Forum Home» Money Saving Polls

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down? - Page 22

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Should Anne put the animals down?

edited 8 April 2010 at 9:22PM in Money Saving Polls
235 replies 31.8K views
11819202224

Replies

  • no dont put them down, i have 4 hamsters and i would rather go without myself to make sure they have what they need
  • Clive_WoodyClive_Woody Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    I know its not illegal, it was MY OPINION which you seem so keen to point out is everyones right to have. It was and still is my opinion any vet willing to put an animal to sleep just because the owner has no money should not be a vet! The whole purpose of our job is to help animals and care for them, not put them down like they are a bloody inconvience. Any self respecting vet, and one who cares about his/her job description would sit down and discuss several options with the owner. If the owner still insisted on having the animal put down I know my vet would refer her to another vets surgery for a second opinion. She would do everything in her power to keep those animals alive, providing they arent in any pain/

    I was well aware it was just your opinion, I was just curious who you thought they should be reported to. I guess you don't have an answer to that.
    As much as i LOATH agreeing with you here it was in part an angry outburst, and i have subsequently changed my post. HOWEVER I dont think it is hysterical nonsense to compare the two. I love my animals like i love my children, and the thought of having them put down makes me feel slightly ill. However I would have to figure out what the heck to do if my husband lost his job and we found ourselves in a situation where we had no money.

    On this we shall have to disagree. I have two gorgeous children who I dearly love, I have had many pets over the years who have been great. The two simply do not compare IMHO
    Thanks Aliasojo, I didnt want to upset anyone with my comment, because it was just that, MY comment. However after reading some of the posts clive has put I am not suprised he dived on my post to pull apart my opinion. Everyone has then and just because I dont agree with his, is it his right to tell me I am being hysterical? Hm

    By your own admission it was an 'angry outburst' I apologise for using the incorrect terminology.

    From the very start of this thread I have defended everybodies right to post their opinion, I was horrified when many people posted stating their opinion was the only one and demanding that the thread be closed or deleted.

    :D
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • PhiltheBearPhiltheBear Forumite
    269 posts
    100 Posts
    ✭✭
    II was horrified when many people posted stating their opinion was the only one and demanding that the thread be closed or deleted.

    :D

    Oh dear. Sorry to upset you.

    I was one of the movers for this thread to be deleted because the dilemma is nonsensical. There are, as we've seen posted, a number of places that will take the animals. Therefore the 'nobody will take them' is a proposition that simply doesn't occur.

    Added to that it was always going to be a battleground between animal lovers and non-animal lovers. As in fact has happened. Not to mention the trolls.

    Martin's latest posting is a weak cop-out once again. He's an experienced journalist. I'm a card carrying journalist too. It would take the work of under half an hour to ascertain that there were animal charities who would take these animals. But rather than pose a reasoned question it was posed as a 'dilemma' which doesn't exist. That simply led to the flame wars. It has served no purpose.

    And, BTW,I don't believe anyone has claimed that their opinion was the 'only one'. Perhaps you are thinking about yourself? ;)
  • Clive_WoodyClive_Woody Forumite
    5.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Oh dear. Sorry to upset you.

    Not upset at all Phil, merely disappointed that a bunch of grown ups couldn't manage a reasoned debate without petty foot stamping and toys flying out of prams.
    I was one of the movers for this thread to be deleted because the dilemma is nonsensical. There are, as we've seen posted, a number of places that will take the animals. Therefore the 'nobody will take them' is a proposition that simply doesn't occur.

    Added to that it was always going to be a battleground between animal lovers and non-animal lovers. As in fact has happened. Not to mention the trolls.

    Martin's latest posting is a weak cop-out once again. He's an experienced journalist. I'm a card carrying journalist too. It would take the work of under half an hour to ascertain that there were animal charities who would take these animals. But rather than pose a reasoned question it was posed as a 'dilemma' which doesn't exist. That simply led to the flame wars. It has served no purpose.

    As many others have posted, from personal experience, rehoming sick and elderly, large animals is often not an option and therefore the dilema posted is valid.

