Thanks for writing about these subjects.  I'm terrified of this sort of thing when I qualify.  No easy answers...

Sian May 6th, 2009 09:46:49 AM

If I took custody every time this happened I would fill my clinic up in no time.    I know that sometimes people come upon hard times due to bad luck (illness, laid off), but many of the time this person drives up in a better car than I have and has a pack of Marlboros in their pocket. If this were a child the person would be charged with neglect, I want to see the legal system hold these people more accountable.

Hobson May 6th, 2009 09:47:12 AM

Dr. Khuly,

There is a flip side to this. My dog, Bailey, was one of those dogs whose vet was kind enough to play this role.  She was actually once named Kahlua, and was brought into the vet with a horrible case of vaginal hyperplasia. The owner wanted to put her down because he didn't have the money to fix it and to have her spayed. (a cost of what I understand is between 400-600 dollars!) The vet somehow talked them into surrendering her, then fixed her up and got her into a rescue. Now, she's my rotten baby girl!  I'm thankful every day to that vet, and really wish I had his/her name so I could thank them and show him how great she is doing now!

Kara May 6th, 2009 09:49:35 AM

I wish there were more charities to draw on in this type of situation.  Some exist, to be accessed by pet owners, but not nearly enough.  Maybe there also needs to be one that just provides funding at the request of the vet for such situations. 

Although, I imagine in cases like this, the dog would be back in the same state in not too long.  :(

Stefani May 6th, 2009 09:55:19 AM

I had plenty of these situations at both ERs where I worked (AHT). I just tried to pick the animals with largely or entirely fixable problems, sweet dispositions, and without other severe problems - dogs or cats I knew someone would want once they were healthy again.  The ones I took that were old or permanently handicapped, I accepted knowing they were joining my household permanently.  If we had taken every critter that needed treatment and the owner couldn't/wouldn't pay, we might easily have had 2 or 3 per night signed over by owner during the busy season. All the staff who did adoptions knew we could only handle so many. I worked a fair amount of unpaid overtime at other practices as well to pay for surgeries on owner-release trauma patients (often at the practice of a boards surgeon with a foul temper and a chronic shortage of technicians, who shall remain nameless!)  The people who were poor and struggling even to eat and pay rent were easier for me to sympathize with than the obviously well-to-do who just couldn't see "spending that much money on just a dog".

Maria Shanley May 6th, 2009 10:08:49 AM

Dr K:  You have just described how we get most of the dogs in our rescue! 

Our vet does do one thing differently.... they don't offer to contact a rescue to see if the dog can be saved until AFTER the owner chooses euthanasia.  And of course they contact us to ensure we have room first... they don't take them in on their own. 

So the burning question is....  do you have a new dog you are taking care of?

Beth P May 6th, 2009 11:19:58 AM

Dr. K this is such a sad and distressing situation.

On the one hand, some people do come across economic hardship and they really do care for their pets and want to do everything possible for them. Those are the people that I truly feel for.

On the other hand, it does not sound like this client is one of those people as they obviously have not taken proper care of the dog for quite some time.

Do you ever want to ask people like this "What the hell is the matter with you?"

This does place you in quite the conundrum with no easy answers.

Greg - Stempy's Story May 6th, 2009 12:17:21 PM

No easy answers, but within the legal framework of animals-as-property, you don't have many options. In cases like this, it's pretty clear that euthanasia and sign-over are the only decent options, unless you can somehow work out a payment plan with the client (sounds unlikely).

You don't have to do it complacently, or routinely, but it can be done without breaking good ethical codes. 

With the stupendous increase in options for veterinary care over the past 15 years, situations like this are absolutely inevitable. When the choice is between paying hundreds or even thousands in fixing a problem - or relinquishing the animal as a piece of property, I can only see this type of situation increasing in frequency in the near future.

In the end, you have to live with yourself (and be able to support yourself) so the choice really is up to you in a case like that; neither euthanasia nor the sign over are bad options. The bad option is sending the animal back home to die an extended and painful death.

brebis noire May 6th, 2009 12:30:41 PM

Brebis noire,

"No easy answers, but within the legal framework of animals-as-property, you don't have many options."

I couldn't argue with you! There are hundreds of guardians,  like myself, who are trying to change the century old "animals-as-property" law and society's attitude towards animals.  You might want to consider starting the same crusade. . .

Asproolee's Story

Fotini May 6th, 2009 02:30:36 PM

Stefani-

Our state VMA recently started a program that distributes funds to every clinic in the state to be used at the vets' discretion to help cover the costs of expenses owners are unable to pay. At the moment, because the program is still fairly new, that only amounts to a few hundred dollars per clinic per year. (While this might not help offset the cost of a really pricey procedure, it generally amounts to one or two lives saved in every clinic each year.) Given the program's popularity and the amount of fundraising and advertising they do (vet who set up the program is pretty savvy in this department), I suspect it will continue to grow to the point where it will be able to help more people.. including those with more costly surprises.

I think it's a wonderful idea, and hope it will catch on elsewhere.

Ramen Connoisseur May 6th, 2009 03:08:12 PM

Brebis Noire, euthanasia is a better option than a slow painful death, but it is still a bad option.  It is every pet owner's responsibility to have some money set aside for veterinary emergencies or to at least have access to money (credit cards, money lines, etc.), so that pets are not euthanized due to lack of money.  I am with Hobson regarding legal responsibility for the neglect of one's pet.  This would also come back to the issue of pets as property: if there are legal repercussions for neglecting a pet's health and letting him/her suffer (as there should be), then why would pets retain their status as property?  Ramen, programs to save pets of poor people from euthanasia are good, but there should be some oversight of such programs.  I am uneasy every time I see vets get involved in charitable causes, not that there aren't any good vets genuinely concerned for the well-being of less fortunate pets.  I have, however, seen cases where the concern is for the bottom line, under the guise of helping a cause. 

Natalie Kramer May 6th, 2009 03:24:37 PM

Ramen Connoisseur: Our local VMA (SFVMA) is currently working on a program like this. It's still in its early fundraising stages, though. It's designed so that any clinic can apply for up to $5,000 in aid during any given 12-month period. Owners must apply for Care Credit and be denied (as a demonstration of neediness and a search for alternatives) and the case has to be a life-or-death situation. 

We're really excited about this. I guesstimate it'll help at least 3-5 of my patients a year. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 6th, 2009 03:47:34 PM

Natalie, I was speaking of the options from the point of view of what the vet can realistically do. We can't force people to put money aside for their pets - most people don't have enough money set aside for mortgage payments and food, if they lost their job tomorrow. That is a systemic problem, not one limited to pet care. That kind of reasoning also leads to the following statement: poor people should not be allowed to have pets. Is that what we want, ultimately? (And yet I've heard many vets voice that opinion...)

As the medical prognosis of the animal is unknown until diagnostics are done, euthanasia might turn out to be the only realistic option, in the end.

brebis noire May 6th, 2009 04:19:48 PM

When I was a child, we took in a stray mother cat and the last kitten in her litter from a friend.

On the first vet visit, the kitten was diagnosed with a heart murmur. (and here I must apologize, being a child at the time the details are fuzzy if I knew them at all). Being a very young kitten, it was uncertain whether she would grow out of the murmur and be normal, eventually need major surgery, or be incurable. This was obviously not what we signed up for, and I have a sneaky suspicion my mother may have leaned toward euthanasia rather than expensive treatment and diagnostics. Again, it was a very young kitten, and still essentially a stray that we had not bonded with.

