Morals of paying to save your pet's life

Another thought Earl that my vet spoke with me about when my kitty had a tumor. I had an option to spend lots of money trying to save it. He would be able to bring in a specialist and then I would have to give chemo shots, etc and expensive surgery bills. She still may not survive. Or I could make my kitty as comfortable as possible until the pain became too much and put her to sleep and use my money to raise another healthy homeless kitty that could be put to sleep because it is unwanted.

Which of those choices is morally correct?

I opened up this thread thinking, "I know what my view is on this - I sahouldn't pay to save my pet's life."

But I've forgotten why

Why should it matter if it's morally acceptable? If you love your pet and spending large amounts of money will save its life, then do it. Do people walk around feeling immensely guilty for buying expensive cars when the money could be used to save lives in Third World countries? I don't think so. And neither should they. I have spent thousands over the years on vets bills for my animals, and the only thing I'm sorry about is that it hasn't always resulted in their lives being saved.

Hell yeah!!! A pet is one of the family, at least in my house.

I can't stand seeing anything suffer. I can't even kill the spiders I despise. They are still living creatures.

I can freely kill mosquitos and ticks with relish (and intestinal parasites). That's it, I can't kill spiders, I can't kill ants, I can't kill slugs that eat my garden plants. And, unfortunately, I can't even kill warm-bloods who are sufering. If I accidentaly hit a deer with my car and it didn't die, I would not be able to kill it to put it out of it's suffering. I'm weak like that.

So, as far as vet bills go.... I am one of those people who have spent thousands of dollars (10-15,000 in the last 6 years) on my pets. One cat died after spending $3k on her. One diabetic cat is still going. And, one dog who is in her final decline and who I am medicating for her comfort.

Would I be able to put the money to better use? Perhaps on a global-scale, yes. But, I believe I am becoming a better person for the inspiration I dredge from my depths to be a more caring person. And for the love my pets give me.

So, is the world a better place if I feed 10,000 kids lunch or if I am ultimately a better, more caring person? Probably the former. I do know that once this little twerps of mine are dead and gone, I'll know just how much of my money I can give away every month.

It's a tough question. It depends. When my pet had some sort of disease, and I could keep him alive with all sorts of medicines, but this would mean he would suffer from pain the rest of his life, I would put him to sleep. I think that would be the better option, especially for my pet. It also depends - sorry to say this - but what sort of pet it is. When I was young, we used to have guinea pigs and rabbits. I know that at least one of my guinea pigs got cancer, and we put him to sleep because the bills would be very high (and besides that, they could not assure us whether he would survive operation). We weren't that emotionally attached to these pets. However, now we have a dog, I know for sure we would spend a lot of money on him if something happened to him, also because he's more part of the family than our previous pets were.

I have spent a very useful amount of money on my cat, but fortunately he's healthy. However, were it necessary, I would spend a lot more to keep him healthy, both because I love him, and because it's my responsibility as his owner. Beyond that, the moral implications don't impress me.

The question I wanted to ask was perhaps not clear enough.

My point was: Is your pets life as valuable as that of a human you do not know?
That is what I meant with "The pets rights reason".

The reasons you've given - as far as I can tell - all fall under "The selfish reason" as I define it. Now, I do not think the selfish reason for trying to save your pet is morally wrong. In fact I support it. I have no problem with people buying things to increase the quality of their lives and I think giving veterinarian care for your pet falls in that category.

However, the opinion that having a pet means you are responsible to save it's life if you can, gives the question a new ethical dimension. In this case the reason you save the pets life is not primarily because you love it or that you would miss it but because the pet has an inherent right to be saved. Of course you still love your pet, but that's not the point in that case.

My reason for posting this topic is because I've heard several pet owners say things like "People who are prepared to put their pets to sleep rather than pay a heavy veterinarian bill to save it's life should not be allowed to have pets."

I don't believe you - you're like the humanist in 'Nausea,' you don't really love every living creature on earth, how can you?!

Anything is possible!

How do we define a "pet" when talking about "pet's rights"? Net thing you know, we might be expected to shell out money to prevent people from killing our bedbugs.....

I have spent very large sums of money to keep my pets as healthy as possible--far more than I have contributed to charity. I do it because I love my pets, I value their lives, and I consider those lives to be as important as the lives of any human friends I have.
To the extent that any love is selfish, then my actions and motives regarding my pets were selfish. But I have also deprived myself of many things because of the money I spent on veterinary care. I have often put my pet's wellbeing or needs above my own needs. I do that out of love too.

I don't know that I believe in "animal rights" but I do believe in a pet owner's obligations. Not everyone needs to shell out huge sums to try to save a pet's life, but all owners should feel obligated to provide their pets with necessary routine health care and treatment for routine types of health problems. Unfortunately, I know a great many people who don't give their pets even that much.

Owning a pet, particularly a dog or a cat, is not an inexpensive proposition. People should consider whether they can afford to properly care for an animal before they take it into their home. If you won't be able to afford things like needed x-rays, or blood tests, or medications, or routine dental care, or necessary immunizations, etc. you probably shouldn't get a dog or cat. Love is not enough. You have to be able to give the animal basic care--not because of some vague notion of "animal rights", but because the animal is dependent on you to do those things for them. In return for whatever your pet gives to you, you should feel obligated to give that pet care.

I don't feel in the least guilty that my pets eat better than children in many parts of the world, although my heart might ache for those children. No matter how many charitable contributions I might make, I am not going to end world hunger. But I do live with the satisfaction of knowing that I care as well as I can for my pets, and I thereby enrich the lives of those loving and devoted animals. They would probably love me even if I didn't care for them that well, but I love myself more because I do.
My love does not mean less because it is directed at a pet and not another human, and their love is not less important to me because it does not come from another human. This special bond goes beyond any concept of "owner obligation" or "animal rights". When you love, you aren't motivated by "moral obligations", you are genuinely concerned about the welfare of the other.

My pets have made me a better human being. They have made me less selfish. If other people think it is wrong to spend large sums on a pet for health care, while anonymous humans remain in need, they are entitled to their opinion. It is my money and I spend it as I wish. I give to charity out of moral obligation. I give to my pets out of love.

My biggest fear: turning out to be one of those cat woman with no husband, no family, just a house full of cats. I just thought i'd add that in here...lol

I would spend any amount I could afford to save my pets ... they are our family and we love them as one of our own.

If I didn't have the money, then I would want to keep the pet comfortable and free from pain.

agrote - No, I do not love spiders. I said I despise them, but I still wouldn't want to see them suffer. I would feel bad if I accidently stepped on one.

Ah.

On Pacco, how can I tell you all how I love him. But he will have a time when he is failing, perhaps before when I am, and I will make a cut, as they used to say in film editing, which my father did for a living.

I have experienced an animal I've loved staying past comfort stage.. into that ethereal place where they are clearly dying but still connecting with you.

I hope that I can make a decision earlier for Pacco. I don't think kidney failure, etc., is all so peaceful.

I don't know the answer re just the right time, re the illumined life of the animal and the pain from oncoming death.

I would like to be able to choose "before" for my animals.

but then, this all brings up that in real life, a cat in space will find kidney failure a thwack, goodby.

I guess I am not into prolongation, least of all for my own comfort.

Figuring out what is for my comfort or the animal's is the problemo.

Squinney, I'm with yah! I don't believe in any form of cruely/killing in any animal ... and our pets know it too!

How could anybody harm/hurt an ant/animal or otherwise defenseless creature?

My thoughts exactly.

My pets are part of the family and I can't put a value on them.