My Dog Is Sick: Need Advice

[The Ween]

Help with bills:

https://www.ehow.com/list_6816219_foundations-people-animal-medical-bills.html

https://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/financial-help-vet-bills.html

https://www.associatedcontent.com/article/173003/what_to_do_when_you_cant_afford_medical.html?cat=17

 

[wofford29]

If it comes to surgery and you can't afford it, please don't put your dog down. Check out this link if it comes to that and set up something with them to drop your dog off. They are up there around you as well.

https://www.bestfriends.org/

 

[mr.thrifty]

Time for a trade in...

Sorry, but I won't spend a load of $$ on a "pet" to keep it going. a couple Hundred is fine..... but more then that is.....

I saw a commercial today that used the term "pet parent" ....

Don't get me wrong.. I like my cat.... but I won't be crushed or feel guilty if she's not around / put down...

 

[Boba Ben]

He's only 18 months. I'd say his life is worth saving even if it means giving him up to an organization that will pay for the surgery and adopt him out to another family.

 

[hoodonit00]

Don't know if this has been posted yet but may be a bloat. Get to Dr. ASAP as this will kill your dog if untreated.

 

[BadMoon]

Time for a trade in...

Sorry, but I won't spend a load of $$ on a "pet" to keep it going. a couple Hundred is fine..... but more then that is.....

I saw a commercial today that used the term "pet parent" ....

Don't get me wrong.. I like my cat.... but I won't be crushed or feel guilty if she's not around / put down...

Frankly people like that make me sick. When YOU decide to purchse a pet YOU are responsible for it. Bottom line.

 

[devilof76]

What about people who take in strays?

 

[BadMoon]

What about people who take in strays?

I see no difference. If you take it in you are assuming responsibilty. If you aren't prepared to deal with said stray then leave it alone and up to nature.

 

[devilof76]

I don't entirely see the difference. If you do the most you can for an animal, to the extent of your own very real limits of time, energy and money, you have already given them more than nature would have in the same situation. You can't expect a person to do more than they are capable of for the sake of a being that depends on that person for everything beyond what they themselves are naturally capable of. Having more power to effect change does not obligate you to those who have less.

 

[ProgMatinee]

I don't entirely see the difference. If you do the most you can for an animal, to the extent of your own very real limits of time, energy and money, you have already given them more than nature would have in the same situation. You can't expect a person to do more than they are capable of for the sake of a being that depends on that person for everything beyond what they themselves are naturally capable of. Having more power to effect change does not obligate you to those who have less.

quoted for truth. i do agree with others, though, if another person is willing and able to take on the burden of the surgery, then you may as well pass the animal to them.

 

[devilof76]

Agreed. It would be straight up bizarre to let anything die if there was any chance for it to live.

Except mosquitos. And houseflies. Poster children for extinction right there...

 

[BadMoon]

I don't entirely see the difference. If you do the most you can for an animal, to the extent of your own very real limits of time, energy and money, you have already given them more than nature would have in the same situation. You can't expect a person to do more than they are capable of for the sake of a being that depends on that person for everything beyond what they themselves are naturally capable of. Having more power to effect change does not obligate you to those who have less.

That's not the point. I actually agree with what you are saying. I don't expect people to do more then they are capable of. I'm saying that if they are incapable of affording a surgery or what not to the extent that they would just put the animal down in lieu of said surgery then they shouldn't own or attempt to care for one in the first place.

 

[bumblebee]

You have the dog cause you obviously wanted him, along with owning a dog comes the responsibility of taking care and providing for the dog. That includes when the dog gets sick you do what you need to to provide the treatment necessary. That's just part of owning a dog. Anyway I hope the dog gets better.

 

[Calcifer]

So any updates on the dog ..has he been at the vet?

 

[ProgMatinee]

That's not the point. I actually agree with what you are saying. I don't expect people to do more then they are capable of. I'm saying that if they are incapable of affording a surgery or what not to the extent that they would just put the animal down in lieu of said surgery then they shouldn't own or attempt to care for one in the first place.

You have the dog cause you obviously wanted him, along with owning a dog comes the responsibility of taking care and providing for the dog. That includes when the dog gets sick you do what you need to to provide the treatment necessary. That's just part of owning a dog. Anyway I hope the dog gets better.

I just think thats silly.

There is a reason that animal shelters are full. There aren't enough people to care for the animals. The fact that one takes in an animal from a shelter automatically increases its quality of life (unless they're cruel to it).

You aren't a bad pet owner if you can't afford a surgery. Diverting $1,000s from more important things (such as a child's college savings) to save the life of an animal is a bigger misdeed, IMO.

 

[pixletwin]

That's not the point. I actually agree with what you are saying. I don't expect people to do more then they are capable of. I'm saying that if they are incapable of affording a surgery or what not to the extent that they would just put the animal down in lieu of said surgery then they shouldn't own or attempt to care for one in the first place.

That quite the black and white POV you got there.

When we took zeus things were good.

18 months later and we have hit on hard times. It happens. We are going to do everything we can. Beyond that we will try the "medicate and adopt" route.

My God some cool people can be presumptuous ass holes some times.

 

[BadMoon]

You aren't a bad pet owner if you can't afford a surgery. Diverting $1,000s from more important things (such as a child's college savings) to save the life of an animal is a bigger misdeed, IMO.

If you are in a position that you have to "divert" money in the first place for said services then you shouldn't own a pet.

Don't even get me started on the pet population. Go into any local dog shelter and you will find mostly pit bulls and such. A direct result of people who "divert" their money elsewhere when they should be having their animals fixed so they can't reproduce and add to the problem.

 

[BadMoon]

That quite the black and white POV you got there.

When we took zeus things were good.

18 months later and we have hit on hard times. It happens. We are going to do everything we can. Beyond that we will try the "medicate and adopt" route.

My God some cool people can be presumptuous ass holes some times.

My statements are pretty black and white. However, they aren't directed at you Marc. It sounds like you are going to do whatever it takes to make sure the dog is cared for. I have no doubt that you will.

I'm specifically referring to people who just would rather put their pet down then paying for a life saving operation. I'm not even talking about something that a vet tells you likely doesn't have a good chance at success. I'm talking about a cut and dry situation (hence my black and white response). If the animal has the surgery there is no question of their survival. I understand there are times when people have to make tough choices. Very similar choices a human would have to make when deciding whether to be treated for stage 4 cancer to "pro-long their life". IMO that just creates more suffering for the patient and the end result is still death.

Does that make sense?

 

[pixletwin]

Makes perfect sense.

I am grumpy today. Apologies.

 

[ProgMatinee]

If you are in a position that you have to "divert" money in the first place for said services then you shouldn't own a pet.

Don't even get me started on the pet population. Go into any local dog shelter and you will find mostly pit bulls and such. A direct result of people who "divert" their money elsewhere when they should be having their animals fixed so they can't reproduce and add to the problem.

Again thats just silly. how much money in reserve should someone have to own a dog that was just going to be destroyed at the shelter anyway? $10,000? $100,000? If your dog was 12 years old and I told you there is a new heart replacement surgery that can be done and it only costs $100,000 to do. If you declined do I get to tell you that you were a bad pet owner? Thats silly.

If someone adopts a dog and can't afford to feed it thats one thing. But not being able to afford an expensive proceedure would preclude a lot of people from adopting, which would just mean a lot of the animals would never have a chance to live period.

Animals aren't just for rich people that have nothing else to do with their money.