 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / February 2005What Price For Kitty?
I've been thinking about this. I have spent huge sums of money on the cat I have had for the past seven or eight years. But I have money, and I don't think about it. But if I didn't have money -- let's say living from paycheck to paycheck -- and the vet came in and said, "$850 for labwork and surgery." Forgive me, but I would probably have to draw the line there and have the poor thing put to rest. I know this makes me a bad person, but come on y'all, what is your true limit on such matters? Glarb > I've been thinking about this. I have spent huge sums of money on the cat I > have had for the past seven or eight years. But I have money, and I don't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Glarb I have lots and lots of credit. As long as I wasn't putting my cat through unnecessary treatments that would not actually improve his or her quality of life...I would not put a price limit on their heads. Keep in mind, I am only a school teacher. I am not a rich woman. But, I love my cats like children and if I had children, I certainly wouldn't euthanize them if the bills got high! Your question is a tough as well as very personal one though...because certainly not everyone is able to fork up indefinite amounts of money. This kind of thread could definitely lead into some flames and judgements...which I would personally not like to see. if only it were easy... pam > > I've been thinking about this. I have spent huge sums of money on the cat I > > have had for the past seven or eight years. But I have money, and I don't [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > if only it were easy... > pam I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats. Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be-- which is something I have done maybe twice in my life. I would ask friends for money, something I have never done. I would sell all my collectables to pay for my cats' health needs. I would do everything I could, as long as I was not, as you say, Pam, putting them through hell when they did not have a good chance at a decent recovery. I am their caretaker, and it is my responsibility to not only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not suffer unnecessarily. > I am their caretaker, and it is my responsibility to not > only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not > suffer unnecessarily.< This is so key. I hope that if and when the time should come that I have to make "big decisions" I am strong enough to do what is right by the cat...I simply can not imagine life without my Luna! I don't like to imagine life without Jasper either, but I kinda feel like he came to us on borrowed time as it is and I feel grateful to be able to give him a comfortable happy home to live out his senior years, however long that may be. Luna I have had since she was 6 months old...so it is just...*different*. I simply can not put a price on my cats. When Luna looks at me with her big round eyes and she is just full of wonder and contentment...well I could just float away! As for Jasper, when he squeaks with excitement because we are home and near him...that is what it is *all about*. :) pam > > I am their caretaker, and it is my responsibility to not > > only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > :) > pam Asking the question to me was like asking the question "How much is too much to spend on your child?" As Priscilla recently said, I openly admit that my cats are substitute kids. (I also spend a good bit of my disposable income making sure my nieces and nephews do not want for anything, too.) What if it wasn't "your" cat? I have two cats of my own, but I've spent hundreds of dollars on an assortment of stray cats who've shown up on my doorstep. I had an $800 vet bill for one of "my" feral cats, I've spent hundreds on a stray kitten with a persistent URI, and hundreds more on a stray (non-feral) cat with struvite crystals. Both of them have moved in with me, neither of my "real" cats are happy about it. One of my ferals, a formerly beautiful long haired lynx point, comes up to me to be petted, but only if I don't look at him, and only if he can't see my hand coming for him. He's getting pretty matted now, there's not much I can do about it--except spend a lot of money on him, too. He's been neutered, that was his only visit to a vet. I only take the manageable strays to the vet, except in an emergency. There is no limit to how much I could spend trying to save cats, except for the limits I make myself. Still, I worry that I might be becoming a "cat collector". I love my cats, I love my strays, I particularly love my most unlovable ferals, but I can't cripple myself for a single cat. At some point, saving one cat might mean losing all the others. Why do I even bother at all when my efforts are insignificant compared to the need? I don't have an answer. Usually I don't think about it, I just pull out Mr. Plastic. > I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats. > Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be-- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not > suffer unnecessarily.  SignatureJ Kimmel myname@whereIwork.com www.metalinnovations.com "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow. > What if it wasn't "your" cat? I don't know. I tend to fall in love with every cat I meet. I have two cats of my own, but I've spent > hundreds of dollars on an assortment of stray cats who've shown up on my > doorstep. I had an $800 vet bill for one of "my" feral cats, I've spent > hundreds on a stray kitten with a persistent URI, and hundreds more on a > stray (non-feral) cat with struvite crystals. Both of them have moved > in with me, neither of my "real" cats are happy about it. You're a good man. > One of my ferals, a formerly beautiful long haired lynx point, comes up > to me to be petted, but only if I don't look at him, and only if he [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > limits I make myself. Still, I worry that I might be becoming a "cat > collector". Honestly? Then you might have a problem. > I love my cats, I love my strays, I particularly love my most unlovable > ferals, but I can't cripple myself for a single cat. At some point, > saving one cat might mean losing all the others. Why do I even bother > at all when my efforts are insignificant compared to the need? I don't > have an answer. Usually I don't think about it, I just pull out Mr. > Plastic. You're a good man. I just take what I have and pay the bills and divvy the rest up among the nieces and nephews, cats, and other loved ones. Some little treats for me, and I am happy. To answer the real question you are asking: I have to keep my distance most times--and I mean consciously withdraw--when I see animals in need. There is only so much I can do, and I know it. It is not because I want to use my money for other things, it is because I have to be sure I can pay my bills. It is the same with my sisters' children: my impulse is to give them everything. They are good kids--they need things and they do not expect anything. > > I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats. > > Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be-- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not > > suffer unnecessarily. > I just take what I have and pay the bills and divvy the rest up among the > nieces and nephews, cats, and other loved ones. Some little treats for me, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > everything. They are good kids--they need things and they do not expect > anything. (Warning: I was a philosophy minor, so I find these sorts of nuances fascinating) Sure, I think that's what we all have to do if we want to stay sane. I do remember a class discussion at some point ... Pretty much everyone agrees that if your own kid is in trouble, you'll do whatever you can to save them. But what if it's your cousin's kid; would you spend your money on them? Is it right to buy a piano when that money could save a poverty-stricken child in asia? It's pretty interesting to think about how our minds work. Why is my kid any more deserving than another person's kid? Wouldn't I do more good for cats in general if, instead of spending $15,000 on medical bills for one cat, I distributed that to shelters around the region? But most of us will choose to pay for our own pets rather than the "greater good." That might be because we strongly believe in our duty as pet owners, but I suspect it's mostly an emotional issue. We love our own pets and we can't bear to part with them. Most people wouldn't sacrifice themselves, and certainly wouldn't sacrifice a loved one, to save a group of people they don't know. We simply value those we know more than those we don't. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats. >Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be-- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not >suffer unnecessarily. Yes, I have to agree. So far, I have not reached my limit, but I have had a few large bills that have pushed my limits. The stray we found was over $700. We did that in two payments since it was so large. And he died between the first and second payments, so it was a bitter loss. But I don't regret it. If we had not done it, we would not have had him, and those two weeks at home were special. He had a chance to be loved and those were probably the best two weeks of his life. A couple years ago, I had two of my crew gang up on me. My dog had mange and required special treatments every two weeks, with tests in between, for 3 months. Add in blood work, and it totalled over $600 in 3 months. And a week before the final treatment, my cat had an abcess. Add in the bloodwork and some extra tests, and I owed $243 by the end of the day - my whole paycheck from that morning. I paid it, and later paid late fees to two credit card companies because I had to pay those bills late. So, I have had some hardship, but nothing bad enough to ever make me consider not doing it. I would sell stuff first, eat top ramen, take out a loan, or look for a second job - before I would consider letting my cats or dog suffer. It just isn't an option. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com [...] > So, I have had some hardship, but nothing bad enough to ever make me > consider not doing it. I would sell stuff first, eat top ramen, take > out a loan, or look for a second job - before I would consider letting > my cats or dog suffer. It just isn't an option. In the end, we have to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror at least once a day. There is no shame in spending too much to help someone--ever. > I know this makes me a bad person, but > come on y'all, what is your true limit on such matters? What the hell is wrong with you? > > I know this makes me a bad person, but > > come on y'all, what is your true limit on such matters? > > What the hell is wrong with you? Nothing! That's perfectly normal behavior for an a.shole. > > > I know this makes me a bad person, but > > > come on y'all, what is your true limit on such matters? > > > > What the hell is wrong with you? > > Nothing! That's perfectly normal behavior for an a.shole. Once I really thought about his question, it pissed me off. What cat lover thinks that way? If you are unfortunate enough to have to cross that bridge, that is bad enough. > Once I really thought about his question, it pissed me off. What cat lover > thinks that way? If you are unfortunate enough to have to cross that bridge, > that is bad enough. If you're claiming that you've never, ever thought about how much you could spend on a pet before it got to be too much, I say you're a liar. In fact, your previous post about mortgaging your house, etc. to pay for the cats' health shows that you *have* thought about it. It's a scary question, but I'm sure that all of us have wondered at one time or another how much we could really afford to spend to keep our loved ones alive. That's one of the reasons so many folks talk about either having pet insurance or keeping a separate account just for pet emergencies. Signaturemonique, roommate of Oscar the (female) grouch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eros was adopted! Eros has a home now! *cheer!* "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message > It's a scary question, but I'm sure that all of us have wondered at one > time > or another how much we could really afford to spend to keep our loved ones > alive. That's one of the reasons so many folks talk about either having > pet > insurance or keeping a separate account just for pet emergencies. For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own life. There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real. > "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message > > It's a scary question, but I'm sure that all of us have wondered at one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own life. > There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real. Okay. "Real" is that you don't love your cats the way many of us do. Takes all kinds. But don't expect anyone to congratulate you for this. > Okay. "Real" is that you don't love your cats the way > many of us do. Takes all kinds. But don't expect > anyone to congratulate you for this. Are you saying you would sacrifice your life for your cat(s)? Steve. > > Okay. "Real" is that you don't love your cats the way > > many of us do. Takes all kinds. But don't expect > > anyone to congratulate you for this. > > Are you saying you would sacrifice your life for your cat(s)? How does that follow? (...) > > Are you saying you would sacrifice your life for your cat(s)? > > How does that follow? Oops, I think my scissors slipped. Giving some context, Glarb said: "For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own life. There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real." And you said: "Okay. "Real" is that you don't love your cats the way many of us do. " Which seems to imply that you would sacrifice your life for your cats. Steve. > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Steve. Ahh, okay, I see. I mentioned in a previous post that I do not consider my cats to be "like family members." I consider them to BE family members, albeit not genetically. In saying this: "For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own > life. There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real." Glarb is saying that he differentiates, with regard to how much he would spend in order to save/help his family members and his cats. Now if I consider my cats, with regard to how much I would spend on their health, to be on par with my human family members and Glarb considers his to be less, then I love my cats more than he loves his cats. It seemed simple to me. This is why he can even stand to THINK about "Well, $600 I might do, but at $850 they can euthanize the cat. (And that is why "What the hell is wrong with you" was my idea of an appropriate response to his question. Because of the way I feel about my cats, he might as well have asked, "Okay, how much would you really spend to save Granny? Your house? Your car? Everything you own?" I would never make any statement about sacrificing my life--for anything. Not that I necessarily would not, I just really would not announce it on Usenet, whether I would or wouldn't. My sense is that the phrase itself if not truly meant by most people who use it. > Now if I consider my cats, with regard to how much I would spend on their > health, to be on par with my human family members and Glarb considers his to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how much would you really spend to save Granny? Your house? Your car? > Everything you own?" When you put it that way, your initial response makes a lot more sense to me. On some level, though, we do have to make these decisions for our human relatives. Someone close to me has recently been wrestling with the question of how much treatment to give an elderly family member who's had Alzheimer's for years and so, in many senses, really isn't herself anymore, anyway. Now, yes, these questions are mostly a matter of "will this just prolong her suffering, or will it actually allow her to live a decent life for a while longer?", but it does seem to me that at some level, there's a monetary factor. You might keep a close relative who's not "themselves" anymore alive as long as is physically possible if money were in infinite supply, but would you mortgage your house for a few more days with a person who doesn't even recognize you anymore? Who isn't even aware of her surroundings? "You" in this case meaning the generic third-person, not you in particular. Thinking about it now, if I eventually am in this sort of situation, I do not want my family going broke trying to keep me alive for a few more days or months when there's no hope of a true recovery. As ugly as it is, I do think that money is a factor. At least in situations where it's not clear that the patient will actually improve. Getting back to pets, I know that my parents would not have spent thousand(s) of dollars on my dog Puma if he had needed surgery. They strongly believe in pet responsibility, but I guess they did have some nebulous idea about how much they'd do for a pet. Then again, this was never put to the test. Maybe they would have changed their minds if it had come to that. Me, I have trouble imagining myself allowing Oscar to come to harm if I could at all possibly prevent it, but I'm sure there's a point at which I would say "enough's enough." I can't imagine what that point would be, but it would probably have as much to do with Oscar's misery as with the monetary aspect. I can't imagine a situation in which the medical expenses were too high for me to realistically pay *and* she had any decent chance of a full recovery. I would imagine that if I needed to pay a lump sum beyond my means, the prognosis would not be good. