What Price For Kitty?

Steve G wrote:
Glarb wrote:
(...)

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?

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:

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../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.

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
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.

Bravo - probably the best answer, yet.

-L.

KellyH wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
oups.com...
It's sad that most ngs can't discuss ethics and things like that
without it resorting to a flame-fest, and immaturity. I love these
types of discussions. I think there is a lot of potential for
learning.


How true. I actually like to debate, and enjoy threads that get long
and
heated, while others beg for people to stop disagreeing.


Gee, you wouldn't be referencing any other ng would you?

-L.

On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

Absolutely. But I truly think if one cannot afford "adequate" pet care, one
shouldn't have a pet. I didn't get a pet until I made well over $40K/year
(1990), just for that reason.

I suspect that's more than a lot of people will ever make. Of course, cost of
living varies wildly, so $40K could be a lot in some areas and barely
subsistance in others.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

KellyH wrote:
I'm not going to get in between this whatever it is between you and
Lyn.

There is *nothing* between "her and me" other than the fact that I
can't see her posts unless someone quotes them.

I
like Lyn and I consider her a friend.

Gee, thanks, Kelly. You know I'm one of your biggest fans, too, eh?

-L.

On 2005-02-15, -L. penned:

Well, is getting to the point of losing your house a sane limit, though? It
isn't in my book...

Especially when you have other pets to care for. How does losing your house
do them anything but harm?

I hated when people would surrender their animal for euth because of lack of
funds and then go out and get in their BRAND NEW CAR. Grrrr.

It must take a very special person to see this sort of thing and not end up
behind bars for assault. I don't think I could do it.

--
monique, who spoils Oscar unmercifully

pictures: http://www.bounceswoosh.org/rpca

850.00 is nothing compared to what I have put into my dog Barney who passed
away from cancer and my cat who had an amputation due to cancer. I'm not
rich but I have decent enough credit line that If and when emergencies arise
that I don't have to worry if the bill comes in over a grand or more. I
treat my pets as children I made a life time commitment to them and as long
as their quality of life is good then I will spend the money. With Barney
when he came down with cancer for the 3rd time in 5 years and it turned out
it was oral cancer I decided it was better to keep him comfortable than put
him through any more surgery. It wasn't a matter of not having the money to
treat him it was a matter of making sure his last 2 months that he was
happy.

Celeste




"Glarb" wrote in message
...
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 wrote:
How true. I actually like to debate, and enjoy threads that get long
and
heated, while others beg for people to stop disagreeing.



L wrote:
Gee, you wouldn't be referencing any other ng would you?

Nooo... not me It happens on every ng, though.

--
-Kelly
kelly at farringtons dot net
"Wake up, and smell the cat food" -TMBG

"-L." wrote in message
Absolutely. But I truly think if one cannot afford "adequate" pet
care, one shouldn't have a pet. I didn't get a pet until I made well
over $40K/year (1990), just for that reason.

Then take a wild guess as to how many pets would be without homes if
financial criteria for owning them were established. Do you have any idea
how many pets would have to be put down?

Glarb wrote:
"-L." wrote in message

Absolutely. But I truly think if one cannot afford "adequate" pet
care, one shouldn't have a pet. I didn't get a pet until I made well
over $40K/year (1990), just for that reason.


Then take a wild guess as to how many pets would be without homes if
financial criteria for owning them were established. Do you have any idea
how many pets would have to be put down?

I am not so sure anyone is suggesting that there be financial criteria
"set" for pet ownership. Though I do seem to recall being told how much
to expect costs to be when I got Luna from the shelter and being asked
if I thought I could handle it. I think all anyone is really saying is
that even *if* someone has a "limit" on their pet's medical
expenses...most people could not actually come up with some sort of
figure without MORE information...i.e. the actual benefit of the medical
care/procedure/etc. It is okay that people see this differently. I am
with Mary in that I see my cats as members of my family...not *like*
members of my family. I am also lucky enough to be in a situation where
I can take care of myself well financially and have credit to take care
of unexpected things that come up. I am so glad I have not been faced
with this yet, but I now am the mommy of an old boy and Luna is no
spring chicken either. (though she acts like it)

let's not try to pigeon-hole eachother based on some hypothetical cost
that doesn't even exist.

-pam

Glarb wrote:
"-L." wrote in message
Absolutely. But I truly think if one cannot afford "adequate" pet
care, one shouldn't have a pet. I didn't get a pet until I made
well
over $40K/year (1990), just for that reason.

Then take a wild guess as to how many pets would be without homes if
financial criteria for owning them were established. Do you have any
idea
how many pets would have to be put down?


I'm not saying there should be a financial criteria established. I'm
just saying - IMO - that if one can't afford adequate vet care, one
shouldn't have a pet, just as I feel if one cannot afford adequate
medical care, one really shouldn't be having children. It's not fair
to the cat or the kid. At least we have safeguards in place for kids,
though.

-L.