Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your anecdote of your tiny sample of two cats does not substitute for the universe of pet owners. I had a childhood cat that was always healthy and lived to 19 with minimal vet care. And I have had a cat as an adult that was healthy initially and then developed a kidney issue at the age of 4 that has been extremely expensive to treat. Both were cats adopted from animal shelters--sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't, but abandoning a pet to die is not something people want to do.

+1. Glad you got lucky with your two childhood pets and that they weren’t doomed to die early because your family was too cheap to provide them with basic medical care.

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.

Your anecdote of your tiny sample of two cats does not substitute for the universe of pet owners. I had a childhood cat that was always healthy and lived to 19 with minimal vet care. And I have had a cat as an adult that was healthy initially and then developed a kidney issue at the age of 4 that has been extremely expensive to treat. Both were cats adopted from animal shelters--sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you don't, but abandoning a pet to die is not something people want to do.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.