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > > Now if I consider my cats, with regard to how much I would spend on their > > health, to be on par with my human family members and Glarb considers his to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > When you put it that way, your initial response makes a lot more sense to me. Well, good. I guess I tend to skip a few steps at times. > On some level, though, we do have to make these decisions for our human > relatives. Someone close to me has recently been wrestling with the question [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > recognize you anymore? Who isn't even aware of her surroundings? "You" in > this case meaning the generic third-person, not you in particular. I wish I had had those decisions to make. My parents died very suddenly, no illness no warning, when I was a very young adult. I wanted to take care of them. > Thinking about it now, if I eventually am in this sort of situation, I do not > want my family going broke trying to keep me alive for a few more days or > months when there's no hope of a true recovery. It won't be your choice, unless you make very careful preparations. >> Thinking about it now, if I eventually am in this sort of situation, >> I do not want my family going broke trying to keep me alive for a few >> more days or months when there's no hope of a true recovery. > > It won't be your choice, unless you make very careful preparations. True, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion, and I'll make sure my family members are very clear on my opinion. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca (...) > I mentioned in a previous post that I do not consider my cats to be > "like family members." I consider them to BE family members, albeit > not genetically. Well, I guess we should be thankful for the second half of that sentence. (...) > Now if I consider my cats, with regard to how much I would spend on their > health, to be on par with my human family members and Glarb considers his > to be less, then I love my cats more than he loves his cats. Well, that doesn't follow, strictly speaking - though I'm confident you are correct in this particular case. > This is why he can even stand to THINK about "Well, $600 I might > do, but at $850 they can euthanize the cat. (...) > asked, "Okay, how much would you really spend to save Granny? Your > house? Your car? Everything you own?" No, this isn't 'why he can even stand to think about, etc.'. Well, unless you are going to pull out the 50' wide painbrush and get busy on the majority of us who found the question reasonable. I consider his question to have no connection whatsoever to how much he loves his pets (and I also would find the Granny question fine, too). Now, how he answers the question is a whole different pot of boiling fish. (...) > whether I would or wouldn't. My sense is that the phrase itself if not truly > meant by most people who use it. Yes, I'm sure you're correct - although I think many people who use the phrase do mean it, I think this has little bearing on what would actually happen, given a situation where it became possible / necessary. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Well, I guess we should be thankful for the second half of that > sentence. That would be scary! Talk about a good reason to spay and neuter! > (...) > > > > Now if I consider my cats, with regard to how much I would spend on > their health, to be on par with my human family members and Glarb considers > his to be less, then I love my cats more than he loves his cats. > > Well, that doesn't follow, strictly speaking - though I'm confident you > are correct in this particular case. Let me take a stab at why it doesn't follow: because even though my cats may be on par with my human family members, my regard for the latter may be so low that Glarb may actually love his cats more than I love my cats? > > This is why he can even stand to THINK about "Well, $600 I might > > do, but at $850 they can euthanize the cat. (...) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (and I also would find the Granny question fine, too). Now, how he > answers the question is a whole different pot of boiling fish. We are different there, Steve. To even think of a living being in terms of how many dollars I would be willing to spend on their survival is just heinous to me. It is literally placing a dollar (pound, lira, rupee, whatever) value on a life. Reprehensible. "Well, I'd be willing to kick in $1,000 for Granny but after that she is on her own." Or, "if Fluffy gets sick I can spend $45 but not a penny more. More than that, and she has to die. THEN there is the issue of whether we are talking about what we are willing to spend or what we CAN spend. Several people are not bothering to make that distinction in this discussion. > (...) > > whether I would or wouldn't. My sense is that the phrase itself if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > actually happen, given a situation where it became possible / > necessary. So you think someone who would actually opt NOT to give his life might really THINK he would. Hmm. Maybe. Always fun, Steve. :) > > (...) > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That would be scary! Talk about a good reason to spay and neuter! Or just use a condom. (...) > Let me take a stab at why it doesn't follow: because even though my cats > may be on par with my human family members, my regard for the latter > may be so low that Glarb may actually love his cats more than I love my > cats? Yes. Or any other variation on the above. Or, put another way, there ain't no objective measure of how much we love something. (...) > We are different there, Steve. To even think of a living being in terms of > how many dollars I would be willing to spend on their survival is just > heinous to me. I think I'm not getting my point across fully - I'm not saying that placing a dollar amount on a living being's life is OK, what I'm saying is that considering or asking the question is OK, and it's how you answer the question that matters. If I ask (myself?) 'how much would you spend to save your cat', this does not even imply that I think there is a monetary answer to the question. Or even an answer at all. But how do we know if we don't ask? > It is literally placing a dollar (pound, lira, rupee, > whatever)value on a life. And yet, in other contexts, we do it all the time - $1/lb for a chicken. Or a chcken as a pet? (...) > THEN there is the issue of whether we are talking about what we > are willing to spend or what we CAN spend. Several people are not > bothering to make that distinction in this discussion. Perhaps this is because we are willing, in principle, to spend anything - but what we can spend, in reality, is the crux. Again, tricky ground though; what do we mean by 'willing'...? (...) > So you think someone who would actually opt NOT to give > his life might really THINK he would. Hmm. Maybe. I would bet my life on it. And the reverse might occur, too. > Always fun, Steve. :) Ach, and you have still to read my epistemological treatise on the rheological properties of gnat farts. It's a beaut'. Steve. > Or, put another way, there > ain't no objective measure of how much we love something. > > (...) But in asking for a specific quantification, "how much will you spend to save X" isn't this really what the asker is asking? >>To even think of a living being in >> terms of how many dollars I would be willing to spend on their survival is > >just heinous to me. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there is a monetary answer to the question. Or even an answer at all. > But how do we know if we don't ask? What is the purpose in "knowing?" And, really, what is the function of the OP's question? It is to rationalize his own impulse NOT to take care of is cats. Also, how many of us actually know this until we are in the situation? It is an exercise in futile "trainwreck" hypothetical voyeurism. > And yet, in other contexts, we do it all the time - $1/lb for a > chicken. Or a chcken as a pet? There you go again with the cat as object. I wish you would quit that. > > So you think someone who would actually opt NOT to give > > his life might really THINK he would. Hmm. Maybe. > > I would bet my life on it. And the reverse might occur, too. heh. > > Always fun, Steve. :) > > Ach, and you have still to read my epistemological treatise on the > rheological properties of gnat farts. It's a beaut'. Oo! Where? alt.insects.winged.gaseous.ones?? > > Or, put another way, there > > ain't no objective measure of how much we love something. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > But in asking for a specific quantification, "how much will you > spend to save X" isn't this really what the asker is asking? In the OP's case, he may be asking this indirectly (though I don't think the OP intended the question to extend that way). And in some cases I agree that the answer is easy to infer, even if there is no 'objective' measure. However, in many cases it's not - especially looking at many of the answer in this thread. (...) > What is the purpose in "knowing?" There might not be a purpose. It could be a question thrown out purely to see the way people think on the matter. Human interest, no more or less. Hoffer again: "Humanness came of age when man asked the first question. Social stagnation results not from a lack of answers but from the absence of the impulse to ask questions." There can be a genuine purpose in knowing though. If you ask the question of yourself, you might find that you are unwilling to commit to the financial duty of care. A 'moral' person (whatever that is) might then choose to not have pets, given their answer. Or the person might do what they can to avoid being in a financial bind, such as by choosing to set aside money specifically for care. Or the person might discover that their duty of care is only compelling for certain pets (or people), and again they might alter their behavior so that they only have pets for which they are willing to exercise the duty of care. And so on. Or of course they could answer 'fuckit. I want a cat, but I'll only spend tuppence ha'penny on it if it gets ill'. The person who would do 'everything' to save their pet has asked and answered the question implicitly, at least to some degree. > And, really, what is the > function of the OP's question? It is to rationalize his own impulse > NOT to take care of is cats. The purpose of the OP's question might be as you say. But if it is, then the answers to the question can change the OP's attitude. The OP might only be willing to spend $x, but if most replies suggest this is 'wrong', then that's info that the OP can use. Or, if you are correct, the question has a real purpose here in that the rationalization fails! > Also, how many of us actually know this until we are in the > situation? For sure, none of us. And nevertheless, you would do 'everything' to save your cats. And you 'know' this. Hell, I wouldn't advise staying awake at nights worrying the question! > > And yet, in other contexts, we do it all the time - $1/lb for a > > chicken. Or a chcken as a pet? > > There you go again with the cat as object. I wish you would > quit that. The chicken wished to be treated as something other than an object, but there she is at $1/lb, with an onion up her arse. Meanwhile, 'everything' is done to save the dying cat. Inconsistent. There's nothing about the generic cat that separates it from the chicken, pig, duck, and yet we'll treat our pets as pseudo humans while eating their brethren for lunch. (...) > > Ach, and you have still to read my epistemological treatise on the > > rheological properties of gnat farts. It's a beaut'. > > Oo! Where? alt.insects.winged.gaseous.ones?? Heh heh. Steve. I agree with everything you just posted, steve. >> > Or, put another way, there ain't no objective measure of how much we love >> > something. [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > Steve. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > I agree with everything you just posted, steve. OMG! You've been reduced to top posting. You are having a bad day. >> I agree with everything you just posted, steve. > > OMG! You've been reduced to top posting. You are having a bad day. Sometimes, top posting does make more sense. It's rare, though. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > > What is the purpose in "knowing?" > > There might not be a purpose. It could be a question thrown out purely > to see the way people think on the matter. Human interest, no more or > less. My instincts tell me that this was not the case with Glurb, or whatever its name was. Hoffer again: > "Humanness came of age when man asked the first question. Social > stagnation results not from a lack of answers but from the absence of > the impulse to ask questions." Stop that Steve! Usenet Lynnie doesn't think folks what got book larnin' kin tie their shews! > There can be a genuine purpose in knowing though. If you ask the > question of yourself, you might find that you are unwilling to commit > to the financial duty of care. I think the question is ridiculous precisely because I will do anyting I need to to care for those I love. I always have. There is no reason to think that there will be a day when I cannot or will not. If I need extra money, I take on extra work. > > And, really, what is the > > function of the OP's question? It is to rationalize his own impulse > > NOT to take care of is cats. > > The purpose of the OP's question might be as you say. But if it is, > then the answers to the question can change the OP's attitude. Oh my God! You have a Pollyanna side! The OP > might only be willing to spend $x, but if most replies suggest this is > 'wrong', then that's info that the OP can use. I suppose, if the OP measures his own morality against the opinion of the mob. I certainly don't. Or, if you are correct, > the question has a real purpose here in that the rationalization fails! Rationalization rarely fails. It is one of those things people are endlessly creative in order to support. > > > And yet, in other contexts, we do it all the time - $1/lb for a > > > chicken. Or a chcken as a pet? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > duck, and yet we'll treat our pets as pseudo humans while eating their > brethren for lunch. Now I've got you! That chicken may have wanted that onion for all you know! Seriously: I don't care about the chicken, the pig, or the duck. Your theoretical farm animals mean nothing to me. I love my cat--and all cats to a degree--and so I care about her welfare. I will pay for my cat's health care because I took her on as my responsibility, in addition to the fact that I want her to live due to my emotional attachment to her. Therefore all your chickens and pigs can go straight to hell and take the ducks with them. Cats are NOT equivalent to all other animals in importance to me. MY cat is not equivalent to all other cats, in terms of what I will do for her. How could she be? Why would she be, in my mind? I'm not working for a fair Universe here, I am taking care of my loved ones. > Perhaps this is because we are willing, in principle, to spend anything - > but what we can spend, in reality, is the crux. Again, tricky ground though; > what do we mean by 'willing'...? This is exactly what I wonder. Maybe the question would be more interestingly termed, "What would I sacrifice to keep one pet alive." Would I sacrifice my daily coffee shop mocha? Would I sacrifice the prospect of a new car or vacation? Would I sacrifice my own ability to pay for basic necessities (and what, then, are basic necessities?) Would I risk being unable to care for my other dependents (regardless of species) in order to extend the life of one? I make more than a decent living, as does my husband, and we both are prone to spending a lot of money on unnecessary toys. I started to think, jeez, $5K is a lot, but then I realize I just took out a loan this summer for a motorcycle that cost more than that. But Oscar is worth way more to me than a motorcycle, and she's my only dependent, so when I think about it, I would never forgive myself for refusing to spend that much for purely monetary reasons. (Quality of life is another issue, of course.) Wow. Thanks to this ng conversation, I've actually thought about it and changed the way I think about pet health care. Not only that, I think I have a way of expressing myself to my husband, who I know has expressed hesitance in the past about (thus far only theoretically) spending a lot to keep a pet alive. But that does bring to mind another point. Someone mentioned people dropping off cats in their brand new cars because they won't pay the cat's medical bills. It occurs to me that this could actually be legit, although very sad. A person could take out a loan they could barely afford on a car. As cars lose a lot of value right off the lot, they could very well be upside-down on the loan for a year or two at least, meaning that they could not sell the car to pay for pet bills, even if they wanted to, because the money they got for the car wouldn't pay off the loan, so they wouldn't be able to pass on the title. Just a thought. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca >But that does bring to mind another point. Someone mentioned people dropping >off cats in their brand new cars because they won't pay the cat's medical [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >the car wouldn't pay off the loan, so they wouldn't be able to pass on the >title. Just a thought. Very true. My sister had a similar situation (without the vet bill part). She bought a brand new truck and after a couple years, thought it would be better financially to sell the truck and buy a less expensive car. That would get her out of the big truck payments and also reduce gas and insurance costs. But she discovered that her truck was worth less than the amount she owed. So, she couldn't sell it. She still owed $10,000 on it and was stuck with it. It's one of those things that seemed good at the time, but can really hurt you financially. I would also mention that many people buy things they cannot afford, so while they may have a fancy car and a big house, they may be behind on all their bills and a paycheck away from disaster. Obviously, this is no excuse. But my point is that appearances can be deceiving. It is sad that people will spend money they *don't* have on stupid stuff, but they won't spend money they *do* have when their pets need them to. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > Very true. My sister had a similar situation (without the vet bill part). > She bought a brand new truck and after a couple years, thought it would be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > was stuck with it. It's one of those things that seemed good at the time, > but can really hurt you financially. I had an older car last year and wanted to get a new car more suited to my new habitat and pursuits: more room, AWD ... well, mostly just those two. Anyway, I was upside down on my old car by about a thousand, and the dealership was willing to roll the difference into my new loan. But of course YMMV depending on how bad the dealership wants to sell the car. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca i'm new here, but i want to throw in my two cents: we had our family dog euthanized six months ago....................that surely does NOT mean that we didn't love her, but in fact it means we DID love her and worried about her quality of life, before we worried about ourselves and our pain. please do not paint us all as heartless. Signaturerosie > i'm new here, but i want to throw in my two cents: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > quality of life, before we worried about ourselves and our pain. > please do not paint us all as heartless. I don't know which post you were replying to, but... I'll hazard a guess as to the intent of the previous (whoever it was) poster & then how you *may*'ve read the thread (hazarding a guess here, too, based on your reply) to the point you did. I sincerely doubt if anyone here - at least of long-time posters, whose posts I'm familiar with - is against euthanasia. When it's appropriate. I have a problem with a person saying, "Hey, this cat (or any pet) is worth "x" amount of money & if the treatment exceeds that, skip it, it's PTS time." However, if the treatment is pricey, and the prognosis is crummy, then IMO euthanasia makes more sense. Not solely based on the financial aspect of the deal, but why put a pet through more trauma, only to have a lousy outcome anyway? A lot of factors need to be taken into account, to come up w/ the big-time treatment Vs. euthanasia decision. Cathy : However, if the treatment is pricey, and the prognosis is crummy, then IMO : euthanasia makes more sense. Not solely based on the financial aspect of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] : : Cathy thank you cathy > i'm new here, but i want to throw in my two cents: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > her quality of life, before we worried about ourselves and our > pain. please do not paint us all as heartless. There is always a time when it is necessary. I wish it was an option for humans in cases where there is no hope and only suffering and waiting. SignatureCheryl > There is always a time when it is necessary. I wish it was an option > for humans in cases where there is no hope and only suffering and > waiting. when I had Fugazi PTS there was a trainee vet in there who said "It's the one thing we can do for them that we can't do for us" I agree Lesley Slave to the Fabulous Furballs > For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own life. > There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real. Well, in my "real" world, I would put more money into keeping Oscar healthy than I would into some of my relatives. The reality is, I'm closer to my cat than I am to many of my relatives. The other reality is, Oscar can't get a job and make money, and if she shows up at the vet's with a life-threatening illness, the vet doesn't have to treat her. I am the only means by which Oscar can stay healthy. Maybe it sounds cold, but everyone has to make judgements as to where they spend their money. That being said, I would do a lot to help out my friends and close relatives. I don't know about my own life, though. I'm pretty addicted to living. Maybe if I had children, I'd feel that way. Signaturemonique, roommate of Oscar the (female) grouch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Eros was adopted! Eros has a home now! *cheer!* >Well, in my "real" world, I would put more money into keeping Oscar healthy >than I would into some of my relatives. The reality is, I'm closer to my cat >than I am to many of my relatives. Same here. As sad as it sounds, I grieved more for my two cats and a dog, than I did for my grandmother who lived with us for 11 years. I loved her very much, and I did grieve for her. But I was closer to my animals. They slept on my bed, spent hours of every day with me. They knew all my secrets. Over the years, I spent far more hours with them than with any human. > The other reality is, Oscar can't get a >job and make money, and if she shows up at the vet's with a life-threatening >illness, the vet doesn't have to treat her. I am the only means by which >Oscar can stay healthy. Very true. People doctors don't require payment up front, and they can't refuse emergency treatment. You can deal with the bills later. With animals, we are all they have. It is much harder when you are strapped for cash, and something bad happens. >That being said, I would do a lot to help out my friends and close >relatives. I would help with relatives, but I honestly don't see myself selling my stuff to pay for a relative's hospital bills. But I would do it for my animals in a heartbeat. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > I would help with relatives, but I honestly don't see myself selling > my stuff to pay for a relative's hospital bills. But I would do it for > my animals in a heartbeat. I'm with you here. For one thing, my relatives have other options besides my resources. They can sell their stuff and/or go into debt. All my animals have are me. >>That being said, I would do a lot to help out my friends and close >>relatives. > > I would help with relatives, but I honestly don't see myself selling my > stuff to pay for a relative's hospital bills. But I would do it for my > animals in a heartbeat. Depends on the particular person involved. I'm very close to some family members, but barely know others. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > >>That being said, I would do a lot to help out my friends and close > >>relatives. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Depends on the particular person involved. I'm very close to some family > members, but barely know others. Yes indeed. I am close enough to some family members that I would do just about anything to help them. I am close enough to others to know that I would not pass them the salt in a gd blizzard. :) >> Depends on the particular person involved. I'm very close to some family >> members, but barely know others. > >Yes indeed. I am close enough to some family members that I would do >just about anything to help them. I am close enough to others to know >that I would not pass them the salt in a gd blizzard. :) Yes. I would do just about anything for my nephew (brother's son), but I'm not about to help my brother. What a creep. He stole from my parents and let his wife abuse my nephew. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > >> Depends on the particular person involved. I'm very close to some family > >> members, but barely know others. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'm not about to help my brother. What a creep. He stole from my > parents and let his wife abuse my nephew. I have one of those. :) And a sister with a sense of entitlement that just will not quit. The first step toward getting nothing from me is to EXPECT something. (At least if you are over 18. My nieces and nephews are all shamelessly spoiled by me, but they are wonderful kids.) >I have one of those. :) And a sister with a sense of entitlement that just >will not quit. The first step toward getting nothing from me is to >EXPECT something. (At least if you are over 18. My nieces and >nephews are all shamelessly spoiled by me, but they are wonderful >kids.) Same here. My nephew just turned 18, but is still in school, so I still spoil him :) Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > >I have one of those. :) And a sister with a sense of entitlement that just > >will not quit. The first step toward getting nothing from me is to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Same here. My nephew just turned 18, but is still in school, so I > still spoil him :) I cannot figure out that sense of entitlement some people have. I've never had it, and have always worked hard for everything and been grateful for what I have. My sister, raised beside me, is completely different. She always watches jealously what everyone else