From News of the Weird
To the Dogs
" A British surgeon will spend about $370,000 to equip her luxury home in Gloustershire with a state-of-the-art, three room suite for her two Great Danes, including cameras so that she can monitor them via the Internet while she is away" December 29, 2008
We have been blessed by my daughter and her husband electing to spend Kwanzaa with Mrs. T and I. We do not see enough of them and Mrs T loves to tussle with SIL's conceits, all in good humor and love of course, but still, she can't help herself.
SIL loves his two dogs. Dog 1 is daughter's 9 year old Golden Retriever. We learned the leash tied to Ted the Wonderdog's collar trick on this guy when he was just a pup. Dog 2 is SIL's foxhound. Two sweeter, friendlier, better behaved dogs you will never find.
These two pups understand that in their house SIL is the boss, then maybe my daughter, unless one of the dogs wants to be #2 that day. Everyone seems to be OK with that so who am I to suggest otherwise? Could be worse.
So this fall Dog 1 caught sick. Their vet suggested the dog might improve if many dollars transferred from their checking account to the vets. The money transferred, the dog got better, all are happy. Except Mrs T.
Mrs T immediately challenged the perceived wisdom of this plan. It was her strongly held belief, and one that Ted took an active interest in, that somewhere around 11% of the transferred funds Ted was a dead man. Or in her words, "it's a dog!"
So let's pretend for a moment that money is not an issue. Where do you draw the line with your pets? Does Spot get a better deal than Grandma? Just wondering.
Toad
Posts
6 comments:
I've been down this road (and watched my in laws spend thousands on an MRI for their pup) and it's very difficult. I can't judge either way as they are more than dogs, they are members of the family. But still, an MRI?
I concur with Mrs. T. It's a dog. Make sure it's not in pain and move on. I don't believe you can remove money from the equation as you have suggested. If it is removed isn't "I would do whatever it takes" the logical answer assuming it doesn't require you giving up a lung?
Turling, I do not believe so. Suppose it wasn't cash, but time. Would you drive your pet to the vet every day for treatment? I don't think so.
We are very familiar with spending a small fortune on a dog's health.
Would you like to start with the open heart surgery or the physical therapy for severe tendonitis? All so that she could live another day to fetch a tennis ball...
A good veterinary teaching hospital nearby and a rainy day fund helped immensely.
We went into both situations armed with "it's just a dog." Assurances of 90% recovery rate and a few more years with her - well it became "whatever it takes."
I am probably not the one to ask, as I would actually do very little, not being an animal person. However, I would attribute driving the animal to the vet everyday for an unacceptable period of time to be equivalant to giving up a lung. However, I do see your point and never thought of that type of scenario.
We spent three grand on chemotherapy for the late schnauzer Kirby. It didn't work, and while the vet said "Oh dogs handle chemo pretty well" that didn't seem to be the case to me at all.
Having watched that, quality of life is what determines it for me now. I'd spend another 3000 for whatever my boys needed. I wouldn't spend it to put them through something unpleasant unless I was pretty damn sure it was going to make them all better.
Post a Comment