An interesting question: How much would you spend on a sick pet? One school of though might be that a pet becomes a member of the family, so you spend whatever it takes. But another is that it's a little obscene to spend so much on animals when so many people have no or inadequate health care. Or you could put a dollar amount on it:
Most pet owners (62 percent) said they would likely pay for pet health care even if the cost reached $500, but that means more than a third of pet owners said that might be too much to spend on an animal.
What if the bill for veterinary care reached $1,000? Fewer than half of pet owners said they were very likely to spend that much at the vet. Only a third said it was very likely they would pay a $2,000 vet bill.
Once the cost of saving a sick pet reached $5,000, most pet owners said they would stop treatment. Only 22 percent said they were very likely to pick up $5,000 in veterinary costs to treat a sick dog or cat.
So at $500 or under, our dogs and cats get to live another day, but as the price climbs toward $5,000, it looks a little grimmer for kitty and poochie. The story notes that cat owners were more likely to quit on a pet than dog owners. I don't know if that's because cats are less lovable or because cat owners take on the personalities of their pets ("Shape up, Snowball, or its curtains!")
I confess that I'm more in the "whatever it takes" school, at least up to a point (the location of which I don't yet know). When my last cat, Pierre, had a liver problem, I spent $1,100 in tests, procedures and medicines before it was all over. He was pulled back from the brink and had several more good years after that, finally going to that great litter box in the sky at the ripe old age of 19. So it was worth it. I probably could have gone as high as $2,000 without having to worry about straining my finances. I could go higher than that today for Dutch and Maggie if I had to. Would I? Don't know. Probably.
We are responsible forever for what we have tamed, Antoine de Saint-Exupery says in "The Little Prince." Wise words.
Comments
I think I might have the most expensive cat in the family - probably in the area of $4,000 by now - it started with a snake bite when he was still an outside stray around the neighborhood (and I still think he paid the snake to do it just so he could become our inside cat, ...) and then progressed to more serious surgery later - they do become members of the family.
The only pets I've had have been a series of rescue cats. When the price of a medical cure exceeds the price of a new rescue cat (about $60), I have them put down.
It's not that I'm hard-hearted, it's just that there are so many others waiting to be adopted, many of whom will be euthanized for lack of a home. I'm just being realistic.
Of course, I've never had the experience of owning a dog, an animal that can really bond to you. Cats are aloof as a general rule. I enjoy having them around, but they're all interchangeable. Also, I've never made more than a poverty-level wage. Pet surgery is out of the question.
Hell,I've had two cracked teeth pulled because I can't afford a root canal. Sometimes it just comes down to money.
Trust me, cats bond, ...
Larry, you've had better luck than I have. My cats would tell the Nazis I'm hiding in the attic.
In fairness, I've generally made a point of rescuing feral cats and others who had a rough kittenhood. Just to get them to trust me can easily take a year.
My cats have all been tough, suspicious guys, not inclined to spend time in anyone's lap.
But if I can buy them a few years of decent food and inoculation against the inevitable feline leukemia, I feel like I've accomplished something. They don't really owe me anything.
There are plenty of people willing to take pampered, people-friendly kittens from breeders. My own childhood was rough, and I identify more with the tough cases. I wish I had been adopted.
I second your statement, Larry, that cats bond. I was never really crazy about cats, and like Littlejohn, considered them aloof. Then I adopted one, and at first he seemed to affirm my suspicion. That all changed after I took him to the vet for some skin problems he was having, and once he was cured, he turned into the sweetest thing.
as the biggest cat lover in the world, I can tell you that cats do bond--and I have primarily taken in strays, too...I would probably spend any amount of money (if I had it) to keep them alive, but when they start to suffer, I can't stand it and usually have them put to sleep...
Let's stop calling it "put to sleep." As journalists, we don't label it so. So as casual writers, let's not romanticize what it really is: killing them. Now, you can call it "euthanizing" the cat if it's deathly sick and beyond help. But if it's killed because trying to keep the cat healthy and alive is cost prohibitive, or to prevent overpopulation by strays, it's killing.
P.S. I'm not a cat lover. I just find it dishonest when other cat, or dog, lovers try to minimize what they do in the guise of being loving and humane.
AJ
"Put to sleep" is the common term used by pet owners. It's not dishonest in the way we euphemistically say "passed on" instead of "dying." It's just the way pet owners talk; in my experience, most of them know exactly what's going on and couldn't minimize it if they tried. If we're going to be as pure as you suggest, perhaps we should say a prayer at dinner to give thanks for the animals murdered for our selfish hunger.
So are people on death row "put to sleep?"
AJ
I prefer "permanently rehabilitated for early release."
Leo:
I also like the "EXTREMELY long-term abortion"...either way works well enough, though.
Yours is a lot more humoorous (if such a thing can be said about offing society's vermin)