You're viewing a single thread.
Chemotherapy for a dog? I think where I live it's seen as more merciful to put the dog down rather than have them suffer through chemo.
My understanding is the goal of chemo for animals is to keep the drugs at a low enough level that any symptoms they have from them are less impactful than the symptoms they have from the cancer. I understand it's also less effective, for this reason- but it wouldn't be fair to make them sick because they don't understand.
I feel like the chemo would only be to prolong their life for the benefit of the owners and not of the animal.
Yes. It's absurd how much $$ some people will spend on their pets. Especially when the vast majority of pets are not money makers, eg: breeding, show winners.
I too only value people, animals, and things, for the monetary returns they bring in.
No wait, that's not true, because I'm not a fucking psychopath.
You can still change your ways and keep that $$.
You sound like a slave stockpiling brownie points with your master instead of realizing the yoke around your neck.
Enjoy that. I guess.
Nope. Just don't waste my $$. For less, people can adopt a new pet. There are tons waiting in shelters.
I've seen plenty of dogs and cats that were long past their quality of life. Selfish prick owners.
I’ve seen plenty of dogs and cats that were long past their quality of life.
OK, but that's not what people are arguing with you about. I don't think people would disagree with you if you were only talking about spending money on pets to extend their lives without making them happy/comfortable. But there are a lot of instances where you can increase your pets lifespan without losing any quality of life. Sometimes that's expensive, and it can be a really hard choice to make (especially if you have trouble affording it), but it sounds like you're arguing that people shouldn't spend a lot of money on their pets no matter what. That's absurd.
The absurdity here is you feel the need to express an unwanted opinion about the way someone else spends their money.
They're idiots. Full stop.
No, they have more money than you. If someone can afford to pamper their pet, why shouldn't they?
It's not "pamper" to provide expensive medical care. It's mostly selfish. You sound as dumb as they.
You should probably work on your grammar if you're going to insult other people's intelligence.
Gee, whiz... U must b right. GFY.
It's absurd how some people think animals should only be exploited for making money
I don't. It just seems more justified to spend a lot on vet care. I've always adopted from shelters.
...it's just a pet. Give them some love, food, housing and that's all we need, as it's always been since we tamed the first pet animal. No need for fancy stuff
True and there is a boatload of other animals stuck in shelters waiting for a nice home. No need to prolong things when it's impossible to know how the pet is actually feeling about the extended treatments.
Yeah and if the current pet has to go to the next life, just adopt another and treat them well too. Life comes and goes.
Also...maybe its my country speaking, but chemo is fucking expensive. I love my pets tremendously, but it seems wasteful to dedicate all that time and money to an animal, even if they are a beloved pet.
"Expensive" is relative. If you're making 300k a year, chemo for your pet might only cost 3% of your annual salary. Someone making 50k a year can easily spend 3% of their salary ($1,500) on their pet even without any medical emergencies.
I agree it seems unethical, though. I hadn't though of that before this thread, and now I'm sad...
Also...maybe its my country speaking, but chemo is fucking expensive. I love my pets tremendously, but it seems wasteful to dedicate all that time and money to an animal, even if they are a beloved pet.