One of the vet staff offered to take the kitten, since she had better access if significant treatment became necessary. I have always thought this was very kind of them.

However, in the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that even now part of my mind objects 'they cheated me out of my kitten!' A completely illogical response, given that it is not at all difficult to acquire young black and white kittens, but there nonetheless. (it may also come from being a child at the time, and thus not hearing the diagnosis or making the decision, finally, my mother did not get us another kitten, though they still have the mother cat, who is now rather on in her years). It was a fairly large practice we went to, and so with different people working different days, we never did find out how the kitten did.

So, I guess I can say that it's a very kind thing to do, but never an uncomplicated one.

puppynerd May 6th, 2009 04:27:44 PM

Brebis Noire, I didn't suggest that vets force people to put money aside for their pets.  What I meant is that cultural expectations in the society as a whole should change in the direction of responsibility towards pets as family members.  Euthanasia of a pet who can be saved for $2000 or $3000 should not be viewed as an acceptable option, ideally in an advanced, civilized society.  Affordable pet insurance could perhaps be developed by, or with the help, of the veterinary establishment to guard against such avoidable deaths.  People who cannot afford to properly care for pets should not have them.  Should they be allowed to?  That's a different issue.  My point is the changing societal attitudes with respect to pets.  I believe it is obvious that the attitudes are changing in favor of viewing pets as sentient beings (much to the chagrin of some), whose suffering is undesirable, and whose well-being is an intrinsic good for the society as a whole.  The more such a view takes hold, the more the issue of individual responsibility for pets and their health and well-being comes into focus.

Natalie Kramer May 6th, 2009 04:37:27 PM

These situations are one of the toughest aspects of veterinary medicine.  There's nothing worse than knowing you may be able to help a pet, but the owner can't afford the necessary care.  The clinic I used to run was fortunate to have a wealthy client contribute to our "Critter Fund" on a regular basis, but despite very generous contributions, there was just never enough for all the sad cases that inevitably come through clinic doors, no matter how affluent an area you practice in.

AAHA had a program to provide grants for pets in need of veterinary care who were either abandoned or whose owners were experiencing financial hardships. Sadly, the program has been temporarily suspended due to lack of funding - their funds are depleted due to the increased need for funds during this fiscal year. They hope to resume the program in July. For the veterinarians who read this blog who want to keep this program in the back of your minds for the future, here's the link:

 http://www.aahahelpingpets.org/

Ingrid King May 6th, 2009 04:43:49 PM

Natalie Kramer: "People who cannot afford to properly care for pets should not have them." Are you the one who knows exactly what "properly care for" means in every case? If not, who would you suggest as the authority who decides whether or not someone qualifies? At which practice's prices? Which newly- or soon-to-be-available, fabulously expensive procedures will you include in your definition of what MUST be done to constitute Proper care? And given that many animals live for a decade or two, how many people do you think can REALLY say for sure that, even if they can "afford" care to your satisfaction, that they'll be able to do so throughout the animal's life?

Judy May 6th, 2009 04:56:31 PM

Judy brings up: "Are you the one who knows exactly what "properly care for" means in every case? If not, who would you suggest as the authority who decides whether or not someone qualifies?"

My suggestion: If it was a child, or a grandparent - would you consider their level of care acceptable? Neglect? Yes, it's an animal, not a child, but owners are still responsible for it's health. If they cannot afford the healthcare, then they need to make the responsible and tough decision of what to do. Euthanasia? Surrender? Either way, they need to make sure they're not causng an animal to continue to suffer with their decision. We're hesitant to judge an owners situation, but we can agree an animal is suffering, then the owner's situation is causing the suffering regardless of whether the owner "fell on hard times" or ignored the need for a dental for 10 years.

Julie May 6th, 2009 05:05:01 PM

Dr. Khuly, I can't imagine being in that position on a weekly or whatever basis. And it has to be unbelievably stressful for both Drs. and staff to cope with this. Some probably become exceedingly compassionate & advocates (such as yourself with a growing household!) and some more than likely experience compassion fatigue that turns into (I hate people types) a huge negative. And I can understand it, having been there myself dealing with some unsavory not-so-nice Scottie relinquishers.

Fortunately, it was those adopters & foster care folks with generous pure hearts , that kept me believing in humanity. The dogs? They were number #1.

But a price tag? Well that does open a can of worms, too, doesn't it? There are people that can't afford $50 today, that may have taken care of a pet for years. There are people who will spend thousands & thousands, sacrificing everything, including their own well-being.

And even though I am sure you did not mean the words in this context, perhaps the client was trying in his own way to get to the point without burdensome financial outlay, by saying "my wife doesn’t want to pay any money if you can’t promise us he’ll get better.” In other words, please don't take us to the cleaners to find out it is a hopeless cause (can relate to that??!)

And I have a flip side recent story: a co-worker recently had her elder cat diagnosed as diabetic. The Vet, in frustration, with the thoughts of managing the case, bluntly told her to euthanize the cat. This person started crying in the office. Client wants to try and treat and is receiving discouragement, big time. I would be in a bunch over it too...cat is eating up a storm, but urinating incessantly. Story can be verified by Dolittler poster, helping this client secure good care ;)

And last but not least, IMO, I would never relinquish one of my pets to an "unknown" , not in my state. I shudder when I think back to two employee's stories (at Pocket's terrific place of non-care-death),  of relinquished "failed" surgical adopted pets. Too creepy for me. (Oh, btw, not at all claiming as typical circumstance, either!)

Barbara A. Albright/NH May 6th, 2009 05:39:30 PM

Ramen and Dr. K,

It is really good to know that those progams exist. 

Stefani May 6th, 2009 05:50:38 PM

Natalie Kramer - I think the $2-3,000 price tag you suggest does not allow for other circumstances.  And to suggests that because an owner can't afford a few thousand dollars is 'neglect' is outrageous.<p>

I have a megacolon cat who is currently 9 years old.  I have taken him for a consult with a specialist to find out the options after he had to endure several enemas in a row to get him going again.  <p>

The cat is now on different medication and a special diet and has been enema free for just over a year now.  He is not a candidate for surgery as long as his condition is medically manageable. <p>

However in my cat's case, when surgery be required at some point, the price was $3,000 (I'm sure it's went up since then) and he may have to endure living in my bathroom only for up to 6 weeks with  diarrhea, may never have totally normal stools, and there's no guarantee that the condition would not require more surgeries in the future. Aside from the cost alone, a cat living in a bathroom for up to 6 weeks doesn't sound like much of a life to me.  <p>

My cat's current medications and special food run me somewhere around $100-150 a month (this is not counting regular expenses of vaccinations, litter etc.), and he either has to come with me on trips, or has to have a pet sitter come in a few times a day so he doesn't miss a dose of medicine.  I go through great lengths to accomodate his condition, and fair expense to keep him healthy.   <p>

It's possible that his condition could be medically managed for several years or more and by that time he'd be 13 or more.  That's not a bad life span for a cat with a major medical problem.<p>

My cat can not be covered by insurance as it's a pre-existing condition, and the insurance packages I've looked at can consider something pre-existing if it was diagnosed in the previous calendar year even if already covered.<p>

