Category: Animal House
What is up with this trend of extending the lives of pets, even when they're elderly and sick? What is up with that? The headmistress of my daughter's preschool keeps a little old white dog who is blind, deaf, and can barely move. The shelters since the recession are teeming with unwanted cats in particular waiting for adoption, but also dogs and other animals. Why extend the lives of the very sick?
A commentary on AOL some years back spoke of dogs on ventilators. I worked with a woman who tossed her 17 year old cat's dialysis sharps in the sharps container in the ER. Radioactive cat waste was discovered in West Bridgewater. How, you might ask, does cat waste go radioactive? Well, if your cat is irradiated for cancer, you can either 1) confine 'em to a veterinary clinic until the hazard has passed, or 2) take 'em home, but with specific instructions to store the soiled litter in a separate, unused section of your home until a specific amount of time has passed, then dispose of it. Someone took their cat home & didn't follow the instructions for disposal, and trash has been inspected for such hazards for some time.
Why not give up on medical treatment & let the pet die a death with some pain management, or euthanize, and adopt a homeless pet? How far would you guys go to save your pets? I could not put a pet through surgery, dialysis, cancer treatment, especially if they were within the life span for that animal, like 13-17 years on average for a dog's life.
Spongebob as often as we may seem quite on different ends on issues raised here I've gotta say I'm with you. Pets are pets, people are people, and they wouldn't do the same for you. All animal lovers will raise all sorts of anecdotal claims which can be supported only on circumstantial evidence but I think you're right: it's about the owner though, doing something they think will make them feel better.
That's true and not true. We'd do the same for people, wouldn't we? And it's no good saying that's because we're people. When you get right down to it, we're all animals and that's all there is to it. It's all very well saying you'd not do it, but when it comes to that point, especially with a pet that's been yours right from its infancy, it's much harder to wash your hands of it just because it's sick. Sometimes surgery and/or treatment can prolong the life of an animal. Sometimes, you're right, it just increases unnecessary suffering, but this needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, just as it is with people. If you're going to put a blanket on animals, saying they should be allowed to die once they've reached a certain age and get sick, do it to people too. Let your mother die, or your father, your sister, your grandparents. Bet you couldn't.
FM
Yeah I agree with the post above.
But yeah I have a friend who's dog was very sick and she did everything she could for him with meds and all that, but in the end she did have him put down because she thought that was the best thing for him. He's not in any more pain, but of course it is hard for us and we do miss him a lot.
A few years ago, my cat Shadow got sick with cancer. He was still very young for a cat, only about 7 or 8 years old. We could have taken measures to extend his life, but there was no cure for his cancer. I could have done things like extremely strong pain meds, had a feeding tube put into him, and so on. The cancer was in his mouth, by the way. There was no way I was going to do that. My opinion is that when making that kind of decision you have to balance out the pet's chances of survival, and even more, the quality of the life you are extending. If that life is going to be mostly suffering for them, then to me, the cruelest act possible is to extend it. Humans can at least make those decisions when they are sick, or write up advanced directives telling people what means to use and how much they want their lives extended. Pets do not have those rights, and I think it's cruel to keep a suffering animal alive just because a human cannot bear to part with them. Especially when, as you said SpongeBob, shelters are teeming with healthy but homeless animals, who may well get put down if they do not get adopted.
I had Shadow put down as soon as I could tell that it was painful for him to eat and drink. It was a heart-breaking experience I will never forget. However, awhile afterward, I adopted a cat named Emma from my local shelter, who had been there for a couple months, and who may not have been kept alive much longer, even though she was healthy. No one will ever replace my Shadow, but it felt good to help another kitty.
I've loved every cat I've ever had, but I would not choose to extend their lives when they were old and sick. You're not doing the animal any favors if they are suffering and not leading a good quality life. I recently read a book by Peter Gethers called the Cat Who'll Live Forever. It was the third and final book about his life with his cat, Norton. He went to extraordinary means to keep that cat alive, and I think made him suffer needlessly. He had plenty of money and could afford things most pet owners can't afford, but all it did was make him feel better, not the cat.
I agree entirely with this stance. If the animal is suffering and you can't alleviate that, then it's needlessly cruel to keep them alive. If, however, you can extend their life and still have them happy and pain free while you do it, I think you have a responsibility to ensure that happens. It's abhorrent to give up on an animal as soon as it gets sick just because it's over a certain age. As I say, it needs to be done on a case by case basis. If extending their life extends pain, then of course you don't do it. If it doesn't though, then medical treatment should be considered.
I agree completely. That's why I'm not entirely for no-kill animal shelters. There's a group in Oregon called the Cat Adoption team which seems to be of that particular sort. If they bring a cat into the vet, under no circumstances will they allow the vet to euthanize the animal, regardless of the cat's situation. It could be a terminal cat whose continued life would only mean more suffering and these people still insist that it be kept alive. I'm not saying it wouldn't be hard on me emotionally but if the time ever comes where I'm forced to make that choice with Max, if it's a choice between keeping Max alive for my own enjoyment and thereby prolonging suffering that can't be aleviated and letting him go in as little pain as possible I'd rather let him go quietly and painlessly. I don't believe it's right for us to extend the life of an animal when that extension would only bring more suffering. It would be quie another matter if they could still have a good quality of life but in cases where their condition can't be cured or aleviated I believe we should let them go.
I agree with the majority here. My guide dog was almost 13 years old when she developed what was likely cancer in her siness passages, and I kept her as long as she was comfortable. I gave her tylonal for pain; binnadrill for itching, swelling and irritation; steroids for swelling; but when the medicines were making her not want to get up and come to me; when her breathing was starting to sound labored; I went ahead and did what was right for her. Why should I make an animal suffer so, especially considering I would not want to? We were making weekly visits to the vet to ensure she was not uncomfortable, in to much pain, ETC, but when the vet could no longer say with a desent amount of assurance that she was feeling pretty ok, I called it all to a stop. It was the hardest decision of my life --or close to it-- but I made it trying to think of her. To this day I miss her, but I still feel that the decision I made was truly best for her. Oh, one more comment...dog life expectancy depends on the species of dog...Labs --which is what I had-- have a life expectancy of 10-12 years.
I understand not dispatching a pet the minute it gets sick or injured. However, I'm glad I changed my mind about becoming a veterenarian once I realized high school chemistry was a struggle. Pre-med & pre-vet require more extensive chemistry & basic physics & veterenary jobs can be very competitive, some having to leave the state because of a glut of vets in their own.
Basic veterinary care is one thing, but specialties like veterinary oncology and dermatology have opened up. A former supervisor spent over $800 @ Angel Memorial veterinary hospital/shelter for a one time emergency visit for his pomeranian. I don't think I could practice any of these specialties or feel comfortable extending a life on a ventilator or while the animal is in excruciating pain. Am also not understanding where the money is coming from in all of these extensions in this economy. Last I adopted a shelter animal it was $75 for dogs, $65 for cats, and this included first exams, shots, and spay/neuter. So many healthy animals get euthanized for lack of a home...sad sad sad.
It's trendy to keep animals alive, it's trendy to dress them up in clothes and pretend they're little people. That's all it is. Not saying people don't love their pets, but those I know who do, are like you all on here: willing to do what's best when the time comes.
I read a book to my daughter when she was little, called "Black Beauty"," had never heard of it before it was something she wanted. Anyway a horse in there said the following" "people cause us pain for fashion".
Ironic isn't it? That was set in the 19th century, but here we are with a bunch of fruits and nuts who claim they're lovers of animals but keep them alive on ventilators. And these people wish for us humans to have the right to die.
And we have rich conservatives opposed to a unified health care insurance system, buying into such a system - pet HMO - for their pets.
Fascinating, now isn't it?
Evidently that was a book well and truly ahead of its time. And I agree even less with dressing animals up in clothes than I do with keeping them alive when their conditions can't be aleviated. It's one thing to put little booties or whatever on their feet to protect them from extreme heat or cold but that's about as far as I'd ever go with the clothing thing. They've got fur, feathers or whatever they have. That's generally clothing enough for them.
hey i thought tylenol was poisonout to pets. just ap point....
Anyway, I thinkkeeping pets alive is an individual situation based on each circumstance. Last year, I hadmy 7 year old dog put down because her arthitis was so bad that she was biting people. They would touch her back legs and snap went the teeth. most of the pain meds they prescribed made her sleep all day. It wasa tough decision but I'm glad she went across the rainbow bridge to play with all the young puppies.