If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Sherry at
wrote on 7/13/03 1:54 PM: We were going to call the vet Monday to schedule that test. It is Saturday night at 11:00 I catch Andy trying to pee on the carpet. (another blockage) I know we should rush out to the emergency vet, but I decided to wait until morning (it is now almost 1:00am) and see what the night brings. He may well be dead, have I not done more than most? am I evil? When is the point when enough is enough? The biggest problem I see with your post is that the cat is probably in extreme discomfort from the blockage. No matter what you decide, it's wrong to let him suffer for 8 or 9 hours when you there is an ER available to you. Sherry And in a blockage every moment counts. I guess if the OP just wants to wait they won't have to euthanize as the cat can die a painful death instead. This whole thread is absurd. I just don't think much of the OPs vet, that's for sure. If the cat had been switched to wet food, this may not even have happened. Karen |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
in article , Sherry at
wrote on 7/13/03 1:54 PM: We were going to call the vet Monday to schedule that test. It is Saturday night at 11:00 I catch Andy trying to pee on the carpet. (another blockage) I know we should rush out to the emergency vet, but I decided to wait until morning (it is now almost 1:00am) and see what the night brings. He may well be dead, have I not done more than most? am I evil? When is the point when enough is enough? The biggest problem I see with your post is that the cat is probably in extreme discomfort from the blockage. No matter what you decide, it's wrong to let him suffer for 8 or 9 hours when you there is an ER available to you. Sherry And in a blockage every moment counts. I guess if the OP just wants to wait they won't have to euthanize as the cat can die a painful death instead. This whole thread is absurd. I just don't think much of the OPs vet, that's for sure. If the cat had been switched to wet food, this may not even have happened. Karen |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"Sherry " wrote in message
... We were going to call the vet Monday to schedule that test. It is Saturday night at 11:00 I catch Andy trying to pee on the carpet. (another blockage) I know we should rush out to the emergency vet, but I decided to wait until morning (it is now almost 1:00am) and see what the night brings. He may well be dead, have I not done more than most? am I evil? When is the point when enough is enough? The biggest problem I see with your post is that the cat is probably in extreme discomfort from the blockage. No matter what you decide, it's wrong to let him suffer for 8 or 9 hours when you there is an ER available to you. Sherry And not only discomfort, but the poor cat could be in agony. In the worst case, a cat who is blocked may endure a ruptured bladder. How anybody could consider not treating a blocked cat even for one second is beyond my comprehension. I still remember how Harpsie screamed when he was blocked )-: Helen |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"Sherry " wrote in message
... We were going to call the vet Monday to schedule that test. It is Saturday night at 11:00 I catch Andy trying to pee on the carpet. (another blockage) I know we should rush out to the emergency vet, but I decided to wait until morning (it is now almost 1:00am) and see what the night brings. He may well be dead, have I not done more than most? am I evil? When is the point when enough is enough? The biggest problem I see with your post is that the cat is probably in extreme discomfort from the blockage. No matter what you decide, it's wrong to let him suffer for 8 or 9 hours when you there is an ER available to you. Sherry And not only discomfort, but the poor cat could be in agony. In the worst case, a cat who is blocked may endure a ruptured bladder. How anybody could consider not treating a blocked cat even for one second is beyond my comprehension. I still remember how Harpsie screamed when he was blocked )-: Helen |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Caliban wrote:
I think it's important to face the reality that there are very real financial limits to how much good a person can do. And they should do good with the cats they already own first. After all they took them in so those cats are their responsibility. I honestly think if we could get a lot more people to think that way we'd have less of a problem homing cats. A lot of times the idea of them being disposable and you can just get another cat cheaper helps with people just giving cats back to the shelter. A pet is a responsibility for life, not just a money figure. If you have a problem with having limits to how much one can spend to save a cat's life, then welcome to the real world. I understand that sometimes people can't afford care or even the consideration of what life left the cat has and how good it would be compared to how much cost it would be to try to give that amount/quality of life (for example, "I don't have much money. This cat is going to cost me 400 dollars to maybe save her/him, no guarentee, and she's 17 years old."). It sux bigtime, but I can understand it. Sometimes the money just isn't there. But, I don't suscribe to the because you can save this many cats with that money is justification to just put the cat to sleep. That's a different arguement entirely. That's not I can't afford the care, that is, the cat is disposable and I can just get another one (or two or three). Your first responsibility is with the cat you took in for care, not other cats you haven't agreed to care for yet. That should be what is focused on, not how many other cats could be adopted with the money. Alice -- The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Caliban wrote:
