Sick pet and PDSA

CFC

I think that in the circumstances you should probably take the view that people have taken for years and years, before companies ever even offered pet insurance, and before vet medical intervention became more and more 'high tech' - if your dog has cancer, all you could do is prolong life at best and that would be via medical treatment that is rather unpleasant.

The very kindest thing to do in cancer cases for both owners and dog, in my opinion is to put the dog down, no matter how sad it is to see a family member go.

I know that I would do that myself. Sometimes the best ways are the old ways.

CFC

pboae wrote: »

Despite your determination to make it so, this thread is not about you, or your parents, it's about the dog.

Perhaps if I didn't spend so much of my time and money clearing up the mess that irresponsible owners leave behind, I might be more inclined to 'keep it to myself'.

I find having to walk into a dog pound and pick 2 maybe 3 animals to take for the available rescue spaces destructive, knowing the ones I'm leaving behind will be dead before I get back home. I find it upsetting and destructive when I have to tell one of the charities I donate to that I've got nothing more to give this month, knowing that another dog that has been dumped on them will suffer as a result.

.

This thread is not 'about the dog', nor is it about what you find distressing or destructive. It's about the OPs situation.

I can clearly see you have anger issues and can also see why, but this thread, and this forum, is not the place imo to make yourself feel better by expressing them.

mogadon

CFC wrote: »

I think that in the circumstances you should probably take the view that people have taken for years and years, before companies ever even offered pet insurance, and before vet medical intervention became more and more 'high tech' - if your dog has cancer, all you could do is prolong life at best and that would be via medical treatment that is rather unpleasant.

The very kindest thing to do in cancer cases for both owners and dog, in my opinion is to put the dog down, no matter how sad it is to see a family member go.

I know that I would do that myself. Sometimes the best ways are the old ways.

Except for the small matter of them not having the money to pay for even a basic consultation, let alone the cost of having the dog put to sleep.

1sue23

mogadon wrote: »

Except for the small matter of them not having the money to pay for even a basic consultation, let alone the cost of having the dog put to sleep.

The original poster does not even mention not having the money to pay to have the dog pts ,all they wanted was advice and they have been treated in this heartless way by some posters who seem to think only off making themselves look superier ,get off your high horse and think of the human being and their feelings as well as the pet that they clearly love very much .

chris_n_tj

Please can this now stop. I hope lemma has solved her mum & dads problem with their small rescue dog. Beacause thats what it is a rescue. It doesnt matter the whys and where fors, all that matters is the poor dog. And if you have read the thread all lemma asked for was advice.
Think about this, how many poor animals are suffering with owners that dont give a dam. I have read a few threads on here about such a thing.
Lets all just hope that the poor litlte ill doggy is either getting the treatment it needs or at least free from pain.
lemma if you read this, please dont beat yourself up over this, you have tried your best under the circumstances.
Remember there by the grace of God go us all.
Chris n TJ

lowis

CFC wrote: »

I think that in the circumstances you should probably take the view that people have taken for years and years, before companies ever even offered pet insurance, and before vet medical intervention became more and more 'high tech' - if your dog has cancer, all you could do is prolong life at best and that would be via medical treatment that is rather unpleasant.

The very kindest thing to do in cancer cases for both owners and dog, in my opinion is to put the dog down, no matter how sad it is to see a family member go.

I know that I would do that myself. Sometimes the best ways are the old ways.

not all treatment is unpleasant...i had a cat who had chemo, she breezed through it, the only side effect was her whiskers falling out and a slightly sensitive tummy (she had stomach cancer). she lived completely normally for another 2 years almost. got another cat who has just had a tumour removed in September...we are still in the danger zone of it returning though...however he is living normally as well too (by rights he should have been dead by mid-October).

foreign_correspondent

lowis wrote: »

not all treatment is unpleasant...i had a cat who had chemo, she breezed through it, the only side effect was her whiskers falling out and a slightly sensitive tummy (she had stomach cancer). she lived completely normally for another 2 years almost. got another cat who has just had a tumour removed in September...we are still in the danger zone of it returning though...however he is living normally as well too (by rights he should have been dead by mid-October).

Whilst I agree that cancer treatment can be well tolerated and sucessful, as with your cats, (thank goodness!) I do think if this yorkie is quite elderly as well as ill, letting him have as pain free an end as possible is the key thing here.

It may be that even of funds were not an issue that it would still be kinder to let him go than try and treat him - obviously, every case is different, but I do think that him having a happy life and a peaceful end is the main consideration here...

OP, I do hope your parents manage to get the help they need to accomplish this - as hethmar said earlier, it may be worth trying some charities who focus on wellbeing of the elderly, such as age concern or help the aged if the discussions with the PDSA are not sucessful.

Is this any use?

Low-cost veterinary service
RSPCA companion animal hospitals provide low-cost treatment for animals belonging to people in receipt of certain state benefits, or to those who otherwise cannot afford the fees of a private veterinary surgeon.

The RSPCA veterinary division provides low-cost treatment at several locations, which include Finsbury Park (Harmsworth Memorial Hospital), Putney Hospital, and Edmonton, Kilburn, Camberwell and Ealing clinics in London, as well as Birmingham and Manchester hospitals, and Merthyr Tydfil Clinic in South Wales. The division also licenses the provision of a similar veterinary service through 39 local RSPCA branches.
To find an RSPCA location near you which provides this service you can search for establishments which provide 'help with vet bills' in the local RSPCA section.
Note: There is no national structure for veterinary fees. The fees charged by each individual veterinary practice reflect where the practice is located in the country and the level of equipment and service provided. The RSPCA has no influence on the fees and there is no ombudsman to whom complaints can be made. We recommend that quotes are always obtained before commencing expensive treatment. Remember: It is a criminal offence to knowingly deny an animal veterinary treatment and subsequently cause that animal to suffer unnecessarily

CFC

I do agree with you FC ; if an animal is elderly why put it through the distress, and even if young, if the diagnosis coonfirmation and treatment is distressing, what is the point?

Even in lowis's case with the cat, we are talking about only an extra two years of life. I am not sure that is a good return on the enormous emotional stress for both pet and owner, even apart from the enormous expense financially, when you consider that this is being thought of as a 'good outcome'.

For me personally, it would not add up and I would pts in the case of such serious illness, but each to their own point of view.

lowis

CFC wrote: »

I do agree with you FC ; if an animal is elderly why put it through the distress, and even if young, if the diagnosis coonfirmation and treatment is distressing, what is the point?

Even in lowis's case with the cat, we are talking about only an extra two years of life. I am not sure that is a good return on the enormous emotional stress for both pet and owner, even apart from the enormous expense financially, when you consider that this is being thought of as a 'good outcome'.

For me personally, it would not add up and I would pts in the case of such serious illness, but each to their own point of view.

only an extra 2 years of life...well that's about 10-15 years of life in human terms, so proportionally she got a nice bit of 'extra' time.

yes it was emotional, but she was worth it, and i can assure you that had the cat been distressed in anyway at all she would have been PTS. you never know how a pet will react to treatments, so if you are able, and you trust your vet 's advice, and there is good evidence for success, it is always worth a go to see if something can be done. if it is clear from day one of treatment that things aren't going to work for whatever reason, you can always stop.

i guess unless you have actually been through treatments like this with a pet, and see how normal it can be, you can't really understand it.

the OPs case is obviously different and of the dog is ill and old then it probably won't have the strength to cope with treatments. my cat was young and fit so she had that on her side. i do feel it is necessary to stipulate how manageable, and in a lot of cases, easy to cope with, these 'high tech' treatments actually are for pets.

RacyRed

pboae wrote:

Originally Posted by RacyRed
Couldn't agree more with this. Life happens, it is impossible to plan for everything or foresee every eventuality.

Don't be ridiculous, a pet getting ill is hardly an outrageously unexpected event that no-one could have expected. Paying for medical care is as much a predictable part of pet shop ownership as paying for food, or providing shelter.

It's an entirely avoidable situation, and yet one that so many people find themselves in, and so many pets suffer as a result.

It's devastating for everyone concerned, but by the time they are in this position it's too late. If one person reads this thread and either decides against getting a pet they cannot afford, or to insure one they do have, so that they never have to face it, then maybe some good will have come of it.

An ill pet combined with unexpected serious illness, redundancy or financial hardship for an owner is entirely predictable? Wow, good luck to you in your well ordered, totally predictable life.

Rescue pets would never be rehomed if your attitude was commonplace!

Most of the rehoming charities I have been involved with prefer a pet to have a loving, if impoverished, home with support from the charity than for the pet to live in a cage any longer than necessary, or worse, be PTS because no-one can be sure they will be able to afford vets fees in 10 or 15 years time, so don't offer a rescue pet a home.

I have 2 uninsurable rescue cats, should I have said no, I can't offer them a home because I cannot guarantee I will keep my own health and income throughout their lives?

Sometimes we simply have to trust to fate that what we think we have planned for comes about and we all should be able to find a little compassion for those whom fate chooses to kick in the teeth. Be grateful that this has never happened to you and open your eyes to the suffering of those who find themselves and their pets in difficulties.

Lemma and her parants are doing the best they can, they care, the dog is loved, advice was asked for. That is what this forum is here for!

Enough of the condemnations and lectures, please!