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

Forum Index » Pets

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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 ... [b]don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again.[/b] Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership. [/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics