Should people who can't afford medical treatments for pets own a cat or dog?

[ZombieHorde]

I love dogs, and I will have a pet dog once I am more financially stable. However, I feel I shouldn't get a dog until then because I wouldn't be able to pay for its medical treatments if the need arises. I would just have to have the dog killed (put to sleep), or let it suffer until it died.

I don't judge those who feel otherwise, for we all have our own needs and situations, but I am interested in how other people feel about this subject.

21 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, if they want them. The inability to pay your pet's potential medical bills is no reason to avoid having cats or dogs.
	13 (62%)
	No. Cats and dogs deserve needed medical treatment, and the owner should be able to provide this service.
	7 (33%)
	I hate trees, but telescopes are ok, I guess.
	1 (5%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Chuuku Davis]

1. How about

Having kids?
Couldn't afford mine when we had them

[ZombieHorde]

2. Medicaid. nt

[Katashi_itto]

17. How About use Pet Cemetery

[BlueStreak]

3. If you can't afford to take care of an animal, then you most certainly

should not pay good money for an animal manufactured by a breeder. There are millions of abandoned animals that need a loving home. Adopt one of those pets and give them the best home you can afford. Don't encourage the breeding of animals when we have to exterminate millions of animals every year.

[LeftInTX]

4. Make sure a future pet has a clean bill of health

Hip dysplasia tends to be expensive. Research breeds ahead of time. Find a pet that suits you.

We had a chihuahua for 16 years. We paid $200 for an ER visit, but that was all we paid for outside of annual shots. She had an enlarged heart, for which we gave her Lasix, but it didn't shorten her life. Of course, we got lucky.

You can also purchase pet health insurance. Pet Finders recommends it.

[MattBaggins]

5. Where is the line on defining medical treatment?

Basic vet visits or full expensive surgeries and life long treatments?

[ZombieHorde]

6. Basic vet visits.

I can't afford basic vet visits for a dog right now, so I won't get one. I also don't really have the time, since school has me so busy this semester.

[LiberalFighter]

70. Even those basic vet visits aren't cheap

Dogs should regularly get dental otherwise they will have other medical problems.

[Agschmid]

7. Though in practice I have done the exact...

opposite of how I voted. Go figure.

[sadbear]

8. I say adopt the dog if it's going to die if you don't.

Chances are he/she will be fine.

[PotatoChip]

60. I voted the other way, but that is a good point.

In addition to that, in an ideal world, I'd like to see some type of network of non-profit organizations that would help pay for vet costs if people can't afford them. Perhaps a once a year, or every two year, type thing that would include a physical and all of the necessary shots for preventable problems.

Oh, and definitely a spay/neuter freebie.

[sadbear]

62. In my area, there is a traveling discount shot operation.

They come into town every other weekend and give shots at a discounted rate. You can get the whole package (4 or 5 different shots) for less than $75. And yes, a real vet runs the whole operation. I guess it's not as good as the thorough examination (yeah, right!) that a vet's office gives for $200, but it's better than nothing.

[Go Vols]

68. I get all shots for the dogs

except for rabies,at the local Farm Store(CO-OP) for a few bucks,10-15 bucks.

[sadbear]

69. That's a good deal!

Do you pay to be in the co-op?

[Go Vols]

71. You are a "member" after you spend so much money.

But anyone can go in and buy stuff.

[PotatoChip]

72. That sounds like a nice service.

I wonder how common it is in other places? I'd certainly donate to a service like that whenever my finances would allow.

I guess I've been very lucky to have a vet in my area who provides his services for truly the love of animals. He's been our 'family vet' for over 20 years and charges very little... Yikes, I had no idea that a routine vet office visit could cost someone $200!

Just recently, I had my 2 cats in for their annual shots and it came to just shy of $90.00. And that was for the both of them. Haven't brought our new pup in yet, but he will be needing some booster shots soon. I don't expect it to be very much. Sadly, he's nearing retirement though.

[sadbear]

73. Fortunately, it's a business (not a service).

Yeah, some smart and enterprising area vet saw a demand for reasonably-priced shots and took advantage of the situation. Wherever his mobile 'clinic' sets up, there's a line out the door. I'm sure he's raking in the money on volume alone.

[undeterred]

9. What bothers me most is when I see people with multiple pets

who are poor and can't afford medical treatments when their pets need them. A pet is a luxury, even though it is also an emotional comfort and it is a good thing for a person to have. But it is expensive and it is a responsibility. A pet does not need another pet to keep it company. A pet is to keep YOU company. If you aren't going to be home anyway, don't get a pet.

If you can't afford the veterinary care on one pet why are you getting another one?

[petronius]

10. There's a homeless guy with a dog who hangs out near the 7-11 I go to

It's clear the guy loves his dog, and it's clear the dog loves him. It makes me happy to see them together, actually. I don't know what the guy would do if the dog got sick, but I doubt the dog would want it any other way...

[ZombieHorde]

12. That's why I don't judge who feel differently than me on this subject.

We all (dogs and humans alike) are in different situations, and what is right for some may not be right for others.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

16. That would have been my answer.

That's why I didn't vote. The homeless sometimes adopt stray dogs for companionship. You should add other as a choice.

[CokeMachine]

64. Is that the Guy that

puts pink rabbit ears on his dog and calls it bunny? If so, he is a great guy and really loves that dog. I buy extra dog food/treats for him and his dog.

[AzSweet]

11. Both of my dogs..

were abandoned in parking lots...my little chihuahua ran up to my youngest daughter in a parking lot. She looked for her owner, and had her checked for a chip, but no luck, so she brought her to me. My little jack russell was just dropped off in a circle k parking lot on a very busy main street...car just drove up, opened the door, put him out, and drove off. Luckily, a nice man grabbed his leash, and asked if anyone could take him. A coworker of mine happened to be there at the time, and he gave her his business card. I called him and set up a meeting with my little girl. She got her little brother. No, I cannot afford vet visits right now, but they are both healthy and happy, and as soon as we can afford to, we will get the youngest in for shots and neutering. They are much better off than they would have been.

[Helen Reddy]

46. What a swell thing to do!

Those pooches will always love you, no matter what. Thank you for helping them out.

[rustydog]

13. we recently spent 4000 dollars on our dog who needed back surgery

Generally, the thought process seems to be, if it costs X-amount, put the pet down. It just doesn't seem right to do that to your "loved one".

[liberal_at_heart]

14. love is free and shouldn't require money

In a perfect world everyone would be able to afford to take their family and their pets to the doctor. Actually, in a perfect world we would have single payer healthcare. When I had my first child I was living in a trailer park. My husband and I received WIC and Medicaid. We later got off of assistance when we could. We now have two children and a dog. Can't really afford doctor's visits for any of us, but we have plenty of love. Luckily we live in a free country where the government cannot tell us we cannot have children or pets just because we don't have money.

[mike_c]

15. majorly conflicted about this one....

I live in a community with lots of transients, especially young transients. Many have dogs on a rope leash-- many of the dogs are young too, often puppies. We call them hippies with puppies on a rope. I often fear for those dogs' futures. At the very least, they are at higher risk of injury (and likely abandonment) than most pets. On the other hand, I understand that many pets are in worse conditions.

Fair disclosure: I used to be a young hippie-- now I'm an aging one. I have rescued many, many cats during my life, including some that I did not have the means to care for properly, although in my defense I will also contend that in the end, I did whatever I had to do, and all of my pets were well cared for and loved.

Therein lies my dilemma. From my current perspective-- I'm doing reasonably well and can afford regular health care for all of my cats and dogs now, but that was not always the case. I was fortunate that when push came to shove, even during the really lean years (um, decades) my commitment to my companion animals' welfare always found a way when it had too.

I just worry about all those puppies (and the occasional kitten) that pass through town on the end of a rope while their companion humans hitchhike up and down the coast. And all the other pets that people WANT to love and provide for, but who end up suffering when they cannot.

Part of the equation is that given half a chance, most companion animals who are well socialized with humans get as much from the relationship as humans do. That counts for a lot. I'm much more concerned about people who keep pets they don't give a rat's buttocks about than I am about people who love and cherish their companions but who lack the means to be the best human companions ever. Still, I'm personally conflicted about the question. I'm really really glad I can take care of my companion animals now.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. ideally no - even more so people should not have children if they can't afford all their needs -

but the real world gets more complicated then that. That in affect would be saying only middle and upper class people are allowed to have children. In this case we would be saying only middle and upper class people should be allowed to have dogs and cats or other pets, for that matter. There are a lot of lonely stray dogs and cats around who are not getting enough to eat or any attention or care. That is a fact. If somebody can at least afford to feed them - but perhaps cannot afford all their other needs - is it not better that at least someone is feeding them? To many a poor and lonely person - their dog or perhaps their cat is their best friend - sometimes - in fact many times - there only friend in this world. If someone cannot afford all their expenses - but can give them love and attention and can at least afford to feed them - what then? Must they be euthanized?

[treestar]

26. Exactly, very reasonable attitude

It would not be right to limit pet ownership to the upper classes.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. There are SO MANY unwanted pets

that as long as you can love them, feed them, shelter them and get them spayed/neutered it's certainly better than the alternative for them. During the 3-1/2 years my husband was out of work I had to put two of my cats down because I wasn't going to be able to afford the THOUSANDS of dollars of vet bills it would have taken to keep them alive. If you don't think that broke my heart to pieces, think again. One cat was 14, the other was 10. The only way that I got through it was reminding myself that I rescued the 14-year-old from the pound and I rescued the 10-year-old's mother and he was one of the kittens. During their lifetimes they had brothers and sisters, love, attention, were fed well and cared for and went to the vet when I could afford it. That's more than a LOT of animals ever get.

The ONE caveat here: You HAVE to be able to afford to spay/neuter your animal.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Those are good points. nt

[HockeyMom]

32. Adopting a shelter animal

the shelters spay and neuter first before they will put an animal up for adoption, and also vaccinate them. Yes, they charge an adoption fee but all the animal is all ready to be taken home and loved. One shelter we adopted from besides all the aforementioned, gave us a week's worth of food, litter and pan, and 6 months free Vet services.

[Duer 157099]

21. Should humans who can't afford medical treatments commit suicide?

It's a valid question.

[ZombieHorde]

22. I don't think so. nt

[Honeycombe8]

24. The OP doesn't ask if we should shoot our pets if we can't afford med. care. But if we should go out

and intentionally get something we know we can't care for. But come to think of it, many owners kill their pets every year instead of providing medical care.

[Honeycombe8]

23. I said "no," but my real answer is, it depends.

If they're volunteering to take a pet from a friend, and the pet could otherwise find a home....no, someone who doesn't have the money to provide the basics of care (food, annual shots, medical care, leashes and collars) shouldn't take one on, knowing that. Or if they go out and buy one, or go out and get a freebie off Craigslist.

But if they rescue one from a shelter that is UNLIKELY to be adopted out, then that pet at least will have some happy years ahead. Until the time comes when they need medical care, or get heartworms because they're not taking heartworm preventive pills. And that day will come. At least the pet will have been saved.

I think of medical care as important as food. It's not an "if I can afford it" thing. It's a necessary thing.

[ZombieHorde]

28. Good points. nt

[treestar]

25. I wouldn't deprive poor people of pets, on that ground

In dog life or cat life, it's a pretty good life for the most part, and they aren't aware of their deaths, as they say, isn't that why dogs are blessed? They'd probably rather have the love of the owner for a while than not. What else would be done with them? There are too many dogs in the world to limit them to people who could give them the best of veterinary care.

[ZombieHorde]

27. You make some good points, but I just want to say that my poll is not about policy,

it is about wisdom, which is subjective.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

29. I voted no but of course I was thinking about people who deliberately go out and buy one

...not anyone adopting a stray or shelter dog/cat. Obviously they're better off with a family than without, and someone who adopts such an animal is probably someone who isn't going to abandon it. But for someone who can't afford the ordinary care of a pet to go out and buy one is inhumane. I have to think it's far more likely they'll wind up abandoning it because if they can't afford the med stuff sooner or later they're going to decide they can't afford to feed that extra mouth either.

[TheBlackAdder]

30. I owned a farm, sometimes pets do die. It's best to give them a happy home as long as possible.

I have had numerous farm animals and family pets.

BASIC MEDICAL CARE IS MANDATORY! If a person can't afford that, then they can't afford to feed the animal.

I have had several pets that were rescued from animal shelters or were obtained as kittens from animal shelters. These animals had dubious medical histories or were subject to maltreatment leading to physical damage to the animal.

The worst for me was one rescue cat I took to the vet because he became suddenly ill after we received two additional kittens from the shelter. The animal hospital said that it would cost $2,500 just to perform basic exploratory tests on the animal and the final bill would be over $6,000 if surgery were required -- and there was no guarantee that would cure the animal or be the end of therapy. Though greatly attached to the cat, I made the decision to put him down. It was heart wrenching and I cried for a couple of days. Don't let the animal suffer though - that would be inhumane.

I donate $600 every year, via the United Way, to two animal shelters in my area. I know that, after saving many animals and losing others, there is a limit to what should be done. The animals in my care receive wonderful lives full of pamper, better than most other places they would have been sent. Now, my sister does not have any children and she spends thousands on them every year for medical treatments, saying these are her children.

===

You shouldn't focus on whether a person can or cannot afford exorbitant medical procedures on animals, you should be thankful that there are people out there who are making their best attempts to rescue an animal from euthanasia or from developing physical or mental issues from being in a kennel cage for months on end -- leading them to be put down.

Without knowing the bloodline of rescue animals, you don't know if they were destined to have long or short lives in the first place.

As an animal rescuer, be the best pet owner you can be. Save the animal from a fate that would be worse than your lack of intervention. Perhaps, down the road, you might be able to afford the pet insurance most hospitals offer. In the meantime, save a dog, give the dog a great life and if the worse were to happen and you couldn't afford to spend onerous funds to 'possibly' save them -- use the money and rescue another one. Great Danes and several other dogs only live 5-7 years. Others might be in their mid-teens on average. As callous as this sounds, the funds spend to save the dog might only prolong death for a couple of years and that needs to be weighed against your financial disposition and emotional investment. Sometimes, it's better to save a new animal.

Best wishes.

[ZombieHorde]

31. Great reply. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

48. Per Post #6, You're NOT planning ANY medical care?

You need to provide basic animal care just to get your tags from the township.

Not having the animal routinely checked exposes you and others to possible infection while also denying the animal low-cost preventative care, which could least to high-cost medical issues and euthanasia.

If you cannot afford basic medical car for the animal - you won't be able to afford feeding them either.

I've seen folks in your position routinely abandon animals. The problem is, you get them when they are puppies and were easily adoptable to proper caregivers -- then they are adandoned when they are older and the possibility of adoption is far less for them.

===

If you can't afford basic care... don't do it. I was under the assumption that basic care was a given.

[ZombieHorde]

50. Like I said in the OP, I will not buy a dog until I am financially stable. nt

[TheBlackAdder]

51. Can you update the OP to make it clear that Basic Care isn't included?

Most people assume basic care is included in pet ownership, as most towns require yearly shots and tags.

Your OP really is that NO medical care, not even Basics Care is being provided. You need to detail that.

[ZombieHorde]

54. I am not sure if that would be good after 77 votes.

I don't want to make the votes seem like something they are not. I think the replies say more than the votes anyway.

[TheBlackAdder]

59. You're right.. It's a flawed poll.

I originally clicked off YES until I realized basic medical care was not included and changed my vote.

My vote is now NO.

===

I don't know how many others assumed basic medical care was included a person who cannot afford that, cannot afford to properly care for the animal in the first place.

[ZombieHorde]

61. I agree, my poll has some flaws. The responses have been great though,

which is the most important thing to me. I generally make polls on DU because I seem to get more responses that way.

[Life Long Dem]

33. If you can't afford medical treatments for pets

Then do what most people do. Put the animal to sleep. Problem solved other than being cruel to a pet dog or cat.

[TheBlackAdder]

34. Would you rather...

1) Not rescue an animal so they are euthanized instead?

2) Spend $6,000 on surgery for a rescue animal that 'might' save its life, especially when you don't know the bloodline of the animal and whether that animal will even live much longer -- when that money could be used to bolster th household, rescue another animal and contribute to the shelter?

===

It's not cruel to put down an animal that is severely ill and requires unforeseen medical expenses. It's cruel to not rescue an animal and give them the best lives you can provide for them. Remember, you're giving them the best lives YOU can provide. Folks who profess that people should either NOT rescue and animal or expose their household to financial risk to save an animal are NOT living in reality. Sure, there are things we'd like to do... but there are also things that are practical to do.

[Life Long Dem]

38. Of course it depends on the illness.

No one is saying you should lose your house over a pets medical bills. Priorities come first.

[TheBlackAdder]

39. The OP says basic medical bills. (Updated - Refer to Post #6)

He's not planning to provide any health care for the animal - that's not right.

[Life Long Dem]

41. That's how I took it

That he needed to go medical free.

[TheBlackAdder]

47. He's asking of others should get a dog without health care of any kind.

That's just plain wrong.

[AndyA]

35. Guess it depends on how you look at it

Generally, I think people who own pets should take care of them, and provide health care for them (including regular check ups) when necessary.

However, if by not getting a pet, that pet is put down by a shelter, or dies at a young age because it's living on the streets, then I think that pet is better off being kept safe indoors, being fed nutritious food on a regular basis, and gets to experience being loved for as long as possible.

Being put down in a humane manner due to health issues after experiencing love for several years beats starving and dying in the streets after being hit by a car, or brutalized by another animal.

[TimberValley]

36. we can't deprive poor people of the right to own a pet.

because that's what the practical effect of such legislation would be. imagine a very impoverished, struggling family, who gets much joy and fun out of having a pet German shepherd or Siamese cat in their lives. now imagine going to them and saying, "sorry, you can't afford to pay for your pets' medical treatments, so we're taking your pets away."

[ZombieHorde]

37. My poll is not about policy, it is about sujective wisdom. nt

[Rex]

40. How do you know what medical treatment is needed or will be?

I cannot predict the future, so really don't understand what you mean. Stuff like rabies shots, or like surgery on the animal? How would you know what will happen? How can you gauge how much money is needed since you don't know when or where the animal will get hurt?

[ZombieHorde]

42. Most of those things can't be predicted, but some things, such as check ups and sterilization,

can be predicted.

[Rex]

44. Okay so maybe $50 - $100 a year on maintenance issues.

I can see that. I think if a person owns an animal, it is their duty to take care of it to the best of their abilities.

[one_voice]

43. If you're talking basic vet visit...

like shots, usually the SPCA/Humane Society does Wellness Clinics and they do the shots (main ones Rabies etc) and micro-chipping really cheap. Shots are usually like $15 bucks each which is way less than at the vets.

They'll also do reduced spaying and neutering as well. Other agencies do this too.

So if just a check up isn't too much. You're just getting flea and tick stuff and heart worm meds and even those have gone down in price.

Barring any real emergency it won't cost too much.

One of my dogs had to have two surgeries for tumors one was a mast cell, which would have been fatal and one was benign. The first was $1500 and the latter was $800. These are the kind of unforeseen events that can cost.

It was the first time any dog I've had cost me anything but routine stuff. And I've had dogs my entire life. So the odds are pretty good I guess.

[TheBlackAdder]

49. Unfortunately, he's not even talking basic care.

I was under the assumption that basic care was included and excessive care was the problem.