I think it's important to face the reality that there are very real financial limits to how much good a person can do. And they should do good with the cats they already own first. After all they took them in so those cats are their responsibility. I honestly think if we could get a lot more people to think that way we'd have less of a problem homing cats. A lot of times the idea of them being disposable and you can just get another cat cheaper helps with people just giving cats back to the shelter. A pet is a responsibility for life, not just a money figure. If you have a problem with having limits to how much one can spend to save a cat's life, then welcome to the real world. I understand that sometimes people can't afford care or even the consideration of what life left the cat has and how good it would be compared to how much cost it would be to try to give that amount/quality of life (for example, "I don't have much money. This cat is going to cost me 400 dollars to maybe save her/him, no guarentee, and she's 17 years old."). It sux bigtime, but I can understand it. Sometimes the money just isn't there. But, I don't suscribe to the because you can save this many cats with that money is justification to just put the cat to sleep. That's a different arguement entirely. That's not I can't afford the care, that is, the cat is disposable and I can just get another one (or two or three). Your first responsibility is with the cat you took in for care, not other cats you haven't agreed to care for yet. That should be what is focused on, not how many other cats could be adopted with the money. Alice -- The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Chuplis wrote:
The costs are out of bounds. Also for the blockage. My cat had a blockage and after three days of treatment it was more like 400 dollars (and that was an emergency vet, not my regular) not 1200. The OP's vet is exhorbitant. Seriously. My vet rarely ever gets that high on a bill and usually it is a bad car crash with lots of surgery required (the dog I'm remembering had two broken legs, one had to be amputated, and a broken hip, and it reached 900, with some severe discounts because the vet realized the people were not well off) or one time an autoimmune attack on a dog that was particularly vicious (it was the oddest one the vet had ever seen). And those are *RARE*. Even for most surgeries including ones getting rid of cancers it tends to be more like 600 dollars or even 400 dollars (usually most surgeries are more like 400). Alice -- The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Karen Chuplis wrote:
The costs are out of bounds. Also for the blockage. My cat had a blockage and after three days of treatment it was more like 400 dollars (and that was an emergency vet, not my regular) not 1200. The OP's vet is exhorbitant. Seriously. My vet rarely ever gets that high on a bill and usually it is a bad car crash with lots of surgery required (the dog I'm remembering had two broken legs, one had to be amputated, and a broken hip, and it reached 900, with some severe discounts because the vet realized the people were not well off) or one time an autoimmune attack on a dog that was particularly vicious (it was the oddest one the vet had ever seen). And those are *RARE*. Even for most surgeries including ones getting rid of cancers it tends to be more like 600 dollars or even 400 dollars (usually most surgeries are more like 400). Alice -- The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Caliban wrote:
Don't be so black and white about who is and is not a saint. And why aren't you spending your money on saving the lives of children, hm? Do cats outrank children in your mind? I'll donate to causes for animals a lo tmore than I'll donate to causes for children. There are plenty more people willing to already donat their money to save the children... less people are as willing to donate for pets. You're judging, and it's out of line IMO. My point is you don't know exactly what the OP faces. He or she may have children to care for. What of the people who choose saving children over saving the family pet? Do you call them despicable? The contention I've seen is not that she is horrible for not spending the money but that she could get a second opinion and could find a cheaper vet (it seems many thinkt he current vet is soaking her, and judging from the price I saw, I agree). The contention I see is that people don't feel the vet she is going to is treating her right. Alice -- The root cause of problems is simple overpopulation. People just aren't worth very much any more, and they know it. Makes 'em testy. ...Bev |\ _,,,---,,_ Tigress /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ http://havoc.gtf.gatech.edu/tigress |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' '---''(_/--' `-'\_) Cat by Felix Lee. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|