Today I saw a new client. A young couple arrived with a very sick eight-week-old puppy of indeterminate breed. The pup was clearly dying. The couple was tearful as they explained that this was not their dog. It was their neighbor’s. The neighbor was not taking care of a litter of unexpected puppies and most of them were sick and dying.

It was an excruciatingly sad story. The upshot: They expected free treatment. They had no money to spend. I was the closest vet. For this distinction I was expected to utilize my God-given skills to "save the little animal at all costs." I asserted that I could either provide very basic care (fluids and antibiotics) or euthanasia--relief of suffering and no more.

They could not (language barrier notwithstanding) grapple successfully with the concept that professionals do not work for free. Of course I felt like a total loser for looking like I could care less about a dying puppy--how cruel could you be to refuse a puppy?

When faced with these issues I have the following points to rely on:

(1) Expecting a professional to provide free services is unrealistic. I can't afford to treat every sick animal I find on the street so why should someone else's sick, homeless animal get special treatment?

(2) Requiring a professional to provide free services is unfair and disrespectful. Someone has to pay for the care. Why does it have to be my responsibility? I spend a lot of money every year on stray animals. It insults me when clients (usually people who don't know me) suggest that I don't care for animals because I won't pay for their personal choices.

And finally, (3),  I was still offering care for this puppy, just not the kind of no-holds-barred care they would have preferred. The puppy received fluids, antibiotics, and anti-nausea medication. He then went home and died within the hour. Like the rest of the staff, I was heartsick after hearing the news.

My $50 donation ultimately didn't do a thing. We just can't save them all, even with all the money in the world.