I have a fund for minor ER situations of about $500, I have 7 cats total and 3 of them have medical problems that require medication daily.  I find a way to accomodate the cats into my budget as best as I can, but a $3,000 surgery is out of my range as there are other cats to care for.  <p>

By your standards; my megacolon cat regardless of age, possible outcomes of a surgery, cost of medically managing the disease in the meantime, putting an older animal through a surgery would mean I'm 'neglecting' my cat??  By your standards my going through hoops, and fair expense on an ongoing basis but would opt out of surgery means I'm not  part of a "advanced and civilized society"?  By your standards regardless that my cat would be well cared for until the condition caused him suffering and would then be humanly euthanized would be considered 'not properly cared for"?<p>

I don't think so!

cl May 6th, 2009 06:49:35 PM

Judy, I do not have guidelines, nor am I the one to whose "satisfaction" these guidelines should be drawn.  What I am suggesting is that people whose priorities are not in the right place should not have pets.  People whose priorities are in the right place usually (I did not say always, as you will probably be tempted to suggest) will find ways to save their pets from euthanasia in cases where money is the only issue (I have been in that situation), whether it's by rethinking their spending/earnings patterns, getting a second job, borrowing money to save their pet, etc.  When you ask the question such as "which...fabulously expensive procedures," it sounds as if you are either missing the point, or feel like having an argument for the sake of having an argument.  My statement was about existing procedures, the majority of which are within the $2000 range, sometimes less.  I have seen many cases, where the pet is surrendered or put down over sums like $600 or a little more.  The owners (Dr. Hobson has mentioned them too both in this string and sometime ago) are the types, who fail to secure steady jobs (some are high school dropouts) or take responsibility for themselves or their kids in any basic sense of the word.  Those are the ones, of whom I said that they should not have pets.  I did not mean people whose 12 year old dog needs $6000 worth of chemotherapy or a kidney transplant that might or might not prolong his/her life.   Who is going to be the authority deciding that? No one.  As I said before, my point is societal attitudes, although in some cases, as seen on the Animal Precinct, for example, neglectful pet owners are ordered by the judge to never own pets again.  So, as you can see the idea is not as far fetched as it appears to you.

Natalie Kramer May 6th, 2009 06:55:48 PM

cl, I did not say "regardless of age, possible outcomes of a surgery, cost of medically managing the disease..." (where did you see me say that?).  I was not even talking about people who make responsible decisions weighing costs and benefits of treatment.  I was responding to the topic of the post, and it is about people who either grossly neglect their pets (as in the topic of the string) or surrender their pets at the drop of a hat, such as in cases where most reasonable people, who have assumed responsibility for a pet, take it upon themselves to come up with the money, which in many cases is not even that much. 

Natalie Kramer May 6th, 2009 07:12:14 PM

We can all do what we can to help others afford critical care for their pets.  At our clinic, we have started a fund named after our deceased clinic cat, which is to be used for clients whose pets need life-saving care, but have fallen on hard times (a lot of that in Michigan right now!).  We have done fund-raisers, and many of our clients have made donations.  We also make a donation to the fund in honor of each patient that we euthanize.  Several times, clients whose pets were euthanized or died will send an additional donation once they recieve our sympathy card telling them about the donation we have made. 

We've been able to help several clients with this fund.  We do have high standards for use of the fund (must have been turned down by Care Credit, etc), and it has been a Godsend for some of our clients.

Sassy May 6th, 2009 07:53:33 PM

I've been incredibly poor a couple of times in my younger life.  I would have been grateful if I'd found myself in this type of situation to be given such a choice.  Dr. K, do you also offer the surrendering owner the opportunity of knowing the outcome (survived and placed or euthanized) or (and I know this one might not be feasible), if euthanasia becomes necessary, the option to attend?  (Just FYI, I'm not really thinking of the human's needs to be present so much as the comfort to the animal of having that long term person with whom they've had a relationship present for the animal's benefit.)

PJBoosinger May 6th, 2009 08:03:02 PM

Natalie, I do hear what you are saying. Several of the animals I had signed over to me by owner would otherwise have been euthanized due to relatively minor, inexpensive problems - a cat with an abscess, a dog with a wound requiring all of 8 sutures, a cat with fleas and a phobic owner!  We acquired one of our blood donor dogs for the clinic when the owner showed up at 2 AM with a sweet, well-trained 2 year old Lab, saying "this is the 2nd hematoma in 2 weeks - put him down". Maybe if she'd treated the ear infection as she was supposed to, the dog could have avoided all that. He did his stint as a donor and went to a client from one of the day practices who'd had to euth their 14-yr Lab.  However, there are still alot of formerly conscientious clients who simply are having a dreadful time staying afloat right now. Just because they can't afford expensive treatment right now doesn't make them bad owners.

Maria Shanley May 6th, 2009 08:22:08 PM

Sassy, off-topic — do you still want the name of the DVM in MI who did the presentation at my kennel-club on food, allergies and leaky-gut syndrome? 

Dr. K., is there any way for commenters to PM each other?

Deanna May 6th, 2009 08:37:25 PM

There ARE many organizations that provide funding for veterinary bills.  However, many face funding problems due to lack of donations, especially in this economic climate.

http://felineoutreach.org/Organizations.asp

$2000-$3000 can be an insurmountable amount of money for individuals, even the best and loving of caregivers. By setting those standards MANY folks would not be allowed to have pets.   Those on disability, social security, unemployment, the working poor etc shouldn't have animal companionship because of their inability to have a couple thousand dollars on hand for emergencies???  There are loving caregivers that can not afford above and beyond routine care, even "just" a few hundred dollars. For some, a few hundred dollars might as well be a million.

That attitude fuels the traditional sheltering paradigm that the poor and those deemed unworthy or "irresponsible" should not own pets.   Not all people without money to treat a sick pet just don't care or feel their pet is disposable.  Some have no other place to turn and don't know what else to do.  I have seen the desperation of caregivers needing help and feel if they can't get financial assistance they have no option but to euthanize their beloved pet. 

We need to move past the blame game and judgement and start supporting organizations that provide these safety nets for those at the end of their rope.

Heather May 6th, 2009 09:12:49 PM

Although I agree with Natalie that people should really consider finances before becoming pet owners, it's also true that since there "aren't enough homes for them all" sometime a home where the LOVING family may not be able to afford catastrophic veterinary expenses but can provide for the usual daily stuff and annuals is better than euthanasia at a young age in a shelter.

I think about how lucky I am now and how fortunate my cats are.   Yesterday, one of my cats had a dental (with pre-anesthetic blood panel, recommended fecal [?], monitoring, IV fluids during the entire anesthetic pe riod, licensed techs, one crown amputation plus the cleaning, and two calls from the vet to me during and after) at a cost of over $600.  (gulp).  I am very fortunate that at the current moment I can just turn that over, but if I got laid off within weeks, I could easily be in a more precarious position.

I think back to my early 20s, when I got Toonces.  I took him from my mom because he was so "wild" in the house (climbing curtains and playing the piano in the middle of the night) that she was going to force him to be an "indoor-outdoor" cat which means no sleeping indoors.  (She has evolved since then, but that's the way it was).  He was a few mos old.  We bonded immediately and I had images of him becoming road pizza like so many cats in my growing up years had when they were made "indoor-outdoor cats."

I took him to my little efficiency in my apartment building that technically didn't allow pets but management looked the other way.  I was flat broke all the time then.  Both our diets sucked -- meow mix for him, bagels and tomato soup for me.  (poverty food).   I feel so bad about having fed him that junk, I didn't know better then.  He didn't get fixed till after his first birthday because it took me that long to save up the money for it -- it was a time when I bounced a check on Dominoes just to eat at the end of the month.

If he'd had a medical emergency then, I don't know what I would have done.  No credit, nothing to sell.  No pets building, too. Surely, I would not have passed a shelter interview.

But the alternatives for him were ending up being picked up by animal control at a time when euth rates were even worse than now in a gas chamber state, or ending up road pizza.

Should I really not have taken him?

We were both lucky.  By the time he started having medical problems, I could afford pay.  But we were just lucky and young those first few years.  The same goes for me, actually. 

Stefani May 6th, 2009 09:15:27 PM

Stefani : I agree. It took me months to save up to buy my first Scottie. There was no such thing as quality food, super duper medical care, or any of what we have available now-a-days. And emergencies? Yes, "we" had a few, pulled out the Visa, but had to sacrifice elsewhere. Some families with children cannot do those sacrifices, they are already barely making it.

What about the nearly free companion obtained at the shelters, are they going through rigorous financial screening? I doubt it. I can honestly say, my personal screening as a rescue person, years ago,  involved weeding out those looking for a "cheap" dog. I was every bit as fussy with their future , and medical care BTW (while fostering), as I was with my own? Why? Because the goal was a permanent, loving, caring home---they had already been through enough trauma.

I think the point of the post is the disparity in society on how companions are viewed, though. And that is undeniable.

( not my house, wish:)

Barbara A. Albright/NH May 6th, 2009 10:02:22 PM

Yes, of course it's true -- societal attitudes are all over the place.  Some people still see their pets as "fine to have around as long as they remain convenient."  Others truly bond and elevate their pets to a status on a par with other family members.  I think we as a society are moving in the direction of more of the latter, but there are still vastly disparate attitudes. People who buy pets specifically to "go with the furniture" and then of course, declaw, debark, and give them up when the least little thing goes wrong. tssk tssk

Stefani May 6th, 2009 10:13:59 PM

I personally feel that euthanasia should always be an option for a pet that is suffering with an owner who can't or won't pay to treat, and I don't think owners should be made to feel ashamed about that decision.  I think a fundamental problem with pet ownership is not that poor people get pets...it's that poor people get pets but are then unable to suck it up and deal with the situation they've put themselves into.  If you are flat broke and you acquire a pet anyway (or have a pet and then become flat broke), and that pet ends up needing some serious medical care, you have three options: treat for X amount of money to hopefully alleviate suffering, humanely euthanize, or do nothing - in decreasing order for what's best for the pet.  It's the pet owner's responsibility to make that decision with advice from a veterinary professional.  I'm not saying it's an easy choice to decide to euthanize because you can't or aren't willing to shell out the cash for treatment, but it's a hell of a lot better than doing nothing, and nobody else has any business telling you what constitutes an "appropriate" amount of money.  Nobody likes seeing an animal euthanized when it may have recovered with treatment...but I'd rather have the owner elect humane euthanasia than take their suffering animal home or drag it from clinic to clinic, demanding charity or trying to make veterinary staff feel guilty for earning a living.  And it's not that I support convenience euthanasia (by any means)...just that some people's expectations for what constitutes "appropriate" veterinary care, especially as it relates to emergency medicine, are unrealistic and honestly, somewhat frivolous, in my opinion.  Animals are animals.  They experience pain, fear, hunger, and contentment.  We enjoy their companionship and in turn, strive to keep them content and comfortable.  If the most you can spend on your pet for treatment is $500 (or any other arbitrary amount), let the veterinary team know your limits, let them do the best they can for what you can afford to pay, and if not, do the right thing by your pet.  To me, that's part of what makes a good pet owner, not whether or not they're willing to max out their credit cards pursuing treatment.

anna May 6th, 2009 10:15:22 PM

What Anna said!

Cait May 6th, 2009 11:33:30 PM

I like to think that I know my cat.  We can afford to pay for special limited ingredient food and taking her to the vet.  We probably saved the life of our previous second cat (irreconcilable differences) by getting her UTI treated at the specialist emergency vet.  At the same time, I'd look at the decision about possible future expensive treatment vs. euthanasia in terms of Miss K's quality of life, the same as the previous poster who has the megacolon cat.  What suffering would a treatment put her through, and what probability is there of her having a good quality of life after that?  My cat is dainty, athletic, affectionate, and sweet.  I don't want her to suffer by my being selfish and wanting her to stay with me even though she isn't enjoying her life.  

We don't have this choice with humans that we love.  They are often forced to stay alive and suffer even though it's past the time they WANT to go.  From what I have seen, people can decide to either hang on a little longer or decide for themselves that it's time to go.

Miss Kitty's Mom May 7th, 2009 12:03:33 AM

Thank you for broaching this difficult topic. I'm a groomer, and I sometimes see examples of neglect in various stages. Trick is, when a person requests help from a groomer, they are TRYING...so for me to verbally, or even subliminally "slap them down"...well, I'm taking a teachable moment and destroying in.

I think animals are our teachers. I think this dog was sent to those people and those people were sent to you in order for you to write this post and for us to talk about it!

I too was offended by what seemed to me to be a crass statement of an arbitrary $23 - $3K measure of who is a "worthy" pet owner and who is not. I also know that $2K at one vet office won't even get me $500 worth of good medical help at another! I understand we all need to make a buck. But I volunteer to groom dogs for free at my vet's office because a lot of those dogs really need it and the owners can't afford it, and I would rather my vet invests her precious time and skills in diagnosing and treating. I'm pretty good at trimming nails, dematting, and cleaning ears, especially when the critter is napping!

There's always a whole lot more of the iceberg hidden under the water. By the time the pet owner gets to the clinic (or the shelter, or the grooming salon) there's a history and a pattern established. If we open our hearts and our souls to the creatures, can we also include the human creatures in this network?! They walked in the door for a reason, and sometimes, unbeknowst to all of us, THIS is a teachable moment. Compassion for all is in order. I think Dr. K has it, and so do many of the commentors...but we can all do better. Reading this blog helps me do that, so thanks to all of you.

LynnO May 7th, 2009 05:27:59 AM

My grandmother is a pensioner with three cats whom she adores.

If her cats were to get sick and there was a program to help her treat them, I would consider that nothing but worthy and kind. The benefits to her are immeasurable - having her pets gives her motivation to care for herself and maintain her independence.

Anyone who suggests that rather than build programs into society which help the disadvantage maintain their relationships with their pets, in favour of telling them to 'toughen up' and 'make the hard decisions because they're irresponsible in not having a nest egg for an emergency'; must be living a very charmed life indeed.

It's a very slippery slope to disadvantaged - you never know when you might find yourself in a similar situation due to physical illness, mental illness or age. We should all count our blessings should we be able to care for our pets.

savingpetsblog May 7th, 2009 08:35:53 AM

Barbara,

I cared for a diabetic cat for years.  I also helped care for three that my local shelter took in. I am near you geographically and if you need a referal for your friend for a vet who is very encouraging about the treatment of diabetic cats, or if she is interested in home testing, you can have her contact me.  She can reach me through my blog (just leave a comment) at http://www.kittyblog.net

Connie May 7th, 2009 09:50:17 AM

Back on track: there is a huge difference between honestly not having the funds to treat, and the story posted.