has and measures herself against it, and if she falls short is it always someone else's fault. She's passed it on to her daugther, too. >>I have one of those. :) And a sister with a sense of entitlement that just >>will not quit. The first step toward getting nothing from me is to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Same here. My nephew just turned 18, but is still in school, so I >still spoil him :) I love the way the newsreaders work. Here I am following part of a thread about when to euthanize a pet and I'm thinking that you're going to euthanize your 18 year old nephew. Luckily he's still in school and you can't do it! >>>I have one of those. :) And a sister with a sense of entitlement that just >>>will not quit. The first step toward getting nothing from me is to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >going to euthanize your 18 year old nephew. Luckily he's still in >school and you can't do it! Not sure where the confusion was. I replied to (and quoted) a post that mentioned spoiling nephews and nieces, but not idiot adult relatives. Signature-- Meghan & the Zoo Crew Equine and Pet Photography http://www.zoocrewphoto.com > "Monique Y. Mudama" <spam@bounceswoosh.org> wrote in message > > It's a scary question, but I'm sure that all of us have wondered at one [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > For a family member I would sacrifice everything, including my own life. > There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, get real. For many people - even those with children, pets *are* members of their family. Cathy (...) > For a family member I would sacrifice everything, > including my own life. You would? I wouldn't. > There is a strict limit on the cat, however. Come on people, > get real. I'm sure there is a practical limit for all of us, but I cannot say what mine is. It's very difficult to play the hypotheticals here, and this is something I've thought about before. I think the decision is likely to be based on quality of life, rather than cash per se. For people who have a fairly concrete cash limit, what determines this? The cost of the pet? Intelligence of the pet? Would you pay less to save a rat than a cat? I keep rodents as well as cats, and I must admit that I would not break the bank to save the former. This is not a decision based on cost, just that I feel less attachment to my rodents than my cats. (If rat people heard me say this they would stuff lab blocks up my nose until they came out of my ears). >From elsewhere on the magical interweb, via a thread elsewhere on rpch+b, an animal rights activist addresses a student audience: http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_detail.cfm/headline/2732 'Speaking to over 100 horrified spectators, Best said he'd sacrifice the life of a stranger to save his dog. Here's how The Daily Iowan reported the incident: "If you saw a baby dying and a dog dying, which would you save?" one audience member asked. "You need to be more specific with your question," Best replied. If a house with his dog and someone he didn't know was burning, he said he would save his dog, prompting another wave of gasps. ' Clearly the website - and the audience - strongly rails against the guy saving his dog versus an unknown human. I wonder how many of us here think we would choose the cat over the human. I'm sure I would choose my cat over an unknown human. It's also very easy to make up bizarre hypotheticals about what you would do to save your cat. Amputate a finger? A limb? Kill someone? Eat tripe? Your own tripe? ('Well, I would stab myself in the ear repeatedly with a frozen herring, but I wouldn't saw off my wrist using a sharpened carrot.') In the end I'm not sure how much any of these games matter when the faecal matter hits the rotary air-agitation apparatus. Steve. > (...) > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > For people who have a fairly concrete cash limit, what >determines this? Quality of life with and without treatment. Cost-to benefit ratio of treatment, Current financial situation. > The cost of the pet? Intelligence of the pet? Would you pay less to > save a rat than a cat? I keep rodents as well as cats, and I must admit > that I would not break the bank to save the former. This is not a > decision based on cost, just that I feel less attachment to my rodents > than my cats. (If rat people heard me say this they would >stuff lab > blocks up my nose until they came out of my ears). I know what you are saying. I have reptiles and while I love them to death and was devastated when I lost my favorite, I'm not socking hundreds of dollars into a situation which probably won't fix a snake. A couple hundred - sure - $600 or $800? Not likely. I'm not as comfortable making a limit on my mammmalian companions. > >From elsewhere on the magical interweb, via a thread elsewhere on > rpch+b, an animal rights activist addresses a student audience: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > I wonder how many of us here think we would choose the cat >over the > human. I'm sure I would choose my cat over an unknown human. I couldn't answer because I don't know what the circumstances are. I have witnessed death of strangers first-hand up close and personal being the first on a scene of a multi-person traffic fatality (I was not involved in the accident). It haunts me to this day - I still wonder if I could have done something differently to have helped save them. > It's also very easy to make up bizarre hypotheticals about what you > would do to save your cat. Amputate a finger? A limb? Kill someone? Eat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Steve. Bravo - probably the best answer, yet. -L. > For people who have a fairly concrete cash limit, what determines this? > The cost of the pet? Intelligence of the pet? Would you pay less to > save a rat than a cat? I keep rodents as well as cats, and I must admit > that I would not break the bank to save the former. This is not a > decision based on cost, just that I feel less attachment to my rodents > than my cats. I just wanted to address this because several people have mentioned similar ideas. The surface question here is interesting by itself...does assumed intelligence have an influence in how much you would spend on a pet? I say assumed intelligence because rats display social learning and are probably much smarter than people tend to think. But there's another question here too and the implications of the answer are disquieting. Should an animal's right to medical care be dependent on the attachment level of the owner? Is an animal worth inherently less if the owner feels less bonded to it than another pet or species? I have rats too. I'm terribly allergic to the little buggers. My allergies are so bad I can't even be in the same room with them. I've read all about how rats are smart, playful little critters but I can't say I've ever witnessed such behavior myself. When you can't even hold an animal without breaking out in hives and wheezing it can be awfully hard to get attached. Our eldest rat had a tumor removed last year. Removal and follow up care cost about $300. The thing will probably grow back, rats being the cancer factories that they are, but for right now he's a comfy old gentleman and that's all I wanted. I would have spent more if it were needed. So why would I spend a lot of money on a creature I can't even handle safely? Simple. Once I had a cat that meant more to me than anything else on the planet. His name was Nic and he died last year after a seven year long battle with chronic renal failure. I have never loved anyone as much as I loved him and I know I never will. What does loving a cat have to do with paying for a rat? Loving Nic so much taught me the most valuable lesson I could have learned. It wasn't responsibility or commitment or integrity. I love those words and those ideals but there's something more important in life. Nic taught me empathy. I loved Nic so much because I knew him. I saw him...he was real to me in a way that few things really are, if that makes any sense. My rats are not as real to me as Nic was...I don't know them as well as I knew him. But that's not the rat's fault and I'm not going to punish him for it. See, it isn't the rat's failing that I don't know him as well. It's my failing. Every animal is unique and every animal can be known just as well as I knew Nic. They can be loved just as much. My inability to see my rats lessens my world but I have no right to allow that to influence my choices about them. If anything I have to take more care with my responsibility toward them, since I can't depend on love to make things easier. If you take an animal into your life, you become responsible for it. And that responsibility remains no matter what your personal feelings toward that pet. I don't love any of my cats as much as I loved Nic. I just can't. But I'd do everything for them I would have done for him because I don't believe an animal's life is dependent on how much joy they bring me. Rat, cat, snake, bird, fish, person...the potential to be loved and known exists in every individual, regardless of species. If you get the chance to really know someone...count your blessings, because I don't think it happens all that often. And if you don't get that chance...remember the potential exists. Every cat is Nic. Every rat is Nic too. They are all beautiful and special and all deserve to be treated that way...even if I personally just don't feel the bond. Sethran > I have rats too. I'm terribly allergic to the little buggers. My > allergies are so bad I can't even be in the same room with them. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > all deserve to be treated that way...even if I personally just don't > feel the bond. You are such a fine, articulate human, Sethran. I'm glad you're back. > > For people who have a fairly concrete cash limit, what determines > this? [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Sethran Good post; haven't seen you in while! Cathy > Good post; haven't seen you in while! This newsgroup is like a black hole...everytime you think you've gotten out it sucks you right back in. :) Sethran [snip] > But there's another question here too and the implications of the answer are > disquieting. Should an animal's right to medical care be dependent on the > attachment level of the owner? Is an animal worth inherently less if the > owner feels less bonded to it than another pet or species? I don't think that any animal is inherently worth less than any other, just as I don't think any human is inherently worth less than any other. But I can't afford health care for all animals or all humans. Is your kid any more worthy of cancer treatment than mine? Objectively, of course not. But most (all?) people will worry about treatment for their own child before worrying about whether others will be okay. You can't possibly take care of all the suffering in the world, so you have to make choices. I don't think it's wrong to make those choices based at least in part on how close you feel to the person or animal in question. > If you take an animal into your life, you become responsible for it. And > that responsibility remains no matter what your personal feelings toward > that pet. I don't love any of my cats as much as I loved Nic. I just > can't. But I'd do everything for them I would have done for him because I > don't believe an animal's life is dependent on how much joy they bring me. Well, if we're talking about animals you own rather than all the animals in the world, then yes, I do think it gets a little simpler. I agree that you're responsible for their wellbeing. Would I do a whole lot to try to get vet care for a fish? Well, I make that simple by not owning fish. Oscar can be pretty difficult at times. I do love her, but it's hard to feel close to her when she keeps me at a distance. This was never so apparent as when Eros lived with us. Eros was an absolute cuddle-whore. He hugged your neck, he snuggled, he let you rub his belly, he never used fang or claw on you, and he even came to check on me when I was crying. Oscar will never do any of those things. It's just not what she does. Oscar is the kind of cat who makes non-cat-lovers say, "See, this is why I'd never own a cat." But she's mine, and my heart aches for her because she's missing out on so much just by being so distant. My childhood guinea pig, Mouser, had a more snuggly personality than she does. But my gut sense is that Oscar can't help who she is, and so I feel protective of her, bound and determined to make sure that no one scares her or makes her do anything she doesn't want to do. Er, what's my point? Oh, yeah. Oscar isn't the most loveable cat in the world, but I do love her, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that she lives a long, healthy, happy life. Because I took responsibility for her the day I adopted her. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca > You can't possibly take care of all the suffering in the world, so you have > to make choices. I don't think it's wrong to make those choices based at > least in part on how close you feel to the person or animal in question. Well, I agree and I don't here. I think you've misunderstood my original post. I was referring to Steve's comparison of his rats to his cats. He would spend less to save his rats because he does not feel as bonded to them. I agree fully that we are far more likely to save a family member than a stranger, especially if risk is involved. That's a very basic human reaction. However, I think we have the same basic responsibilities to every pet we choose to own, regardless of personal feelings for them. I don't argue that one should choose to save a stranger's rat if it would involve personal risk. In fact, I've said the exact opposite of this further down in this thread. Your responsibility is to your own animals first. Period. If everyone took this view, we wouldn't have pet overpopulation or animals dying for lack of medical care. That's just a nice dream, of course, and has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming true. > Well, if we're talking about animals you own rather than all the animals in > the world, then yes, I do think it gets a little simpler. I agree that you're > responsible for their wellbeing. Would I do a whole lot to try to get vet > care for a fish? Well, I make that simple by not owning fish. Exactly. If you aren't willing to be fully responsible for any particular species of animal, don't own that animal. That's a very responsible point of view. > Er, what's my point? Oh, yeah. Oscar isn't the most loveable cat in the > world, but I do love her, and I will do whatever I can to make sure that she > lives a long, healthy, happy life. Because I took responsibility for her the > day I adopted her. Which is all I'm saying. Sometimes it can be really hard to love an animal. I know we're supposed to say that all animals are lovable little balls of pure joy but people who believe that have never met my Heather. She's seven pounds of misdirected aggression and urinary issues with a healthy dose of pure mischief thrown in. Now, don't get me wrong...I do love her. She's my little terror child. But it would be real easy to hate her instead. But love or hate...she's still mine and it's still my job to make sure she's taken care of. Just like your Oscar, who is lucky to have an owner who understands that she's unique and loves her for it. Sethran [snip] > Well, I agree and I don't here. I think you've misunderstood my original > post. The first part of your post sounded to me like you were talking about "all animals," so I addressed that ... then I got to the second part of your post and wanted to address that, too =) > I was referring to Steve's comparison of his rats to his cats. He > would spend less to save his rats because he does not feel as bonded [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > responsibilities to every pet we choose to own, regardless of personal > feelings for them. I'm thinking about this. When I was little, I had a few hamsters, none of whose names I remember. I do remember that one was an aggressive biter; you had to use heavy gloves to get him out of the cage to clean it. Then I had Mauser, a very special guinea pig. Mom said it would be better for him to stay in Germany with a friend than to ship him to the US and make him get shots. As I remember it, he stopped eating when I told him we were leaving, and he never ate again. I tried giving him fresh food and everything. Then in the US, we got Puma, a black lab mix, before we even had furniture. In high school, I adopted some goldfish for a friend whose new mother in law had cats. During college, I had a few betas (fish), a few koi (fish), and two hamsters, Tank Girl and Buddha. I'm pretty sure Tankie was autistic; Buddha was the coolest hamster you've ever met. The stories I could tell about both of 'em .... and then, after I moved into my first apartment, I got Oscar to keep Puma company, which might have worked except that Puma was euthanized shortly thereafter. (A counsellor I had said that she felt "put to sleep" was a dangerous euphamism, so I try not to use that term. Call a spade a spade. He's not asleep.) Which is all to say, I've had the typical variety of pets that a kid might have growing up. And I have to be honest -- until this discussion, it never even occured to me that, for example, you could take a hamster to the vet. In fact, I was pretty surprised (though happy) to see that our local shelter has not only rabbits, but also rats, guinea pigs, hamsters, you name it. And I don't even know what you'd do for fish. But I've always considered myself to be a caring pet owner. I took care of Tankie and Buddha, and when my R.A. (dorm supervisor) found out about the hamsters and said I had to get rid of them, I refused, on the grounds that I couldn't just "get rid of" them; I had to wait till I had an opportunity to bring them home to my parents. I think she thought I was nuts, but really, what was I supposed to do? I did some dumb things, like