    I have no issue with Martin's justifications for keeping this thread open and not bowing to the demands of those ill-prepared to enter into reasoned debate. I believe the original post contains a quite valid point for discussion.
    And, BTW,I don't believe anyone has claimed that their opinion was the 'only one'. Perhaps you are thinking about yourself? ;)

    I would be keen for you to point out where I claimed my opinion was the only one?

    Quite possibly this is your journalistic instincts coming through here and only reading what you want to hear. ;) Perhaps you should go back and read the thread again and take note of those who claimed there was only one option.

    :D
    "We act as though comfort and luxury are the chief requirements of life, when all that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about” – Albert Einstein
  • relaxtwotribesrelaxtwotribes Forumite
    321 posts
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Thank you, MSE. This week's MMD has been very entertaining. Keep it up.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • edited 9 April 2010 at 9:32PM
    HobotalkHobotalk Forumite
    4 posts
    edited 9 April 2010 at 9:32PM

    So - if I was Anne; no, I wouldn't put them to sleep. That's my conscience though, which is more important to me than money. Not necessarily wise - but the right answer for me, personally.

    Well I've read through the majority of the replys and this is the only post I consider reasonable from people arguing that the animal's shouldn't be put down. It is a personal decision.

    Some people are very passionate about their pets but they don't realise that it isn't their place to sit up on high and tell Anne that she's a terrible human being by putting her needs before her pets. Certainly I believe that people comparing humanely putting an animal down to brutal child murder (of which there is no excuse for) should be given a psychoanalysis. Yes, if Anne could find a shelter or charity to take the pets or support her then that would be the best option.

    The fact is I would only hope that no matter how much Anne loves her pets, she would see sense and not go hungry and cold (which is what several people on this forum would have her do) while attempting to care for her pets.
  • edited 10 April 2010 at 3:03AM
    HobotalkHobotalk Forumite
    4 posts
    edited 10 April 2010 at 3:03AM
    Say i literally had no food in the cuboards. Would I phone social services and put them up for adoption so they would be fed and warm? No, I would do everything posible in my power to look after my charges. Exactly the same for my cats and rabbits. If i couldnt cope i would have to do SOMETHING!

    Also, it wouldn't be your decision to phone social work if there was no food in the cupboards. Social work would (rightly) rescue any child who is starving and I don't think a defence of having to pay for your pets would stand up in court.
  • Munkee2Munkee2 Forumite
    114 posts
    get_me_out wrote: »
    I would'nt be without mine, I don't drink/smoke so my pets are my hobby. Currently have 2 dogs, 1 rabbit, 3 g.pigs, 6 hamsters, 5 rats, and fish. Costs about 7 quid a week for all of them. Thats a few pence more than a packet of cig's to many.

    I dread to think what you're feeding them. You CANNOT feed two dogs as well as 15 smaller animals AND fish for £7 a week. I bet they're all suffering from malnutrition.

    JMO of course. I have one dog, one rabbit and one hamster and can't feed those three nutritious meals for £7 a week.

    I ought to add that you didn't even say you spend £7 on FOOD - you implied it was for their upkeep - does this include bedding materials and hay for your rabbit, g. pig & hamster? Worming for your dogs... vaccinations for your dogs and rabbit?

    Your post has worried me.
  • Munkee2 wrote: »
    I dread to think what you're feeding them. You CANNOT feed two dogs as well as 15 smaller animals AND fish for £7 a week. I bet they're all suffering from malnutrition.

    JMO of course. I have one dog, one rabbit and one hamster and can't feed those three nutritious meals for £7 a week.

    I ought to add that you didn't even say you spend £7 on FOOD - you implied it was for their upkeep - does this include bedding materials and hay for your rabbit, g. pig & hamster? Worming for your dogs... vaccinations for your dogs and rabbit?

    Your post has worried me.


    ive got 4 hamsters and a bag of harry hamster is only £1.85, not sure about things like dog food but i know hamster food isnt that expensive
  • neilpostneilpost Forumite
    53 posts
    And there is also the PDSA or Blue Cross for those in financial need.

    PDSA - unless you are dirt poor, when you probably in all reality shouldn't own/be responsible for a pet, they couldn't give a crap.

    To the PDSA, 'in financial need', means nothing - they want to see your benefits statement, free school meal entitlement, full tax credits statement, or you can sod off.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support