Who of us here would wait three months to bring a pet in?  wouldn't we have brought our pets in at the first sign of illness?  Heck, even if we thought it was nothing, but it went on for a few days to a week, who here wouldn't get it checked out?  Letting your pet go for three months then tying the vet's hands with "well it shouldn't cost us anything unless we can be sure of the outcome" is in and of itself neglect.  You can't be sure of ANY outcome.  I'm about to go in for surgery to pull a wisdom tooth, something that is very routine, and I was warned that death is one of the risk factors of having it done.

Not having the funds is not an excuse to let a pet suffer.  Those of us who care would beg borrow or sell of our stuff before we would let an animal get into that condition.  And as we all know, treating something early is a lot easier and has a higher chance of success.

and as for signing sick pets over, I think as anyone in the pet care field can attest to, sometimes you just have to go above and beyond to help your soul rest easier on those cases you can't do anything for.  Like the starfish on the beach story, sometimes just helping one makes all the difference

*btw, LOVE the new commenting format!

Connie May 7th, 2009 10:01:05 AM

Connie, I agree with you. Anna what you are saying is very strange. People shouldn't feel ashamed if unable OR UNWILLING to pay?  Are you saying that owners who choose to have a pet put down because they WON'T pay even if they can shouldn't be made to feel ashamed? As Connie said, we will beg, borrow or sell our stuff before we let our pets get into that condition. That goes for letting our pets be put down as well, if the condition is treatable. And Anna is saying it's OK to euthanize a pet even if we are able to pay? And she is a veterinary professional? Something is wrong with this picture. Anna, you seem more irritated with people who seek to find a charity or make you feel guilty for earning a living than with people who choose to euthanise their pet rather than max out their credit cards to save them.  That's outrageous! People who can save their pets but are too stingy to do that should not have pets.  

Allan Z. May 7th, 2009 11:03:33 AM

I can see some on here have either lead charmed lives or have way better crystal balls than I have.  No matter how much planning a person does, there's no way you can know what your financial situation will be 3, 5, 8, 12 years down the road after you've adopted a pet.  Hope those of you with the attitude never have to find out.

PJBoosinger May 7th, 2009 11:56:11 AM

Allan: I see where Anna's going with this--and I agree. If only people would make the responsible decision to euthanize when necessary we'd have a whole lot less animal suffering. I try to make owners aware that they need to think about making this decision if they don't have the economic resources and let them know that there's no shame in making end of life decisions on the basis of suffering alone.

As to people being unwilling to pay, I can envision some scenarios where owners have the money but don't value the life of an animal the same way you and I do. If they're honest with the situation and can arrive at a responsible decision based on this self-knowledge then who am I to interfere?--as long as minimizing/ending suffering is achieved--and I have the chance to step in and take the pet if they allow.

Dr. Patty Khuly May 7th, 2009 12:22:17 PM

An update on this patient: I'm about to scrub up for surgery to get something that looks like plastic or panty hose out of his stomach. Wish me luck. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 7th, 2009 12:23:00 PM

Good Luck Dr. K!!!!!

PJBoosinger May 7th, 2009 02:05:00 PM

It is a hard call. I'm a lawyer and many of my clients cry "poverty" after the work is done -- but they have more and nicer cars than I have, their kids go to private schools, they just came back from foreign travel, and I know what their salary is, and it's better than mine. If their expenses eat it up, it's because they are living beyond their budget. But they look at me and swear up and down that they just don't have it. Absolutely, especially these days, there are some people who really don't have it. But for every one of those, I'd bet there are two who just can't see spending that kind of money on a dog, or have spent it on other "stuff." Those people don't deserve the time of day. And yes, I know what hard times are -- I have had to pay vet bills when all I had was credit cards on which I juggled minimum payments. Some of those bills I'm still paying now, a decade later, having cashed out equity in my house to pay them off. I did what I had to do.

Susan Rosenau May 7th, 2009 02:11:24 PM

First, THANK YOU Dr. Khuly for following up on the real situation and keeping us all posted...good vibes headed your way for the surgery!

Connie said: "Who of us here would wait three months to bring a pet in? wouldn't we have brought our pets in at the first sign of illness?"

Yes, well, and if we could get every person who has a pet to read this blog, the world would be a much better place, right?!

We don't have fleas in Alaska, but my understanding is that lots of critters get them and have them. Allowing a "carpet of fleas" to happen is a clue. And the statement: "My wife says..." is a classic line as well. If you were to talk to the wife she would very likely say: "My husbands says..." and they will use each other as an alter-ego so that neither has to admit their own personal thoughts and/or ignorance.

Are these "Bad" people? Or are they just humans? We who read and post on blogs are often highly evolved technically and emotionally and the blogs we read and post on are the ones that help us get better emotionally as well as morally and ethically.

I can't tell you the number of people who say all the right things about loving their pet and spend money on toys and "stuff" for their pet, but bring their pet to the grooming salon with matts, sores, foul teeth and lousy training. Are they "Bad People?" No, they are human. If they bring their pet to me I have the opportunity to explain that matts can hide skin infections, that matts can pinch and hinder free range motion, that ear hair can cause infections, and that bad teeth can kill a small animal.

But if they're grousing at paying $50 to have their pet groomed, they're not going to want a basic blood panel when they take their dog in for a dental probably...right? So they won't TAKE their dog in for a dental. And they'll pay an extra $10 to have me brush the dog's teeth when I groom it (included in that $50 so they feel like they're getting a bargain!) And yes, I know I'm not fixing the problem...but marketing experts say it takes 15 - 30 reps for a message to sink in, so if we all keep talking eventually maybe they'll hear and maybe some vet somewhere will be willing to do a dental without fancy labwork or for a discount just because the critter really needs it?!

Some of these people, when push comes to shove, will simply abandon the animal. (That's a good thing, right?!) Others might could learn and have a series of small shifts in their attitudes and perceptions. Vets, groomers, and yes rescue and shelter workers have the best opportunity to help with this shift. The No Kill Movement is powered by us! But we're not going to get there by calling the average, or the slightly below-average pet caretaker "Bad"...which is how the sheltering industry got into such a mess in the first place.

Take care of your own as best you can. Have compassion for those who don't have your myopic vision. And share the joy and beauty as well as the blame. That's my prescription for treatment. What's the dog's name?!

LynnO May 7th, 2009 04:51:24 PM

Connie, Thank you! I will pass that along tomorrow...let's hope that her today's appointment met with a more positive attitude! She is an older, kind woman & just needs some basic guidance, like anyone does with a "new" issue. You are very kind.

And I agree with you & above posters, makes me feel good! Allan, I don't think anna meant it exactly the way you are taking it. For example, long ways back we talked about a man with a pet goose being treated at Tuft's University to the tune of $20,000+. Most of us would find that absurd. Not because we wouldn't value our pet, but because a.) there is no protocol for cancer in the avian species b.) I would think the goose would be nothing less than terrified or in pain (bone cancer in leg) c.) prolonging what life for what quality?

And agreed with the above posters, all of us readers here are not the ave. pet owners that need some of the basics in education, I know---I was one! Often still am!