It turns out that he's not even planning basic care, which means that he can't afford to feed it either.

If the animal is obtained as a puppy (when it's easily adoptable by responsible caregivers) it might get abandoned later on and find itself not able to be adopted because it's older.

Perhaps he needs a pet hamster?

[libtodeath]

45. This just pisses me off

animal companionship is one of the most beautiful and happy things of life and it is a legitimate question whether a person has to choose if they can afford it.
Billions of fucking dollars spent killing people in useless wars,billions more lining the pockets of greedy fucking wall street traders and oil barons yet a person needs to pick between eating or having a dog/cat?

What the fuck is wrong with this country that we accept this shit?

[appleannie1]

52. Sadly, many more animals would be put down if ability to

pay medical bills was a requirement of adoption. Right now I have 5 rescues, 3 cats and 2 dogs. We live on SS and save just to get them flea prevention and shots. If one of them ever needed surgery we would not be able to afford it. But none of them would be alive today if we had not adopted them and we have had the dogs over 12 years.

[ZombieHorde]

53. Good point. nt

[DireStrike]

55. This is an unrealistic question.

If everyone who couldn't afford to cover their pets' care stopped adopting, or worse, turned them out, many millions of pets would starve in the streets. Surely a better fate than being put down at the end of a long life when the owner can't pay ten grand for kitty chemo... right?

[ZombieHorde]

58. Good point. nt

[MadrasT]

56. Ideally, no. But too many homeless shelter pets are killed because no one wants them.

I'd rather see a shelter pet go to a home that might not be able to afford the best veterinary care -- where they will be loved -- than be euthanized because no one wants them.

And I also think it's great that you are considering the full picture of what it means to have a pet.

I guess I would just say to make the decision that seems right to you and sits right with your conscience.

[Nye Bevan]

57. Impossible question. A bone marrow transplant to treat a dog's lymphoma can cost $16,000.

So should only people with this kind of money lying around become pet owners? Obviously not. But one great thing about pets is that they will not suffer the same mental anguish as a human about contracting a terminal disease or being euthanized. They will happily slip away without pain.

on edit: I do believe that if people cannot afford the basic medical necessities for a pet (like the recommended immunizations) they should not get the pet.

[REP]

63. Other: mut be able to afford basic care (vaccinations, sterilizations, etc)

I have been poor and broke most of my life, but have made sure that the cats had their basic medical needs taken care of. I've been lucky to live in areas that had excellent low-cost spay and neuter clinics and cats who waited until I was in better financial shape to get serious illnesses.

[OhioChick]

65. Pet Food Stamps

https://petfoodstamps.org/

[ZombieHorde]

66. Very interesting. nt

[OhioChick]

67. I thought so, too

It was featured on my local news:

Needy families can apply for pet food stamps through donation-based program

"The program is based in New York and open to anyone in the United States, but it is not run by the government."

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/money/consumer/Needy-families-can-apply-for-pet-food-stamps-through-donation-based-program

[kdmorris]

74. This was a hard one to answer... not cut and dried.

I know a lot of people who do have the wherewithal to get their pets medical care when they get the pet and then fall on hard times. They then cannot pay for medical care, but it seems our shelters are filled with pets who are sent there because their owners could no longer afford to take care of them.

I personally would not acquire a pet I couldn't afford to get medical care for, but I have in the past. With subsidized spay/neuter clinics and shot clinics, even someone on food stamps (like I was) can afford to attend to the basic medical needs of their pets. Of course, now that I'm older, I realize that medical care goes FAR past spay/neuter and shots, but at the time, I thought providing the basics was great and I could save an animal from the shelter.

So... I'm torn. I don't want to see so many animals languish in shelters, and studies have proven that mental health in the elderly (who are usually on limited incomes) improves with the companionship of a pet - rather than being alone. But - I would feel terribly guilty getting an animal that I couldn't afford to help if they had a health crisis.

Long winded way to say - I can see both sides of this equation and am unable to come to a conclusion on what I feel is "right" in this discussion.