MONEY MORAL DILEMMA: Pet versus debt?

Idiophreak

I think the fact that has to be underlined here is that there's no guarantee that spending the £900 on the pet will cause it anything but pain.

I know it's easy to say that the pets your responsibilty, you should treat it as a child, etc, but when you're talking about such a lot of money, you're in debt, and there's a chance that you might just make things worse, I think you'd have to think seriously about having it put to sleep.

dunamis

The range of answers are closely mirroring the range of views on a pet's status within the family. On one end there are the 'just as much part of the family as anyone else' bunch and on the other the 'rather kill the pet then spend a tenner on it' bunch (although to be fair, I haven't seen any posts that extreme).
I can understand the sentiment that the first group are expressing - emotional attachment to a long term pet can be very significant - but to compare that to a member of the family is pretty much ridiculous. e.g. if your dog and two year old daughter were both drowning and you could only save one of them, would you really consider the dog an equal member of the family and be torn as to which one to save?
As with many moral dilemmas, there is a line to be drawn that depends on many more factors than those presented. Saving the dog 'no matter what the cost' is a hypothetical position, not a real one. At some point everyone would draw the line...£1K, £5K, £50K...depends. How old is the dog, what is the chance of success, how much money do we have, what would the impact be on the kids, how long have we had the dog? etc.

dunamis

simontheiceman

I am a vet and I would always advise those who cannot really afford it to consider euthanasia as a realistic option. I ask people who are in for routine appointments and when the topic of insurance arises, "which category do you come under?" "Insured, PetAid, loaded or bonkers". All pet owners fall into one of these. The PDSA PetAid scheme is brilliant for those on council tax or housing benefit and I would urge anyone who has a PDSA practice in their area to seek it out and become registered. There is a NEED to be registered FIRST and then you can access free treatment but only for one pet per household. I am sick however, of those CHAVs who spend hundreds on a puppy and then say they cannot afford insurance - scabby.

Phaedra

I transfer the money that it would cost to insure my dog into a separate account each month that earns interest. For the first year I paid a little extra, as obviously I needed to build up a sum quickly in the event that I needed to pay a large bill. Fortunately, I haven't had to and five years on I have a tidy sum, which I may or may not need to spend.

This only works if you can avoid touching the money! - there have been a couple of times I've been tempted. There's also the risk that you might get a bill before saved enough to cover it.

We have a hamster who has a small growth under his eye. I'm taking him to the vet and the fees will come out of my 'fund.'

I truly believe you shouldn't have a pet unless you can afford to pay the bills or take out insurance. Life isn't disposable. I would pay the money happily as long as my pet was assured reasonable quality of life.

katlady

If you are in debt you can get help in a genuine case from animal charities my family come first but my pets are family so I would have to do everthing in my power to save the pet and get the family out of debt which could mean working two jobs of any sort as long as brings in the money, I would not be to proud too do what ever it took.

skylight

Pet goes to sleep i'm afraid.

After spending £900 and it may be put down anyway, then its an expensive gamble, and whilst risking to stay afloat, its too much money.

A reason that we got rid of our dog. ("Get rid of" - sounds severe! We did search for a good home for her first!!)

wildflower

I'd been paying pet insurance for years and watched it go up and up and read Martin's warnings about checking the small print on pet insurance. Last December it was due for renewal and I got some quotes. The prices quoted for my aging Madam (rescue centre cat about 12 years old) were either paltry and covered nothing or a small fortune each month. I decided that I wouldn't pay for the insurance.

Suddenly in March Madam stopped eating. We took her to the vet's and paid about £600 to find out what was wrong. She had a tumour. The vet said they'd be able to operate and it would prolong her life, perhaps for a few months, perhaps for a couple of years, he really honestly couldn't tell us for sure. He gave her a jab or two and we brought her home to think about spending around £2,000 on the operation.

Poor thing didn't have the strength to recover from the anaesthetic they'd given her to take xrays. She sat beneath the radiator. She wouldn't eat. We tried marmite, cheese, baked beans, fresh fish, in other words all her favourites but she couldn't manage even to lick the marmite from the end of a finger, she just didn't want to know although she still came to us and snuggled up and she still purred.

Clearly she was suffering: it was either the radiator or human warmth. We decided we couldn't put her through all that the operation would involve for her in recovery to buy her extra time that would sooner or later mean more pain for her.

After a couple of days of this we decided none of us should take any more pain and we took her back to the vet and paid £115 to have her put to sleep. We then bought a new victoria plum tree, laid Madam to rest and planted the tree over her.

Yes, the money was an issue but her pain more important. We believe we did the humane thing. And we will replace her after Christmas and give another rescue cat a loving home - there are so many that need one.

But no, I don't think I would have borrowed money even if the prognosis had been better and she hadn't been uncomfortable. I don't believe we have the right to play God in our attempts to lengthen an animal's natural lifespan.

