is only interested in extracting as much money from you as possible, and actively plays on your guilt. This industry does NOT have the best interest of pet animals in mind. Only profit. And it uses some pretty insidious techniques to separate you from increasingly eye-popping sums.

There's a reason pets have gotten so expensive. Sure, there are think-pieces galore about increasing isolation and the crisis of loneliness, but the pets piece is at least partially by design. All that *content*, all those "cute" clothes (clothes! for animals!), the damp-eyed emotional messaging... it's a con. Or at the very least, a marketing strategy. It is deployed to change your thinking around animals, and to increase your spending. f

Short answer: love your pets, be kind to all animals, know that the time to say goodbye might be before the last breath.

This is fascinating. I’m not sure how bots work - are you saying private companies buy bots to spread messages/push ideas? I didn’t realize this.

I appreciate your post; you helped me look at things from a new lens.

[Anonymous]

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.

New poster. So many poor ppl I know have dogs. It’s a mystery

[Anonymous]

New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

Many of our ancestors also owned slaves and engaged in human sacrifices. I wouldn’t wax nostalgic about shooting a sick dog rather getting treatment for medical care.