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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to "his is part of our family. We love him like our kids."?? Now, it's "he is too expensive, let's just cut him loose"...

If anyone loves their pet like a kid I feel sorry for their kids.

Same. That’s a very, very bad parent.

Anonymous wrote:Only if you would do the same for parents or your children or spouse. You'd do that, right?

NP. You people are so incredibly insane. It’s astonishing to watch.

Anonymous wrote:That's how we adopted our 10 year old diabetic dog. His family couldn't afford it and tried to put him down. The vet saved him for us. He lived 6 more years after that.

Can I give you my Venmo to pay my pets 5k a year medical needs??

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only if you would do the same for parents or your children or spouse. You'd do that, right?

Pets. Are. Not. People.

Please get a grip.

To. You. Pets. Are. Better.

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.

A pony is not a cat. No family should be guilted into choosing a vet bill over their family’s needs by some wanna be pet lunatic who acts like a monster to humans

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

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.

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.

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.

I had a pet that I had euthanized and she wasn’t terminal. However, she was born with a chronic issue and her quality of life was getting bad. She was only 9 and did not have huge vet bills, but she was suffering. I loved her enough to let her go.

That's how we adopted our 10 year old diabetic dog. His family couldn't afford it and tried to put him down. The vet saved him for us. He lived 6 more years after that.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Whatever happened to "his is part of our family. We love him like our kids."?? Now, it's "he is too expensive, let's just cut him loose"...

If anyone loves their pet like a kid I feel sorry for their kids.