A question on a message board was, what is the financial limit you will spend on your pet? Is there a hard line in the sand where you will not pay to care for your pet?About 30 answers later and only one person had said they had a limit. That one person said it was horrific that people would spend money on their pet instead of family.
My answer? There is no line. The line in the sand is, what is the quality of life my pet will have if I do spend the money or if I don’t? Will the procedure give them a good quality of life, or just prolong a poor quality of life? This is the stance most of the other pet owners took as well.
But do pet owners have a responsibility to their animals? I think they do. Why else do you get a pet if you dispose of it based on a monetary value? And in many cases the pet will stay with your family a long time. So I think it’s not an easy financial decision.But one that should be considered before you even get a pet. If you have a tight budget, then a pet is not for you. If you hate to spend money on just an animal, then don’t get one. If you consider a pet disposable don’t get one. I think so many people get pets because they are cute. But when it becomes difficult they dispose of them. Or too expensive, they choose to put them down rather than pay for treatment. But why even bother getting a pet if you aren’t really ready to put yourself on the line? The only saving grace is it’s a pet, not a child. So if you don’t like it you can give it away. But a kid, well you can’t give back.
It’s how we ended up with 2 Bichon Frises. When the going got tough, they got going and dumped their dogs. Imagine paying $1500 for a BF and getting rid of them like an old purse? Excuses from allergies (for hypo allergenic dogs??), to they were moving and didn’t want to take their dog.
But is there a pet stretch point?
3 responses so far ↓
1 debtdieter // Apr 3, 2008 at 12:46 am
I’m with you, there is no financial line, only a quality of life line. I’d do whatever was required to maintain the health & wellbeing of my cat.
It’s a family values thing for me, I remember as a child my mother took a 50c pet mouse to the vet to get stitches when it hurt it’s nose!
2 Meg // Apr 3, 2008 at 12:50 am
Well, I’m all for people respecting and nurturing their pets, but I totally think there’s a financial limit. There’s also an ethical limit, in my opinion. Even if I had millions of dollars, is it really a good thing for me to spend it on spoiling and prolonging the lives of dogs when I could be using it to feed poor children, shelter abused women, or educate the illiterate?
I wouldn’t put my dog down over a few hundred (or even thousand) in necessary treatments, but I don’t think necessary treatments for an animal include organ transplants, chemotherapy, or reconstructive surgery.
I would be willing to pay for a) what I could afford without going into debt and b) only for time-specific treatments/medication that would cure a specific ailment.
I understand pets are members of the family, but when they get a fatal disease or get hit by a car, then in my opinion it’s best to just let them go.
3 LivingAlmostLarge // Apr 3, 2008 at 1:08 am
The truth is that you also have to consider the age of your pet. Investing in an expensive treatment is better for a younger pet. But one already older it might not be worth it and it could harm them more. Like our Bichon is 12 and I would be very hesistant to subject him to any surgery, chemo, etc. It’s more likely he could die from it than be helped.
Leave a Comment