On Killing My Cat (opinions please).

Also, for the sake of argument, would you pay $1500 to save a small bird found dying on the side of the road?

As I've been thinking about this decision, I'm wondering where one draws the line on cost. Say it was $25,000? Or $8,000? Or a pet fish that needed an eye?

money is money -- there's always a way to get it if you don't have it, and you'll have plenty of time to pay it off later.

You know you will be happier having your cat around.

Im sure you could pay in installments or get a loan. You should look into that.

Pets are part of your family.

I would like to think that this is one of those rare situations when what you know in your heart to be true is correct.

If you do decide euthanasia, you should go in and comfort the cat while it happens. Regardless of how uncomfortable this might feel for you, it's the most compassionate way of farewelling a pet for being such a good companion. Plus, you might feel guilty afterwards if you don't.

It seems 12 years is a little above average.

Also, my parents had two Burmese cats that lived to 17, even though Orientals usually don't live that long or even as long as moggies.

And, yes, 12 really isn't that old for a cat - more middle-aged. And I'm sure if you asked the cat, it would rather be one-eyed and alive than dead.

I do believe that it's inhumane to allow an animal to continue to exist in suffering. However, if expense of treatment is an issue, euthenasia can be the best option. As pointed out, animals are mute, and one cannot explain the concept of surgery and recuperation to an animal.

At the end of the day, it's a question of what *you* can afford, in line with what is best for the animal.

I think it is a good indication to think of what you would pay for *own* healthcare. If you could not afford to spend $1500 on private healthcare for yourself, you should not feel obligated to spend it on an animal.

And I'm sorry if that offends anyone on this thread. But I think that euthenasia is a perfectly reasonable option in this case.

x-post

Cats are animals and can't talk. They are cute, but people could use the money a lot more. With $1500 a lot of food and health care could be provided to people dying of starvation and disease.

We are not talking about providing money for people in this world. We are talking about a cat that has been a loyal pet for the past 12 years. The person in question isn't going to donate $1,500 to charity anymore than he's probably going to pay for his cat to get better.

If you cannot afford the vet's fees then you shouldn't have a pet in the first place.

personally I would probably set the limit at $500 for a pet.

And does it make a difference if its a lizard, spider or fish compared to a cat or dog?
I probably would go up to $500 for a cat or dog, but maybe only $20 for a lizard, spider or fish.

And does it make a difference if its a lizard, spider or fish compared to a cat or dog?
I probably would go up to $500 for a cat or dog, but maybe only $20 for a lizard, spider or fish.

If you have to set a limit then you shouldn't have a pet in the first place.

Many local pet shelters often have to be euthanising. They cannot handle the amount of pets they get.

That's because people don't think about the cost of animals before they get them. Pets are expensive, fact. Again, if you cannot afford the upkeep for your pet (including vet bills) you shouldn't have the pet in the first place.

The pet shelters and groups like the SPCA are concerned for stray animals. A life in a poor family is better than life on the street (lifespan of stray cats between 3-5 years). Just because a family can't afford the vet fees doesn't mean they shouln't give a stray a better life.

I repeat that a good guideline is the amount of money one is willing to spend on one's OWN health. If one would be hard pressed to find $1500 for your operation, I don't think it's heartless to deny that amount of coverage to an animal.

Some people are willing to spend vast amounts of money on pets. Some people are willing to eat meat and drive gas-guzzling motor cars. We all do things that other people might find morally questionable. In these cases, the ethics are up the individual.

many, but by no means all. the shelter i help out at is no-kill.

Do you think animals and humans should have equal rights? your responses seem like how one should responed to a human child.

Just because you keep saying it doesn't change the fact that he DOES have the pet and has a difficult decision to make. I suspect this thread was subconsciously intended to justify the decision he seems to have already made, but it's always going to be the case that emotion hits harder in an argument than cold logic.

I wonder if Derek can search for alternatives - cheaper care, charities to help with the bills, whatever - while also doing his sums and working out if his (or his family's) quality of life will suffer if he does have to shell out $1,500. Is this all it'll cost? What are the odds of the operation not working? As Derek seems keen to rationalise whatever decision he's going to make, he needs to look at all these factors properly.

Ultimately it's Derek's relationship with his cat that is the key here, and other people, passionate as they are about animals, can't tell him how to feel. It must be the most upsetting thing the first time you come back to an empty house after putting a beloved pet down - how will a notional $1,500 change how that feels?

(an aside - A Nairn, many people do feel that pets are genuine, beloved members of the family, like children, especially those who don't HAVE children. This doesn't negate any of your arguments per se but you do need to try and understand this - your steely rationale is just going to upset people otherwise)

I can't speak for the US as I don't live there, but this is not necessarily the case in the UK. Also, Jody points out above that this is not the case in some shelters. Are you suggesting that it's only poor people that are loving. If you cannot afford a pet, you shouldn't get one. I don't give a fuck whether you are rich or poor, if you cannot dedicate sufficient money to the animal's welfare, yu have no business taking it home in the first place.

Do you think animals and humans should have equal rights? your responses seem like how one should responed to a human child.

You think this because I don't think the guy should kill his cat? FFS!

Oh & Mark, I'm well aware of the situation, there's no need to be an idiot towards me. I am talking to A Nairn not the guy that started this thread.