You can't explain to a pet that the reason why their arthritis or whatever pains them is because you (selfishly) want them to live. By having an animal you accept that they will die before you (Parrots excepted!). It's kinder to put them to sleep than try to trust pills down them when they hiss and scratch.

Madam was not the first cat I've put to sleep to take away their pain. Despite my own tears at the passing of Mickey, Madam and Pudding over the years, I believe I did the right thing each time. But I'm still very grateful Siesta died in her sleep at a ripe old age as it's a terrible decision to have to make.

davenorthwales

simontheiceman wrote:

I am a vet and I would always advise those who cannot really afford it to consider euthanasia as a realistic option. I ask people who are in for routine appointments and when the topic of insurance arises, "which category do you come under?" "Insured, PetAid, loaded or bonkers". All pet owners fall into one of these. The PDSA PetAid scheme is brilliant for those on council tax or housing benefit and I would urge anyone who has a PDSA practice in their area to seek it out and become registered. There is a NEED to be registered FIRST and then you can access free treatment but only for one pet per household. I am sick however, of those CHAVs who spend hundreds on a puppy and then say they cannot afford insurance - scabby.

I, too, work in a vets and would strongly recommend that people on low incomes (and in receipt of housing tax or council tax benefit) join the PDSA PetAid Scheme. The only thing I would add is that the PDSA scheme only applies to people living within the specific postcode area of the vet, and not all vets participate in the scheme. If you phone the PDSA on 0800 731 2502, they can tell you where the nearest participating vets is located.

If you're thinking of donating to an animal charity, I would recommend the following as being amongst the best in terms of the work they do:

PDSA http://www.pdsa.org.uk

Dogs Trust http://www.dogstrust.org.uk/

Cats Protection (CPL) http://www.cats.org.uk/

Dave

tabbypuss

This is such an emotive issue, and immensely personal. We have had 2 very sick animals this year. My gorgeous but uninsured cat was diagnosed with cancer in March, had 7 months of chemotherapy and then sadly died in September. It cost us an absolute fortune, sometimes £200 a week. We are not wealthy, nor are we on the breadline, but we did everything in our power to ensure that her last few months (although we obviously didn't know that at the time) were as comfortable as possible. We had such a lovely time and although it was a relief when we she finally left us that she wasn't in any discomfort anymore, and we weren't having to fork out vast quantities of money. Most of it went on a credit card, but we were willing to take the hit as we just adored her. However, had our financial situation been any worse we may have had to consider having her put to sleep a lot earlier, and we were given that option by the vet. It would have been a shame and very unlikely, but we would have considered it. I now work 2 jobs to try and get us back on an even keel, and my husband is also a very busy man. We have insured our other cat now.

Just as we thought we had time to start making a dent in our debts, one of our rabbits was diagnosed with a cataract. She is insured, but the operation took us to our annual limit for the insurance, so any further problems we will have to pay for, or have her put to sleep if that is the only other option. This would very much be a last resort, but we would have to consider it, at least until the insurance renews.

I would like to reiterate the point that a number of other users have made. Animals are not cheap, and very few go through life with no problems. I would recommend insurance as had we had it for the cat, she would have been totally covered for all expenses, and we would have paid the excess only. We don't really know how much we spent in the end, but it was a serious quantity of money that could have been avoided. Animals are also not disposable, so I would implore anyone thinking of getting one to seriously think about what would happen in the case of serious illness and injury. I don't think there is a wrong or right answer to the moral question, and I don't believe anybody should be criticised for the decision they make. People thought we were mad spending so much money on our beautiful cat, but we don't begrudge her a penny and it was important to us, where other things are more important to other people.

Do what you think is right for you and the animal and you won't go wrong!

russellgreeno

Well, it doesn't sound like it. More like Nation of people who like animals around as long as it suits them, if they cost too much money or get in the way, just get rid of them. Dammit I hate the human race!

If someone takes on an animal, their responibility should carry on to the end of it's natural life. Although I do think if an animal is suffering, it should be put to sleep painlessly.

But putting an animal to sleep, just because you can't afford it's vets bills is disgusting. What if we had no NHS, would you put a relative down if you could not afford their treatment?

Unless you are 100% willing to look after a domestic animal through it's life, you are not a suitable pet owner, and in my opinion, should not be allowed to have them.

So in this case, why did this unsuitable owner have a pet in the first place? statistically 1 in 3 animals will need serious vet treatment in their life, and that doesn't include vaccinations and worming etc, that many animals will need every year of their life.

Pet insurance is very cheap, although i do realise that insurance companies do not take on older pets, but this means you should either be very sure of your commitment, or pass on this animal to someone who really cares.

If any of my pets had no insurance, I would take on extra work to help pay for the bills, and if you are in debt anyway, taking on extra work is a good idea anyway.