Reading through answers, I've found the recurrent message: "If you can't afford to take your pet to the vet, you shouldn't have one." Every time I read it, I'm troubled.
Obviously in an ideal world every person, not to mention every animal, would have access to health care. But in the meantime, we compromise.
Is it fair to criticize low-income people for having pets (leaving the question of children aside)? Obviously there are practical limits; if you can't afford to feed an animal, obviously you won't be able to keep it. But if you can provide a loving home, and can afford basics like food and water (and perhaps one-off fixed costs like neutering), isn't that a reasonable compromise? Isn't that better for an animal than life (or death) in a shelter, or as a stray?
I assume that most people on this forum are reasonably affluent. But I believe that sometimes people who can't afford professional help come here for amateur advice, and should be given that advice, not a reproach.
2007-10-30
05:37:38
·
6 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous