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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
"John Kimmel" wrote in message ... What if it wasn't "your" cat? I don't know. I tend to fall in love with every cat I meet. I have two cats of my own, but I've spent hundreds of dollars on an assortment of stray cats who've shown up on my doorstep. I had an $800 vet bill for one of "my" feral cats, I've spent hundreds on a stray kitten with a persistent URI, and hundreds more on a stray (non-feral) cat with struvite crystals. Both of them have moved in with me, neither of my "real" cats are happy about it. You're a good man. One of my ferals, a formerly beautiful long haired lynx point, comes up to me to be petted, but only if I don't look at him, and only if he can't see my hand coming for him. He's getting pretty matted now, there's not much I can do about it--except spend a lot of money on him, too. He's been neutered, that was his only visit to a vet. I only take the manageable strays to the vet, except in an emergency. There is no limit to how much I could spend trying to save cats, except for the limits I make myself. Still, I worry that I might be becoming a "cat collector". Honestly? Then you might have a problem. I love my cats, I love my strays, I particularly love my most unlovable ferals, but I can't cripple myself for a single cat. At some point, saving one cat might mean losing all the others. Why do I even bother at all when my efforts are insignificant compared to the need? I don't have an answer. Usually I don't think about it, I just pull out Mr. Plastic. You're a good man. I just take what I have and pay the bills and divvy the rest up among the nieces and nephews, cats, and other loved ones. Some little treats for me, and I am happy. To answer the real question you are asking: I have to keep my distance most times--and I mean consciously withdraw--when I see animals in need. There is only so much I can do, and I know it. It is not because I want to use my money for other things, it is because I have to be sure I can pay my bills. It is the same with my sisters' children: my impulse is to give them everything. They are good kids--they need things and they do not expect anything. Mary wrote: I would take out a second mortgage on my house for my cats. Or an equity loan. And I would ask relatives for money if need be-- which is something I have done maybe twice in my life. I would ask friends for money, something I have never done. I would sell all my collectables to pay for my cats' health needs. I would do everything I could, as long as I was not, as you say, Pam, putting them through hell when they did not have a good chance at a decent recovery. I am their caretaker, and it is my responsibility to not only get them health care but also to see to it that they do not suffer unnecessarily. -- J Kimmel www.metalinnovations.com "Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum." - When you have their full attention in your grip, their hearts and minds will follow. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil P." wrote in message news "Glarb" wrote in message ... "-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? Emotional blackmail only works on the weak-spirited and weak-minded. How about you taking a wild guess as to how many cats would live miserable lives and suffer long painful deaths that could have been prevented had their owners not been either too cheap or just couldn't afford adequate environmental enrichment and veterinary care. Your problem is that you view cats as items you own rather than living, feeling, thinking individuals. If you didn't, you wouldn't put a price on their lives. Your question: "what is your true limit?" is asinine because what you're really saying is "how much do you love your cat in terms of dollars and cents." Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see the utter stupidity of your question? I agree completely, Phil. I can't understand people even thinking in this way, but I guess it is good to know that they do. We can't live in total denial, can we? Ugh. It's the cat as object again. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
"Dom" wrote in message oups.com... I'm not replying to anyone in particular here (which is a good thing, considering I'm not quite sure how to quote in google right now). Hee! I think both these questions are really asking the same thing. Is the pet's benefit to the well-being of a person more important than the pet's right to life? Cause I have to say...the pet really doesn't why it doesn't receive needed medical care. It doesn't matter if you can't pay because you're unemployed or you won't pay because you really want a fourth car. Most people in this thread are judging imaginary situations based on the moral reasoning given for a choice. If a cat requires a thousand dollar surgery but the owner is on food stamps, would putting the cat to sleep be a bad choice? What if the owner opted to put the cat down because the kids really wanted a Gamecube? Would that be a bad decision? [...] So, no, I don't believe people who can't afford it should own pets. What the pet stands to lose is a hell of a lot more than what the person could. I can't imagine not having pets. They give love and warmth and humor and basically make every day just that much brighter. But I wouldn't die without them. They would die if I couldn't pay for their care. I also don't believe a person who doesn't want to pay for their pet should have them. And I don't think there's all that much of a difference between the two. And I don't think it's just a matter of different views and that everyone has to decide on their own how much they'd be willing to give. I know we're all supposed to be tolerant and yadda yadda yadda. That's just rhetoric too. That's like saying I can't quite understand a person's decision to refuse a blood transfusion for a seven-year-old boy but I support their right to do so. I understand it...I truly and honestly do. But I sure as hell don't support it and I don't feel any need to. Perfectly lovely Sethran. I guess that means that I agree with you. Nice head you got there to go with that good heart. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
"-L." wrote in message ups.com... Monique Y. Mudama wrote: I agree with L. here. While flaming is a nice temporary release, actual discussion is much better for sharing information and possibly changing someone's mind. One can disagree with the sentiment and not resort to personally attacking the person. That's all I'm saying. Unfortunately the latter seems to be many people's first line of offense. It's infantile behavior, at best. Wussy wussy wussy, nyah nyah nyaaaaaahhhhh! :0) |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Glarb wrote: "-L." wrote in message At least we have safeguards in place for kids, though. You think so? It's an old joke, but it really is easier to have a kid than to get a pet sometimes. I got my cat from a shelter, and they really did the 20 questions thing on me to make sure I was fit. They don't do that with children. When you adopt they do - and more. I love my cat. Don't get me wrong. Every time he has gotten sick over the years, I have taken care of him. But after reading some stories about the lengths people go to in keeping cats alive, I really got to thinking about this. I hope I never do. Glarb Some people go far too far, IMO - others don't do enough. But that's just the thing - one person's "not enough" could be another's "too much". Hell, I'm struggling with this same issue with regard to my own health right now. I have a condition that is rare, where there aretwo treatment options, neither of which are all that great. It's really hard to be educated and try to make the "right" decision - even when the patient is yourself. -L. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: On 14 Feb 2005 20:04:24 -0800, "-L." wrote: 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. I can't pass on this one. So following the syllogism then, people who can't afford adequate vet care TO YOUR STANDARDS, should not have pets, *Adequate* veterinary care. Exams, vaccines, flea meds, treatment fior routine conditions. Most vets agree on a "standard" of adequate veterinary care. We have laws that enforce *adequate* veterinary care. And people who cannot foresee that they might have a child with some horrific life long disability, should not participate in sex??? What a sad and barren (pun intended) world this would be. And what about airplanes and cars, SOMETIMES they crash... I don't know where you came up with this from what I posted... -L. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Phil P. wrote: snip Does a millionaire who spends $50,000 on veterinary care love his cat more than a grocery clerk who can old spend $500? Do you see the utter stupidity of your question? I don't think it's a stupid question - merely a hypothetical one. We all have limits - he/she is just asking - "Do you know what your's is?" I don't know why equating love with spending money entered the equation. -L. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:00:04 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
] wrote: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- From: Jim Lawton In the UK we have this organisation - do you not in the states? http://www.pdsa.org.uk In Massachusetts, the MSPCA has a similar program called "The Pet Care Assistance Fund" to help people who truly can't afford medical care for their pets. My wife and I make a donation every year and have even left a substantial part of our assets to the fund in our Will. And for those of you who feel that someone with limited funds does not deserve to have a pet, check out http://www.mspca.org/site/pp.asp?c=gtIUK4OSG&b=126332 then click on "Update on Nicky". Then tell me...... Do you think "Joseph Burke" does not deserve to have a cat? "On December 16, 2004, Joseph Burke, an 83 year-old Somerville resident, demonstrated the profound bond between a man and his pet when he walked eight hours in the bitter cold seeking veterinary care for his ailing cat, Nicky" What an excellent story - and what a nice outcome. I hope no-one's saying the poor don't deserve pets. Having money certainly doesn't make you "deserving". If those with loads of money put some of it into free clinics for those without, that would deserve praise, and would be good for animals too. And it would make the OP's question unnecessary. J |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[Really OT!] Price Estimate Help | Jeanne Hedge | Cat anecdotes | 33 | August 25th 04 02:07 PM |
veterinary drugs in UK - where can I get in EEC at reasonable price ? | icarus | Cat health & behaviour | 6 | June 14th 04 04:52 PM |