Dog Site - Dog Stuff
Dog Forum | Dog Pictures

Go Back   Chazhound Dog Forum > Dog Discussions and Dog Talk Forums > Dogs - General Dog Chat


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 10-14-2012, 03:10 AM
hedwig's Avatar
hedwig hedwig is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bottom of the well
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smkie View Post
I have backup or my animals would not be here. It doesnt' mean God forbid that if something ranking a thousand or more should happen that I could ask for that kind of help, but for basic care we are covered which I think is rational. If you can't afford basic care, you should not have a pet.
I AGREE WITH THIS.

Can please everyone take the time to realise how people took care of their dogs before insurence and operations were even available to pets.Dogs were fed table scraps! Not even 150 years ago? If a dog got parvo back then, it was dealt with kindly and respectfully and that was the end of it as their wasnt any real treatments. Was it wrong for all those people to keep dogs? And that goes for people aswell. If a person broke their leg, that could of meant a death sentence back then.

Well i believe the poorest people wont be able to afford care for themselves if something serious happened let alone their dogs such as parvo (with vaccinations of course)

We are reverting back to a time were health care is only for the richest people and pets. Sad but true. Does this mean only the rich should reproduce and keep dogs?

I agree though, if your dog is starving or needs minor treatment such as teeth taken out and you cannot afford it etc then you shouldnt have one
__________________
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return"

Living life for others makes life worth living!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-14-2012, 06:50 AM
SpringerLover's Avatar
SpringerLover SpringerLover is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: B-ville
Posts: 3,143
Default

I also work(ed) in a veterinary clinic and saw time after time the "I can't afford treatment" but let me go get in my Lexus and drive off after you euthanize my four year old male cat for being blocked, my seven year old bernese mountain dog that has a severe case of lyme, etc.

I am lucky in that I have a bunch of resources available to me but it's not like they just fell into my lap. I forged a relationship with my vet long before I worked there... and I had to use that relationship when Rascal was injured and required hundreds of dollars of surgery because I didn't have it all up front but I paid every two weeks reliably until my balance was zero.
__________________
Megan and the Aroha English Springer Spaniels
To Infinity and Beyond! ARCH URO1 UCD Buzz NAC NCC S-NJC O-TN-N TG-N WV-N RL2 RLVX RN ThD CGC 5/4/1998-5/20/2014
The Hallway Monitor Bailey VCD1 RE NAC NCC TN-N CGC 14 years
Puzzle Piece Gabby RLV 8 years
ESRA foster Diego 12 years
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:39 AM
BostonBanker's Avatar
BostonBanker BostonBanker is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Vermont
Posts: 8,187
Default

I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-14-2012, 07:41 AM
JacksonsMom's Avatar
JacksonsMom JacksonsMom is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBanker View Post
I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.
Good post! I agree with this.
__________________

Brit & Jackson


Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-14-2012, 08:08 AM
hedwig's Avatar
hedwig hedwig is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bottom of the well
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBanker View Post
I don't think anyone here is saying that you need to have unlimited funds to treat a dog at all times. I'm so far from "wealthy" I can't even see the end of that line. I'm not talking about people who can't afford to throw down 5k on an emergency surgery. I'm talking about people who can't afford to keep their rabies up to date. People who have sick dogs who let them die slowly at home because they can't afford to take them to the vet to be put down. People who have dogs who live in pain every day because they can't keep the dog on pain meds to make them comfortable.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then be put down respectfully when cancer sets in and the owners can't afford treatment? Yes.

Would I rather see a dog live in a good home for three years and then waste away and die slowly over the course of another 18 months because cancer sets in and the owners can't afford to go to the vet and diagnose and make a plan? No.

If you are living paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to keep yourself and your current family going, you should not take on the responsibility of another life. It is not the vet's job to fund your desire to own a pet, nor is it society's. I'd be willing to help in any way I could if someone was going through hard times and needed help keeping their current pets safe and healthy. But if you go out of your way to bring in yet another financial responsibility to your life, that's just foolish.

Agreed! This is what i meant by putting dogs in homes by people on low income! As long as they can feed the dog a decent diet, provide enough funds to PTS or provide minor treatments then provide a dog on deathrow at least some sorta life before sickness sets in, then yes i think do it!

But if a dog is taken in by a family on a low income where they cannot feed themselves and let a dogs illness get worse leading to suffering, the family should be prosecuted!
__________________
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return"

Living life for others makes life worth living!
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-14-2012, 10:25 AM
sillysally's Avatar
sillysally sillysally is offline
Obey the Toad.
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: A hole in the bottom of the sea.
Posts: 5,003
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hedwig View Post
Another point of view is rescue pets and poor people.