putting koi and betas in the same tank (the pet store guy did say I could), but I did my best. I have fuzzies memories of taking the bus to the pet store to try to figure out how to clean up my tank and save my fish, who were suffering from something whose name I can no longer recall. But then, I really didn't know much about medical care in general, for pets or people, when I was younger. Puma's last years could almost certainly have been better with some meds for arthritis. I was sure he had arthritis, but I never really talked to his vet about it because for some reason I thought arthritis couldn't be mitigated. I'm much more proactive about my own health and that of my pets now. I guess it comes from no longer being an invulnerable youth. While I took Puma to the vet for a yearly checkup, I could swear that the vet said that Oscar wouldn't need yearly visits, as she was a young and healthy cat; to just bring her in for vaccinations or if something came up. I accepted that, but my current vet certainly believes in at least yearly checkups to monitor weight. If nothing else, an unfamiliar pair of eyes can sometimes see something that you don't notice when you see the animal every day. I only ever had small pets because circumstances didn't allow me to have large ones (the hamsters were against dorm rules, as is). But it never would have occured to me to, for example, take a hamster to a vet. I mean, they just don't *live* that long ... well, maybe only mine didn't. I don't know. It occurs to me I don't really have a point here; I'm just rambling. But I guess part of my point is, a lot of people don't realize what kinds of treatments are available for their pets. I also kind of wonder, with a small pet, how readily you'll even notice a problem. I mean, Tankie wouldn't even let me pick her up without a fight. Buddha would actually seek out human attention, and he was a fatass (that was one of his nicknames, Fatass, that and Cartman; come to think of it, he was originally named Sparky after the South Park dog), so maybe I would have noticed something drastically wrong. And finally, even if I did notice something wrong with my hypothetical small animals and the vet somehow did have a treatment available, how much would it really help them? I'd imagine that recovery from surgery would take a hamster 1/4 of its lifespan. > Your responsibility is to your own animals first. Period. If > everyone took this view, we wouldn't have pet overpopulation or > animals dying for lack of medical care. That's just a nice dream, of > course, and has a snowball's chance in hell of ever coming true. Well, even if everyone took this view starting now *snaps fingers*, there are still so many feral and stray animals breeding that it wouldn't stop the problem. >> Well, if we're talking about animals you own rather than all the >> animals in the world, then yes, I do think it gets a little simpler. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > particular species of animal, don't own that animal. That's a very > responsible point of view. Well, as I suggested above, it's not something I've always practiced. I'm not sure why I would get fish, at this point, as I have the capability of getting more responsive (and fuzzier!) pets. >> Er, what's my point? Oh, yeah. Oscar isn't the most loveable cat in >> the world, but I do love her, and I will do whatever I can to make [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > your Oscar, who is lucky to have an owner who understands that she's > unique and loves her for it. I think what bothers me is that others don't see in her what I see in her. My MIL says she has "wild eyes" and doesn't trust her, despite having grown up with cats. I've always half-jokingly referred to her as the Ice Queen with my family. Some part of me is afraid that, if she needs some major surgery, my husband will be less supportive than he would be for another animal, just because she's not as cuddly as some. I just wish that other people could see what I see, but then, how could they? Nobody but DH is home when she does decide to be friendly, and even then, she'll tone down her play style if she knows he's watching. I have to admit, though, she's gotten much more friendly to me, and even to my husband, in the last year or so. Maybe she's slowly getting the idea that we're the good guys =) Sorry for all the rambling. It's fairly easy for me to answer most newsgroup posts, but your posts always leave me thinking and I want to somehow communicate my thoughts, jumbled and incomplete as they may be. Signaturemonique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca (...) > I just wanted to address this because several people have mentioned > similar ideas. The surface question here is interesting by > itself...does assumed intelligence have an influence in how much you > would spend on a pet? Something like this clearly does influence what (most) people are willing to spend. I don't think it's necessarily perceived intelligence, but some more harder to define connection to the pet that may often include perceived inteligence. > I say assumed intelligence because rats display > social learning and are probably much smarter than people tend to > think. Undoubtably rats are smart (well, as smart as any animal that sleeps in its own piss), and perhaps not so far below cats in 'intelligence'. > answer are disquieting. Should an animal's right to medical care be > dependent on the attachment level of the owner? Is an animal worth > inherently less if the owner feels less bonded to it than another pet > or species? Well, given there is no objective measure of worth, it can well be argued - as you do - that all one's pets should have inherently equal value, or at least equal rights to medical care. > I have rats too. (...) > it can be awfully hard to get attached. Our eldest rat had a tumor > removed last year. Removal and follow up care cost about $300. The (...) > So why would I spend a lot of money on a creature I can't even handle > safely? Simple. Once I had a cat that meant more to me than anything > else on the planet. (...) > What does loving a cat have to do with paying for a rat? Loving Nic so > much taught me the most valuable lesson I could have learned. It > wasn't responsibility or commitment or integrity. I love those words > and those ideals but there's something more important in life. Nic > taught me empathy. (...) > If you take an animal into your life, you become responsible for it. > And that responsibility remains no matter what your personal feelings > toward that pet. You make your points eloquently, as always. And if there is a 'pure' moral stance, I think you occupy that position. However, I think you are exceptional in that regard; most humans will invest time, money, effort according to the perceived value of what they're dealing with. It's a rare person who would treat gerbil they hate as well as a cat they love more than anything or anyone else. In my case, though I would extend my duty of care to my rodents a long way, I have no doubt that I value them less than my cats, and would not make heroic efforts to save the small 'uns. I suppose it's possible that an intellectual realisation of this unfairness might lead me to do all that's possible for the squeakers (your position, I think), despite the lack of a strong empathic connection, but I doubt it. A typically human position. Steve. > Something like this clearly does influence what (most) people are > willing to spend. I don't think it's necessarily perceived > intelligence, but some more harder to define connection to the pet that > may often include perceived inteligence. I agree that perceived intelligence and the strength of that vague connection play a role in what people are willing to spend. My question was is it morally right that they do? > Undoubtably rats are smart (well, as smart as any animal that sleeps in > its own piss), and perhaps not so far below cats in 'intelligence'. If your rats are sleeping in their own piss, I'd have to question your cage set up. Rats, like most critters, generally desire to be clean. Most animals don't really like hanging out in their own waste. Now, there are expectations to that rule, of course, so maybe you just got a really nasty rat. > Well, given there is no objective measure of worth, it can well be > argued - as you do - that all one's pets should have inherently equal > value, or at least equal rights to medical care. I think that in the absence of an objective measure of an influencing state such as the idea of 'worth', one is obligated to assume neutrality. By this I mean that if you don't know, you should always take the high road. For instance...I don't know if rats and cats are really the same so far as their general 'worth' to the universe. I don't know if cats and people are worth the same either. Being that I don't know and that assuming they are worth less on some imaginary scale would make it easier to justify not obtaining medical care, don't I have |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message