Pet Lovers

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@ccassaday wrote:

There is always the option of care credit.  Interest free payments for a period of time. 

---

While this may work in some circumstances, everyone has a limit as to what they can spend.  No one should be expected to have unlimited funds.

[ccassaday]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Nicknack wrote:

I agree with both PlaidPants2 and HappyDaze, even though they disagree with each other.  Sometimes you just can't afford the expensive tests and treatment.  On the other hand, a pet should never ever be allowed to suffer.  Humanely letting them go is the option in that case.

In my situation, I've always done the testing to find out what was wrong.  If the outcome from the treatment and the suffering during the treatment was going to  be unacceptable, I have let my pets go at that point.

---

I understand but to put an animal down that could easily be healed with treatment and still has a long life ahead of them but you aren't willing to pay for the tests to find out what is wrong is cruel, imo. I have several vet friends and they say it breaks their heart how many people would rather put their pet to sleep rather than pay for some tests to find out what is wrong and could likely be something that could easily be treated. That is one reason I could never be a vet and glad a decided against it.

---

Then your vet friends should offer that treatment without the expense of the expensive tests.  Many times they are just looking to confirm what they actually suspect.  Given the option of trying something before puttin them down may be a very viable consideration for the owners.

---

ah yes the entitlements-they should do the work for free. You do realize that this happens at least once a week, right? Would you work for free with all the expenses that goes along with it for everyone who couldn't afford your services but wanted/needed them? I dont' think so. Trust me, they'd love to but they'd also be out of business. However most of them do allow people to make payments but they aren't even willing to do that most of the time.

---

Get a grip, I said nothing about treating for free, please read what I said.  Vets usually have a good idea what is going on with your pet prior to expensive tests being done.  If a person cannot afford these test, why can the vet not suggest a treatment for what they suspect is wrong.  You said that they could be easily treated, why not give the owners another option before they put them down.  

---

I know someone who had a dog that got very sick. The vet told them what it might be. But they could not treat the dog until tests confirmed. Their dog was 10 and they decided not to put her through all the tests as they were evasive and dog did not like the vet. She passed a a few months later. It's easy to say they should offer treatment before testing. Treatments are sometimes even more then the tests. It's just like anything you can't treat until you know for sure what it is. It's up to the owners and the age of their pets whether to do testing. I know several golden owners who were told their dogs had s cancerous tumor in the spleen. They removed it and tested it. It turned out to be a benign tumor. If they wouldn't of taken it out it would of ruptured and the dog would of died. The vet told them it was probably cancer because it was a golden. And it turned out benign. Imagine putting a dog to sleep instead of removing it and testing if. You put them to sleep for no reason if it is benign.

[CrazyDaisy]

---

@ccassaday wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@HappyDaze wrote:

---

@Nicknack wrote:

I agree with both PlaidPants2 and HappyDaze, even though they disagree with each other.  Sometimes you just can't afford the expensive tests and treatment.  On the other hand, a pet should never ever be allowed to suffer.  Humanely letting them go is the option in that case.

In my situation, I've always done the testing to find out what was wrong.  If the outcome from the treatment and the suffering during the treatment was going to  be unacceptable, I have let my pets go at that point.

---

I understand but to put an animal down that could easily be healed with treatment and still has a long life ahead of them but you aren't willing to pay for the tests to find out what is wrong is cruel, imo. I have several vet friends and they say it breaks their heart how many people would rather put their pet to sleep rather than pay for some tests to find out what is wrong and could likely be something that could easily be treated. That is one reason I could never be a vet and glad a decided against it.

---

Then your vet friends should offer that treatment without the expense of the expensive tests.  Many times they are just looking to confirm what they actually suspect.  Given the option of trying something before puttin them down may be a very viable consideration for the owners.

---

ah yes the entitlements-they should do the work for free. You do realize that this happens at least once a week, right? Would you work for free with all the expenses that goes along with it for everyone who couldn't afford your services but wanted/needed them? I dont' think so. Trust me, they'd love to but they'd also be out of business. However most of them do allow people to make payments but they aren't even willing to do that most of the time.

---

Get a grip, I said nothing about treating for free, please read what I said.  Vets usually have a good idea what is going on with your pet prior to expensive tests being done.  If a person cannot afford these test, why can the vet not suggest a treatment for what they suspect is wrong.  You said that they could be easily treated, why not give the owners another option before they put them down.  

---

I know someone who had a dog that got very sick. The vet told them what it might be. But they could not treat the dog until tests confirmed. Their dog was 10 and they decided not to put her through all the tests as they were evasive and dog did not like the vet. She passed a a few months later. It's easy to say they should offer treatment before testing. Treatments are sometimes even more then the tests. It's just like anything you can't treat until you know for sure what it is. It's up to the owners and the age of their pets whether to do testing. I know several golden owners who were told their dogs had s cancerous tumor in the spleen. They removed it and tested it. It turned out to be a benign tumor. If they wouldn't of taken it out it would of ruptured and the dog would of died. The vet told them it was probably cancer because it was a golden. And it turned out benign. Imagine putting a dog to sleep instead of removing it and testing if. You put them to sleep for no reason if it is benign.

---

Poster said owners were putting thier pets to sleep when they could be easily treated.  There are also situations where the entire set of circumstances need to be considered.  A tumor on the spleen is a serious issue regardless if it is cancer or not.  Non-cancerous tumors are at risk of rupture, not sure why the vet is telling all these vets are telling the owners they are cancer, seems strange.  Both types are life threatening conditions.

[Plaid Pants2]

---

@CrazyDaisy wrote:

---

@ccassaday wrote:

There is always the option of care credit.  Interest free payments for a period of time. 

---

While this may work in some circumstances, everyone has a limit as to what they can spend.  No one should be expected to have unlimited funds.

---

There are those who feel that if one does not have unlimited funds to spend on their pet(s), then they should not even have pet(s) in the first place.

Ridicules!

[Lipstickdiva]

I had a dog (boxer) that had a tumor on his spleen. We never knew until it ruptured.  Then he went to stand up at home and couldn't.  His head was just sort of flopping around.  We took him to the ER vet thinking he had had or was having a stroke.  We called the ER Vet so they knew we were coming.

We got there and the entire staff was outside waiting for us with a gurney.  They got the dog on the gurney and we all rushed inside. The vet was waiting with a needle in his hand, grabbed the gurney and told us he'd be back in a minute and they put us in a room.  The vet came in and said as he thought, the dog had a tumor that had ruptured.  He brought in the needle that was full of blood he had taken out of the dog's abdomen.  Our options were quickly explained as we were in an emergency situation.

Our options were have the dog euthanized or have the tumor removed. The cost just for surgery was $5,000 and he said there was a 99% chance that in less than 6 months the tumor would grow right back.  He told us we had 2 minutes to make the decision because the dog was in critical condition.  Less than a minute later he came back in and said we had no decision to make. The dog was in such bad condition, he wouldn't survivie the surgery.  He was also 9 and that is considered pretty old for a boxer.  So we went in the back and were with him as they euthanized him.         That was  my DH's first experience having a dog euthanized and I think he's still traumatized today.  He still has that dog's picture as his wallpaper on his phone and the screensaver on the computer!

[NickNack]

@Lipstickdiva  I'm so sorry for your loss.  I had a sudden illness with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel of mine and had to make a decision quickly, too.  It's very difficult to lose a dog that is so loved.