Alot of rescues will not allow people on benefits or have a low income to adopt an animal.

Surely a home with a low income and management of a health complaint is better then a rescue kennel or a death sentence?

So rescuing a puppy from a pound who had 1 day left before being PTS is better off that way then a person on a low income who cannot afford vet bills IF OR WHEN it gets sick?

That puppy may not get ill for several years. Those several years could have been used living in a POOR family home instead of PTS.

Depends on your point of view i spose
The problem is that sometimes the dog really can suffer if the owner cannot afford vet care. I know a couple who adopted a Samoyed from a breed rescue, and the couple was very low income. The dog turned out to have hip dysplasia and needed surgery that the couple flat out could not afford. A rescue that a good friend runs decided to help and raise money for the surgery-they eventually reached their goal, but if you saw the dog it was obvious that dispute the pain meds he really was in pain, and that pain went on much longer than it really should have for the lack of funds.

This couple loved the dog and are very sweet people, but no, I do no think the dog should have been adopted out to them. He was in a breed rescue, it's not like he was going to go to his death if he were not adopted. I'm not passing judgement on his owners, they really did have good intentions and love him. However, love and good intentions don't fix joints or ease intense pain.
__________________

~Christina--Mom to:
Sally--8 yr old pit bull mix
Jack--6 yr old Labrador
Sadie & Runt--12 yr old calico DSHs
Pickles & Kiwi--3 yr old white winged parakeets
Yoda--1 yr old Quaker parrot
Solo--12 yr old Senegal parrot
Sheena--Quarter Horse--3/24/86-6/23/11--Rest Easy Sweet Girl~




Labs do it in the lake.


Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-14-2012, 10:49 AM
AllisonPitbullLvr's Avatar
AllisonPitbullLvr AllisonPitbullLvr is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by elegy View Post
On the other side of things, of course, there are people like me who work in veterinary hospitals and bang their heads against the no money issue just about every day. Blocked cat, no money. Broken leg, no money. Pyometra, no money. Hit by car, no money. Flat-out from flea-bite anemia and no money. Pets who are suffering horrendously because the owner doesn't have the money for appropriate vet care.

Do I think you need to be able to afford a $5000 bloat surgery in order to own a dog? No, but I do think there needs to be enough money in the bank for an office visit with the emergency vet and euthanasia/cremation.
This. Also, on the flip side, people who go broke paying for treatments with a poor prognosis also need to be considered.

We have a case right now of a spitz who was toe-touching lame. Due to money concerns, the owner waited too long to bring him in, and then declined X-rays. When the dog failed to get better, they finally scraped together enough money and rads showed a dislocated hip. We gave options, a higher cost femoral head excision with a lower chance of success because of how long the injury had been left, or a lower cost limb amputation. The family elected to borrow the money and, because of the stigma attached to a "disabled" dog (really?!), opted for the FHO.

The dog has recovered from surgery but any chance of success relied on post-op rehab, which the owner cannot afford. So the dog is still non-weight bearing. He is probably more comfortable but has to carry around this dead limb. The family went in to considerable debt to pay for a surgery that didn't work.

In a similar case, last week we saw a blocked cat. We had seen him for kitten shots/neuter and declaw and then nothing for 5-6 years. He came in severely blocked but also had a significant heart murmur. The owners let us know that they definitely had financial concerns. We gave a few options, including euthanasia, but the teenage daughter was pushing hard to "fix" him. Even if we had unblocked him, the owners wouldn't have been able to afford prescription food to prevent him from re-blocking nor would they have been able to afford any diagnostics to figure out the source of the heart murmur and treat if needed/possible. They (wisely and humanely IMO) elected to euthanize.

Do I think people need to afford thousands of dollars worth of treatments? No.

Do I want to pull my hair out everytime someone calls me for a price for their new puppy's shots and then tell me that they're on EI and can't afford it? Yes.
__________________
I talk to him when I'm lonesome like; and I'm sure he understands. When he looks at me so attentively, and gently licks my hands; then he rubs his nose on my tailored clothes, but I never say naught thereat. For the good Lord knows I can buy more clothes, but never a friend like that. ~W. Dayton Wedgefarth

Buddy Girl - 2000-2013. "Blessed is he who has earned the love of an old dog."

Obi - 7 year old Incorrigible Dog.

Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:40 AM
hedwig's Avatar
hedwig hedwig is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Bottom of the well
Posts: 586
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sillysally View Post
The problem is that sometimes the dog really can suffer if the owner cannot afford vet care. I know a couple who adopted a Samoyed from a breed rescue, and the couple was very low income. The dog turned out to have hip dysplasia and needed surgery that the couple flat out could not afford. A rescue that a good friend runs decided to help and raise money for the surgery-they eventually reached their goal, but if you saw the dog it was obvious that dispute the pain meds he really was in pain, and that pain went on much longer than it really should have for the lack of funds.

This couple loved the dog and are very sweet people, but no, I do no think the dog should have been adopted out to them. He was in a breed rescue, it's not like he was going to go to his death if he were not adopted. I'm not passing judgement on his owners, they really did have good intentions and love him. However, love and good intentions don't fix joints or ease intense pain.
I agree, my only arguement is, how would people of dealt with this dog when this type of surgery didnt exist? Im afraid that we are reverting back to how things were back then.

Maby if dogs with these types of conditions were put down (genetic right?) maby people would be more selective about breeders or where they buy their dogs? I dont no. maby the lack of demand for dogs prone to these problems would make the condition rarer?

Im not saying these are my points of view and just trying to thrash out some knots and i do wonder on others opinions on such
__________________
"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love, and be loved in return"

Living life for others makes life worth living!
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:58 AM
elegy's Avatar
elegy elegy is offline
overdogged
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,673
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bahamutt99 View Post
I will be the first to admit that a $300 price tag blocked me from spaying Terra, but I don't consider it a necessity to have her spayed at any rate..
Well, except for the part where $300 is a lot less money than the $1000 it will take to emergency spay her to keep her from dying if she ends up with a pyometra.

I take no issue with people keeping dogs intact when they believe that's the best option for their dog, but they need to have the money in the bank to deal with the consequences.
__________________
ARCHX Luce CD CD-H RA RL3 RLV RL2X RL1X CGC TT
Steve RA RL1 CL1-R CL1-F FMCh
Bean FDCh-G
and Hambone, flyball hopeful
Save the pit bull, Save the world
Are you Unruly?
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-14-2012, 11:58 AM
yoko's Avatar
yoko yoko is offline
Top Dog
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5,340
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hedwig View Post
Agreed! This is what i meant by putting dogs in homes by people on low income! As long as they can feed the dog a decent diet, provide enough funds to PTS or provide minor treatments then provide a dog on deathrow at least some sorta life before sickness sets in, then yes i think do it!

But if a dog is taken in by a family on a low income where they cannot feed themselves and let a dogs illness get worse leading to suffering, the family should be prosecuted!
The problem is you already stated that you would be ok with giving dogs out with no adoption fee. For me not only does the adoption fee weed out the 'free dog people' it shows they had SOME sort of disposable income. How are people/rescues going to know if the low income family really wants a dog to love or just wants a free dog? Are we going to be cool showing rescues *who imo can already as waaaaaaaaaaaay too personal questions* our bank statements now too?


Quote:
Originally Posted by hedwig View Post
I agree, my only arguement is, how would people of dealt with this dog when this type of surgery didnt exist? Im afraid that we are reverting back to how things were back then.

Maby if dogs with these types of conditions were put down (genetic right?) maby people would be more selective about breeders or where they buy their dogs? I dont no. maby the lack of demand for dogs prone to these problems would make the condition rarer?

Im not saying these are my points of view and just trying to thrash out some knots and i do wonder on others opinions on such
Even if it's not genetics what if one of the dogs was hit by a car. It didn't die but definitely needed vet care. If these people don't have a dime as you stated before they CAN'T even pay to have the animal put down.

That being said I'm poor. After all bills last month and the $20 I put aside for Yoshi emergencies each paycheck I had $1.30 in my bank account. I'm not saying you have to be rich. But there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE different between being low income and destitute and people seem to lump those two things together when they really shouldn't be.

I have no problem with a low income family who can AFFORD a small adoption fee, care costs *with no help*, and have some sort of vet fund set up getting a dog.

I DO however have a problem with someone who can't afford an adoption fee, who will rely on pet food charities, and 'home remedies' because they have absolutely no money.
__________________
Thank you Vivien and Angel Chicken for the siggy! Also I have been frosted!!! And as of 9/13/07 I know the secret handshake!


Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:11 PM.


1997-2013 Chazhound Dog Site