How much money do you think should be spent on keeping a pet healthy and alive considering...?

Question

This is a question regarding ethics and morals. That is why I did not post this in the pet section. Nor is this a financial question.

In a world where many people don't have enough money to afford adequate health care or even needed operations, can I justify spending money to keep my cat alive and healthy? If you say yes, is there a point monetarily where you can no longer justify the expense?

I love my cat. He is a good and faithful friend. However, these days, vet bills are considerable. Non-pet people may not realize this but gone are the days where spending $60 to $100 a year on a pet was a lot of money. That's the cost of one vet appointment. These days veterinary medicine has progressed to the point where they can do chemotherapy on a pet. It's expensive. But expense is not the question. I can justify spending a certain amount on my pet. But I wonder if it's ethically or morally "right" to "heal" my cat (no matter the cost) when humans go without needed medical attention

Please - this is not a "money" question. This is not "me" trying to justify not spending money on a pet. I did spend over $5000 on my previous cat in her last three months of life. Like Ladeebug71, I kept the cat alive longer than I should have. Those of you who are addressing the "spend money on a pet versus spend money on people" are the ones answering my question. I agree with the "animals have a right to live also" people. And I agree with those who point out I probably wouldn't donate the money to people anyway. I was trying to see if people thought as I did and I was hoping to get some opposing view points that would give me new thoughts to consider. I'm leaving the question open for a while longer but I want to thank you all who have already answered the question.

Answer 1

Unless you intend to find a person who needs medical care and use the money for them, it's only a theoretical dilemma.

There are children starving to death in the world every single day. Yet my forgoing a bowl of ice cream won't help them. I am among the poorest in America, yet, if I budget carefully, I most certainly can have that bowl of ice cream.

Obviously, we each make our own decisions about charitable giving. That there are haves and have-nots is without question. But I don't think that those who have been blessed with great abundance are required by goodness to give all of it away. (And even the poorest in America are blessed with great abundance.)

So one person might choose to buy new living room furniture, another chemo for a beloved pet, and a third to help pay for a year's supply of vitamin A for children who are likely to go blind without it. The reality is that none of them will save all of the children, but one may well save the pet.

We each have to make the decision each time on our own. Sometimes I have ice cream, and sometimes I make small donations. That's what works for me. Honestly, I probably end up eating more ice cream than I need.

Great question, though, and the kind of thinking that can change the world.

Answer 2

This is a toughie....how do I come to terms with spending so much on a pet - I've spent about $5000.00 on my 11 year old Yorkshire Terrier - when I could be giving that money away to "humans" and trying to help meet their needs. This is how I approach it:

1. My pet is as much a creature of this earth or of God as any other living thing.

2. It's my money and I worked hard for it.

3. When I adopted my pet, I took full responsibility for his welfare and I will see it through to the end.

4. I donate to other charities too at the same time, so loving and caring for my pet is not to say I don't give in other ways. Habitat for Humanity can have my skills and time. The vet can have my money!

Good luck!

Answer 3

I see and understand your point,but even though we commiserate with those who can't afford medical help,there's really not much we can do to help those less fortunate.It is the times we are living in,and I don't see it getting any better in the near future.I,myself,have a chronic illness,and since I don't have medical insurance,I can only afford to go see a doctor when its an absolute must.No point anyway since the docs said there's nothing more they can do for me. I just have to learn to live with it.As for pets,I have a 16 month old beagle named Mitze that was the only one to survive out of a litter of 10,including the mother.I had to feed her puppy replacement milk every 2 hours with an eyedropper until she got old enough to suck from a bottle.I had her to the vet's many,many times.I was so afraid to lose her.I became very attached to her.To make a long story short, we probably spent in the nieghborhood of around $3000 on her with vet bills,puppy milk,etc.And she has many allergies to different foods,so we spent a good bit on finding what foods she could tolerate and which ones she couldn't.We're still looking for the perfect food for her.So many things make her sick,and I still worry about losing her,even after all this time.I am willing to spend whatever it takes to keep her healthy and alive,because she is an extended part of my family,and she has given me something that noone else has been able to give me.I can't explain it,but there it is.I believe that as pet owners,we are morally and ethically responsible to do whatever we can to keep our loved pets healthy,just as we would do for our own children.Ultimately,it is up to the owner how much they are willing to spend on their pet.

Answer 4

You bring up an interesting dilemma. I see your side, and I know I can not personally pay excessive amounts to keep elderly animals alive when the end is inevitable, but...

All life is precious, and when you take on the responsibility of pet ownership, you agree to be a care taker. You also are responsible to your community.

I know that the pet inoculations cost a lot. But I was once scratched by a rabid animal. That animal caused 20 children to receive rabbies shots. That was expensive for our families, and time consuming for the the pediatricians who saw us daily for 18 days. Not to mention the tax payers because at the end we had to be checked by the health department. Moreover, parents missed work.

You could say that we should have known better, but kids play with strays. You could say that our parents should have watched us, but we were in a school situation.

Like anything, pet ownership is filled with moral dilemmas. I think the owner needs to weigh the options carefully and make up his or her own mind.

Answer 5

I think your cat is a life, and you chose to look after it. You know well that keeping pets is a great responsability, so I don't think it's wrong to pay for a treatment. What I can't accept is that some people spend lots of money with trivialities, like clothes, beds and etc to dogs and cats. I've even seen, on Animal Planet, that there are shops that sell only special candy for dogs, and it's not cheap. There were some people there, with their pets, saying they were very exigent, so they only liked to eat there. This is not only an absurd, but also ridiculous.

Answer 6

Yes, I believe it is your ethical and your moral duty to keep your pets healthy and alive. They are your responsibility. If you weren't going to live up to your responsibility then you shouldn't have gone out and got yourself a pet. It is the same thing with children. You are going to be stuck with a responsibility for the rest of your life, once you have a kid. Pets are not different. They are 100% solely dependent on your for their health and well-being. Just as I feel that some people should never have kids, some people should never own pets.

Answer 7

If you really love your pet then money shouldnt be a criteria (assuming you have money). Yes I agree there are people going about without necessary health care but you cant compare the two. Your pet is someone you are attached too, is part of your family where this is not the case for a stranger on the road. If you talk about ethics then probably all of America's wealth should be taken and given to poor African nations.

Answer 8

It is always an individual's choice. Depending on your financial situation and the age and condition of the animal. If you are prolonging the life of an animal that is in a lot of pain or is no longer able to live a somewhat normal animal's life. A good vet can usually help you make this decision. But, as a pet owner I believe you have a moral and humane obligation to provide the best care for your animal that you can afford.

Answer 9

A valid question. You can't save and heal the world, but you can keep your cat healthy. That is the moral obligation on your part since you choose to keep a pet.

So many pet owners in my neck of the woods allow their animals to reproduce and then they abandon them on somebody else's property. Two out of the three dogs I own were abandoned and I took them in.

Yes, it's expensive to maintain healthy pets, but if you choose not to do so, then take them to the humane society.

I'm not entirely convinced our pets need mental therapy. With most cats it is difficult to show that you love them as your own because of their distinct personalities. I've had cats all my life until the last several years.

Take care of your cat to the best of your ability regardless what the world's situation is.

Answer 10

If you were going to take the money that would be spent in excess of reasonably taking care of a pet and were to use this money to make sure some of those people you speak of had a chance at better medical care, you would then have the right to discuss this question. But if you ask this question only to come to terms not to have to spend extra money for the preservation of the life of an animal, and would just use any money saved on yourself, the question is moot.