It was NOT uncommon, for terminal Scotties to be given to the rescue program; the owner was often unwilling to treat or humanely euthanize. We didn't refuse them, because they most certainly do deserve whatever compassion & care is required. Even if that is cleaning them up & making them comfortable, treating symptoms and hospice foster care and ultimately euthanasia...better than banished to the backyard or worse! But stressful & sad for the foster home.

Barb A./NH May 7th, 2009 06:46:07 PM

Considering the fact that so many animals live for so long with only basic vet care (spay/neuter, hw prev for dogs, vaccines) saying that anyone who has a "pet" should have 3K around for emergencies is a bit off base, in my opinion. Emergencies happen, but not to everyone. And often we get animals while we are more financially able and then things change and we aren't able to do what we could before.

While I'm fairly sure anyone who bothers to read this awesome blog would NOT let a problem linger for three months before trying to do something about it, I also know that I don't have access to $3000 right now if we had an emergency that would dictate it and in that case I might have to titlepawn my car. I also don't know that I would, though. Because I have 4 dogs, for instance, if I choose an expensive surgery to save my animal's live (and how I pray I'm never in that position) I could very well be taking food out of the mouths of the other three. 

It's sort of the concept to me that I know if I had ONE dog, I could do virtually anything for that dog. That ONE dog would have an AWESOME life and more attention than s/he could stand. But as things worked out, we have 4. (Not on purpose, and I tried to place two to no avail.) And so I have 4 dogs that a PRETTY GOOD life. Not AWESOME, but surely not terrible. (Does the analogy make any sense?)

Once upon a time, when I was in rescue, I took in a cat the owner was going to euthanize for a regular old UTI. Said cat came home with me, got her clavamox, got better, and got a forever home. Things like that are the most RIDICULOUS things to PTS for, in my opinion. They didn't have the money (supposedly) to treat the UTI but were more than willing to pay for a Felv/FIV test and rabies/distemper vaccines. Go figure.

My thought is...in the end, if the situation dictates and allows for a clinic to take ownership of the animal and fix it, or at least try to, and that is that animal's only hope, then we should all be thankful there are vets out there who are willing to do so. Good luck, Dr. K!

Brooke May 7th, 2009 08:05:32 PM

Re, Lynn: "I can't tell you the number of people who say all the right things about loving their pet and spend money on toys and "stuff" for their pet, but bring their pet to the grooming salon with matts, sores, foul teeth and lousy training. Are they "Bad People?"

From watching Animal Precinct and Animal Cops (which I no longer do . . . ), I came to the conclusion that many of hte people who have let their pets get in such bad condition -- maybe even worse than what you see, like the dogs whose coat is one big matt -- have mental illness. 

Stefani May 7th, 2009 09:02:01 PM

I'm eager to hear how surgery went!

Our hospital has set up an "Angel Fund" for exactly this type of situation. However, there are a lot of "strings attached" that limit our ability to use this on just any animal that walks in our hospital. Most restrictive is that it has to be a current client who is requesting help--can't be someone who just walked in for the first time. You might be surprised to hear we RARELY use this fund, probably because hardly anyone qualifies. We have thousands of dollars set aside and it is sometimes frustrating for our staff that we don't use it more frequently. 

I think very highly of the AAHA Helping Pets Fund, and our hospital routinely makes memorial donations to it. Sadly, as another poster mentioned, it has suspended awarding of grants for the time being. I hope they can resume assisting pets soon. They helped save one of my patients, a young boxer who had swallowed a corn cob.

JCB May 7th, 2009 10:08:00 PM

Susan, those are lovely clients, aren't they?  No wonder so many lawyers take credit cards these days!  Was watching someone expounding on how the current financial debacle will change the way people view money for generations to come; that they'll be "more responsible".  I hope that includes serious downsizing and when they cry poor it's because they really are and I'm not looking at their shiny new BMW sitting next to my 99 truck while they're telling how bad off they are.

PJBoosinger May 7th, 2009 10:15:50 PM

Surgery went well. Just finished going back to the hospital to check up on him. He's pretty comfortable. I removed about 30 pieces of a nylabone from his stomach, intestines and colon (I did extensive intra-op enemas to milk out the stash of small, compacted bits of material inside his large intestine, which I couldn't reach on my pre-op rectal). 

Though I don;t normally go in for more than one procedure at a time, I also removed several teeth and neutered him. 

For pain relief, he's got a fentanyl patch, NSAIDS, and buprenorphine (another opiate) every four hours. I employed local anesthesia on all his incisions and for his dental work. 

As I said, he looks great. Hungry, even, only 8 hours post-op. What more can you ask for?

Dr. Patty Khuly May 7th, 2009 10:36:08 PM

Stef, I agree, sometimes it is really "true" ignorance, rather than neglect. In the 70's & 80's, you never heard a Vet even mention dentals or brushing teeth! So many things, just weren't even suggested OR discussed. A diabetic cat or dog with renal failure was automatically euthanized---no ifs or buts! Cancer treatments? Absolutely unheard of.

Hospice for humans wasn't even a regular thing! Fear of "overdosing a dying patient" with pain-relievers was an issue!

PJB: Don't get me started on that....I think the attitude of the 90's and up, is abhorrent. (ok, not speaking about "everybody"!) When I think of how hard I was willing to work, in my youth, & still do, it bugs me to no end, to see some of the unreasonable expectations and parental "give-ins" to the youth of today. And when I say this, I immediately relate to my parent's talking about walking 2 miles to school & how easy "we kids" have it....!

Barb A./NH May 7th, 2009 10:41:40 PM

That is AWESOME news about his surgical outcome. 

Stefani May 7th, 2009 11:05:53 PM

Deanna - YES! email me at nutrition@stateroadah.com  Thanks!

Sassy May 7th, 2009 11:06:07 PM

Re:

Natalie -- "People whose priorities are in the right place usually (I did not say always, as you will probably be tempted to suggest) will find ways to save their pets from euthanasiain cases wheremoney is the only issue" . . .

Yes, I agree.  We would all like to see FEWER of those people in our society who would rather euthanize a pet for a treatable condition than part with the money they have, or access money that might take some effort. 

I disagree that those people shouldn't be made to feel guilty or innapropriate for their choice. 

Vets are very influential in indicating to their human clients what is, and is not, appropriate behavior vis a vis responsibility for pets.  If a vet doesn't blink an eyelash when a client with means -- or access to means -- chooses to euthanize rather than treat, then that vet is missing an opportunity to influence our cultural values in an important way (oh, not to mention, missin the opportunity to save a life!)  Likewise, I believe that we who believe that pets should be treated as a priority (over things), have a responsibility to send a strong signal that that behavior is NOT culturally acceptable.

Our culture is evolving with respect to how companion animals are treated.  Every day we have an opportunity to influence that evolution.  If we act like there is nothing WRONG with choosing to hold onto your money (for the next purchase) rather than spend it on needed health care for the companion animal that shares your life and has a treatable condition . . . if we act like it's OK just to end their lives instead . . .  then we are basically encouraging and perpetuating that deplorable behavior.  

It's not OK.  It's not OK to CHOOSE not to provide needed care for your pet.  Those individuals who will not part with money to pay for a pet's treatable condition SHOULD be made to feel guilty, both by vets AND by we who would like to see animals treated better. 

It's about signaling what is acceptable behavior and what is not. 

(I'm not talking about truly indigent persons with NO means, and I am also not talking about spending your last dime to extend the life of a pet with a terminal illness for a short time.  I am talking about pets with treatable or curable conditions -- like this dog -- and people who either HAVE the money or COULD GET the money if they really wanted to and made their pets a priority).

Stefani May 7th, 2009 11:19:34 PM

Fantastic news Dr. K!!!!

Umm, we love nylabones here but it's been quite a while since I researched them.  Couldn't help noticing the ref to nylabones.  Is there something I should know?

PJBoosinger May 7th, 2009 11:41:42 PM

Barbara, Stop.  Or we'll both be really rocking and rolling totally off topic.  LOL.  Don't know about you but I'm morphing into my mother in more ways than I want to admit!

PJBoosinger May 7th, 2009 11:44:12 PM

Another thing to consider when thinking about a sign-over is the post sign-over actions of the owner.  I have a dog from a sign-over.  Dog had a foreign-body that would have killed him if we had let the owner take him home as she wanted.  We tried to convince the owner that if she could not do surgery she should euthanize because the death would be prolonged and agonizing.  When it was clear that the owner was intent on taking the dog home to a painful and certain death, we offered surrender as an option.  The clinic received phone calls and demands from the owner for many months and it was a serious problem.  I'm not exactly sure how we could have avoided this or dealt with it better in the beginning, but it is definitely something that I won't forget when I become a veterinarian and am dealing with a similar situation. 

Ingrid May 8th, 2009 06:48:41 AM

Let me be clear on the Nylabone. I can't be sure of the brand, but all the pieces looked like that very hard, very rubbery sort of Nylabone stuff. I've never heard of a dog breaking a Nylabone so it's quite probable this wasn't a chew toy of that brand. It might even be some sort of kids' toy. Sorry Nylabone. Didn't mean to call you out.

Dr. Patty Khuly May 8th, 2009 07:58:13 AM

Thanks Dr. K.  In our experience, they haven't broken the Nylabones but they can chew off tiny bits if they have one long enough or if a dog has one that is too small for them.  With a Shiba and an oversized Lab, we use two very different sizes and I pick them up when not "in use".  When they're chewed to the point of having edges that could be chewed off, I toss them out - pretty sure that must have been in the package insert.  With us getting ready to move and remodel, I'm going to be buying a new pile of them.  My girls don't chew much any more but better safe than sorry with new baseboards, etc. :)

We all DO need to watch the tiny bits and parts that can end up in throats and tummies though :(

PJBoosinger May 8th, 2009 11:52:18 AM

I thought buprenorphine had some antagonistic effect on the fentanyl? Could be wrong.

JCB May 8th, 2009 02:27:57 PM

JCB: You're right. But because I decided to implement the patch only a couple of hours before surgery (normally I apply it the night before surgery), it wasn't gong to be doing much for a few hours, anyway. Needed something immediate and buprenex and nerve blocks are good for this kind of surgery, IMO. I had some hydromorphone just in case of heavier post-op pain but this patient didn't seem to need it. 

Dr. Patty Khuly May 9th, 2009 06:59:19 AM

So glad the surgery was a success and I hope the patient improves steadily! Looking forward to an update. Perhaps a post for another day: CRI's? 

JCB May 9th, 2009 09:36:57 PM

JCB: Thought I'd brush up on my pharmacology a tad on the Fentanyl/Buprenorphine issue...since you brought it up:

Both kappa and mu receptors are addressed when we use fentanyl or buprenorphine. The kappa receptor is the one we have to worry about being only slightly out-maneuvered when using the two together. That's what you remembered and I've always heard. But I checked my current pain relief resources and it doesn't look as if it's considered a big deal any longer. That's because its only a slight change and only to the one receptor. Because the unaffected mu receptor is considered far more crucial to modulating pain anyway, there shouldn't be much of an issue with using the two together--in theory--not with respect to the antagonization of one's effect by the other, anyway.

Dr. Patty Khuly May 10th, 2009 07:14:43 PM

Dr. K--

I know of Scotties who have died after ingesting pieces of Nylabones. These dogs may be small, but they have very, very large teeth. A determined Scot can indeed crack sizeable pieces off of these "chew toys."

Lisa in Cape May County, NJ May 11th, 2009 05:50:38 PM

Whoa.  What's with all the weird Arabic (?) links as "comments" to several blog posts?

elliemae May 13th, 2009 11:42:33 AM

I've been reading thru all of your posts and I'm glad to see these issues discussed.  However, I came across this blog while searching for assistanct programs and other alternatives for the well being of my sick pet.

We have two dogs; Tink is a toy silky fox terrier, and Hunter is a miniature silky fox terrier.  Both were rescued dogs.  We had rescued them from private owners.  Tink had been a stray and Hunter had been an elderly woman's pet before she passed away.  The daughter of the woman relinquished Hunter to the vet as the vet assistant had offered to take him in the hopes of finding him an exceptional owner.  We adopted him from this vet assistant.

When we adopted the animals I was offered discounted vet insurance thru my work (one of the many company/client discount arrangements made for employees of either companies) and of course had inssurance as well as saving in case of emergencies. 

Both dogs have ben in perfect health, UTD on shots, micro ships, exceptional members to dog parks; the works!  I have an everlasting love for my babies... because that's what they are to me; my children.  They make our family what it is to us.  They have individual personalities and needs and I'm so grateful for them.

In December of 2008, I and my fiance lost our jobs due to company layoffs.  Most of our savings have gone towards moving closer to family so we can get assistance until we find new jobs.  I had to cancel the pet insurance, along with a lot of other bills in order to make due. 

Less then a month ago it was yearly vet checkup date, so I asked all of my family where to take our pets to the vet to be checked out and I made the apppointment.  About a month before this I noticed a small lump under Tinks lower abdomen while I was bathing her for her monthly bath.  At first it looked like a small skin lump which is, as I'm sure you would all know, is very common in any mid-aged (2+) dog.  However, I made sure to watch it and research online on what it might possibly be.  The lump turned into a growth very quickly and I made the appointment before our actually yearly checkup date should have been for as I was of course concerned for her well being.

As soon as the vet checked her out he said exactly what I dreaded to hear but someone expected after researching online and seeing pictures and information; Breast Cancer, or Mammary Tumor.  And yes, Tink is an intact female of unknown age.  She was in pretty bad shape when we first got her, and the owners before us who actually were the individuals who found her said she was worse off when they first found her hidding in bushes along their road.  In the first few months we had with her she showed many signs of prior abuse from previous owners.  We worked to build her confidence and she's just my little 6.5lbs of Sunshine now (or Tink The Wonder Dog, whichever you prefer).  She doesn't seem to be in any pain, and although we can't really afford to pay for her proceedures right now, there's NO WAY I would even begin to consider euthanasing her. 

I have, however, been considering the painful thought of relinquishing her.  Even though I think the confusion that would come to this little girl would be traumatising (as it has taken so much time and work to gain trust and understanding with her), I just can't help but feeling so guilty and ashamed that I can't provide these proceedures for her. 

Because I am a new customer with the vet, they are unilling to arrange for payment plans.  This vet, nor any others that I can find in my area accept CareCredit (which I doubt I would currently qualify for anyways), and I'm currently on a waiting list to see if I get approval through The Pet Fund (but it's unlikely as they can only accept so many, and understandably).  Are there no other programs out there?  And if not, should I keep saving up as I wait to see if I am approved through The Pet Fund?  Over all, the proceedures shouldn't cost more then $800-900 (which might not seem like much, but for those who have less fortune... well, you know.) And this would include bloodwork, x-rays, removal and testing of the tumor, and for spaying.  The vet said that we should take care of it in at least a month's time spand and we have really been trying to spread our money as thin as possible in the mean time.  If we make it in that time, Great!  But regardless, it just makes me think about future situations, and if it is cancer the tumors could come back... then what?

I just can't help feeling so helpless and ashamed that I can't provide for her in this time of immediate need and attention.  It makes me think that maybe I should reliquish her to a none euthanasing clinic/animal shelter.  Any suggestions?  Please don't respond in hateful messages bashing me and stating I'm an unfit owner.  When I adopted these pets I and my fiance were secure and had planned out our adoptions for months beforehand.  We researched breeds to make sure we had had a lifetime home for our lifetime pets and discussed possible illnesses associated with different breeds.  We didn't even know Tink wasn't spayed untill her first Vet visit less than a year ago.  Things have been so crazy we hadn't gotten around to spaying her, nor did we know the possible illnesses associated with non-spayed females. (something I tend I spread the word around about; you always see postings for spaying animals as population control, or so the animal doesn't get out and get hurt or lost, etc., but you never hear about the possiblities of mammory tumors.)

Heartbroken May 19th, 2009 11:10:19 AM

دردشة

منتديات

يوتيوب

erer June 26th, 2009 12:36:51 PM

A week a ago my beloved 5 year old male cat became ill.  Up until that day I'd never had any problems with him.  Early in the afternoon I noticed he wasn't himself.  He seemed uncomfortable, and had thrown up once.  I had scooped the litter box (as I do every morning) and everything seem normal there.  I kept a close eye on him all afternoon .  Initially I thought maybe its the heat (weather changed overnight) or he ate something he shouldn't have.   It was also a Sunday, as he was my first pet and never sickly I didn't realize I had the option to take him that day   Of course now I feel horrible not looking into it further.  As he got worse during  the night, not eating or drinking, not using the litter box and became lethargic I became very worried and tried to look up his symptons online.   Not knowing what I was looking for only upset me more, I was torn and unsure what to do.  I took him  to the vet first thing in the morning.

After the initial exams and xrays the vet said he had FLUTD with obstruction (not a urinary tract infection).  Bloodwork confirmed this, thru our discussion he thought it started sometime Sat. nite.  Initially he did a catheterization and couldn't get past a certain point, something was there he didn't see in the xray.  As the day progressed things got worse.  The next step I believe was the P. U. operation.  I was hysterical during this whole process and not understanding most of what was going on.  As the economy is so bad and my job not secure my funds were limited.  I was approved for care credit and my sister was willing to help.  As he took a turn for the worse I had to transfer him to an emergancy pet hospital.  When the vet there examined him, his tempature had dropped and fluid was leaking into his stomach, they thought probably urine.  Adding yet 2 more procedures to the process. (more if things didn't go well)  Sadley the costs were adding up to a point that was beyond my reach.  The vets trying to help me and see what they could do.  The details are alittle fuzzy because I was so distrought (and dealing with this on my own), but it was evident he was suffering and would suffer a great deal more.  The costs were well above $6,000 at this point sadley I had only access to $4000.  Sobbing uncontrollably I made the decision to euthanize.  The vet was very sympathetic and said that I was making the right decision.  Family and most firends have been very supportive.  I still question my decision because I loved him dearly.  He was my baby.  I blame myself because I did not see all of the signs, and waited till the next morning to take him.   I queston that in the future do I have the right to take in another pet.  In looking for the answers to these questions I found these blogs. 

Initially I thought "oh my god" I am a horrible person, the vets hate people like me etc.  As I continued to read I realize I was nothing like the woman who waited 3 months to see a vet.  I am shocked that people like that exist.  I still question my decision, as I am still greiving his loss deeply.  So I wonder with the economy so bad what people like myself or in worse financial situations are to do, when a pet we have loved needs more then we can provide?  what can we do to help when animal shelters are overcrowded and animals put down because of it.  I drive a car that is 8 years old, I bring my lunch to work I find ways to cut back everyday, and still a situation came up I couldn't avoid.

distrought July 5th, 2009 02:48:48 PM

The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .

GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:36:31 AM

Thanks for your sharing.This is a good access to Amercrombie and Fitch

Abercrombie and Fitch September 16th, 2009 04:36:11 AM

Very useful information dokter. Iklan Baris Gratis | Situs Murah | Khairuddin | Blogger Gurem | Mengembalikan jati diri bangsa

khay September 27th, 2009 03:00:12 AM

Blu ray Ripper

brt October 5th, 2009 08:08:40 AM

Fear not that the chi flat iron life shall come to an end, but rather fear that it shall never have a ghd iv dark styler beginning. ghd iv kiss styler it is while you are patiently toiling at the little tasks of ghd hair iron life that the meaning and shape of great whole ghd mk4 iron of life dawn on you.  http://www.ghdhairon.com/

GHD Hair Iron October 5th, 2009 01:09:04 PM

Nothing is more fatal to cheap timberland boots happiness than the remembrance of timberland boots uk happiness.We have no more right to consume timberland classic happiness without producing timberland men's 6 inch it than to consume wealth without sale timberland producing it. http://www.timberlander.com/

timberlandboots October 6th, 2009 11:35:36 AM

ugg boots (sometimes referred to as uggs or ug boots) are a style of sheepskin boot, with wool as the inner lining and a tanned outer surface worn by both men and women.ugg boots uk often have a synthetic sole, although this is not universal. Uggs have been identified as a fashion trend for men and women since the early 2000s. In late 2008, classic ugg boots grew again in popularity with men as male celebrities were seen in them. nike dunks ghd Hair Straighteners dunks sb ghd straighteners nike dunk sb

ugg boots October 28th, 2009 10:59:43 PM

Classic Tall UGG Boots are cosy and soft wear.No matter how you wear UGG Classic Tall Boots,you'll always look classic.Enjoy 50-70% off.Free shipping[link=http://www.uggmart.com]ugg boots[/link]

ugg October 28th, 2009 11:01:37 PM

ed hardy jeans

edhardy October 28th, 2009 11:37:31 PM

The ugg knightsbridge world is a comedy to those who thinks, a tragedy to those ugg classic cardy who feels.Look not mournfully into the ugg boots past, it comes not back again. Wisely improve the present, it is ugg lo pro button thine. Go forth to meet the shadowy future, without fear, and with a manly ugg bailey button heart. http://www.ugg2you.com/specials.html

Ugg Boots October 29th, 2009 10:09:42 PM

However mean your life is, tiffany jewelry meet it and live it do not shun it and call it hard discount tiffany jewelry unt tiffany jewelry It is not so bad as you are.It looks poorest when you are richest.

tiffany jewelry November 12th, 2009 07:35:09 PM

For Christmas Day is coming,many people have done for the Christmas gifts are carefully selected for the preparation,I tell you ,selecting chrismas gifts unavoidable to choose cheap wholesale cloting,mac cosmetics,cheap gucci shoes,superp90xetc,welcome order here and enjoy yourself.

Goodluck November 19th, 2009 04:11:47 PM