And this is the point that I leave this thread, as the guy has already made his mind up to kill his cat without even looking into other options for funding. If you want me to say it's OK to kill your cat you'll be waiting a long time. Having said that, there are plenty of people on here that will agree with your decision anyway.

i do. i would LOVE to stop eating meat, and i've tried many times, but the habit hasn't stuck yet.

if i were broke i wouldn't have a child no matter HOW much love i had to give. i'd just find somewhere else to apply my affections. same goes for a pet. pets are expensive! veterinary care is expensive! and yes, animals do get old and sick. these are all facts of life.

donations, adoptions, and the one i volunteer at has its own pet store that donates most of the proceeds towards taking care of the animals.

people existed before money existed.

Even if you can afford a pet (or child) how do you know you will still have enough money in ten years?

-- Panther Pink (pink{est}panther4...), November 8th, 2005.

in theory, yes, but vet's fees are totally open-ended, people spend *thousands*. the answer is insurance, obv.

this is probably true.

i'm a little emotional on this subject and i'm beginning to repeat myself (and others), so i'll back out now.

you don't! that's why you should think carefully before making the decision to have one.

good night.

I do think that animals should be entitled to basic rights not to be harmed or wilfully mistreated or allowed to exist in agony. But at the end of the day, an animal is not a human. I also believe in euthenasia for humans if their lives become agonised to the point of intolerable. I believe that a human being has the right to choose to die with dignity. However, an animal does not have the ability to make that decision. So it is the responsibility of the owner to make that decision for the animal.

Cost of care being a consideration with regards to the extension of life is an unfortunate reality. It applies to human beings as well. PEOPLE die because they lack the funds for $1500 worth of medical treatment. Anyway... this is not a debate about human medical insurance so I will spare you the politics.

But in the end, it is the responsibility of the pet owner to decide.

You are esentially saying poor people should not have children or pets. This is pretty extreme.

I am struggling with this too, but I don't have an answer.

xpost - hang on, what are you agreeing with me about? ;)

www. savecatty .com

and ask for donations to save your cat

it'll become an internet phenomenon where people who can't save their cattys can save them with the help of strangers on the internet.

That it is Derek decision to make, that he could find alternatives, and that I could just be upsetting people.

To the thread-starter, it is his decision but perhaps he needs to look at all the options before making that crucial choice. (And am sure he is probably doing this already).

(And I say this as someone who loves animals but who does not keep a pet because I *know* I cannot afford to keep one, and think it is cruel to keep dogs in London.)

i don't think it's unreasonable at all. the government spends millions of taxes on weapons, roads, the monarchy, PR, etc

This just seems a mess of paradoxes to me, Sophie. How does your first sentence work? And what does "unnecessary" suffering entail? Euthanasia is a way of ending suffering, after all. (I'm not making a point either way here, just trying to see through the moral/pragmatic haze)

Assuming Derek is reading this thread with interest, I'm sure he will be encouraged to explore all possible avenues. If he'd like to confirm that, that'd be cool :)

xpost -- that's exactly what pink said though!

I do agree with you Mark, as long as the pet is cared for throughout its life. It is often kinder to euthanase than prolong the agony or shift the burden onto a shelter.

"If you can't afford a childpet, then don't have one!" Mr I don't have a pet for I have not the money or the time...

OK, it's not quite as cut and dried as that. But neither is this.

Dude, they don't clobber the animal to death! They first give a sedative/something which puts them (temporarily) asleep and then something final. It is however a very hard thing to go throughn but I would suggest being present.

If you cannot afford the vet's fees then you shouldn't have a pet in the first place.

Because in most cases you don't expect to spend 1500 dollars on an operation. This is the second time I have heard of an operation this expensive. The other case ended up in euthanasia. But the operation would have cost 4000 dollars.

Even if you can afford a pet (or child) how do you know you will still have enough money in ten years?
you don't! that's why you should think carefully before making the decision to have one.

BUT NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK *CAREFULLY* YOU NEVER KNOW YOUR FUTURE! I mean, don't be silly, having children/pets (or rather basically LIFE) is a chance you take. It can always go wrong. And what does it matter? He has his cat and now he's facing the problem. It's silly to argue about this now (for him). The advice you're giving is basically only useful if he has a time machine and can go back.

well, yeah there *is* a blurring of want and need!!! i don't know the answer, but consumer society is double-edged: it creates all this great stuff all the time. also modern society is often the wants of the working classes becoming the wants of the bourgeoisie...

Good conversationalist is she?

-- Oh No, It's Dadaismus (dadaismu...), November 8th, 2005.

better than most kids, yeah. i'm not trolling kate, i'm intensely emotional about my cat.

xpost

__ otm

2 small rabbits, about 1 1/2 pounds each
1 cup orange juice
1/2 teaspoon ground black pepper
2 teaspoons ground fennel
1 teaspoon saffron threads, crumbled
1 teaspoon cayenne pepper
2 teaspoons coarse sea salt
2 tablespoons lemon juice
1/4 cup honey
2 cups orange juice
Coarse sea salt
1 bunch watercress, coarse stems removed, for garnish
Wedges of lemon, for garnish
1 medium onion, thinly sliced and soaked for 30 minutes in ice water

Rinse the rabbits and pat them dry with paper towels. Cut each one into three pieces; the hind legs, the front legs, and the loin. Cut the hind and front leg sections into 2 pieces each, leaving the loin in one piece. You should now have 5 sections per rabbit.

Place the rabbit pieces in a large deep nonreactive bowl.

In a small sauce pan over medium heat, reduce the orange juice to half a cup. In a small bowl, combine the pepper, fennel, saffron, cayenne, and salt. Add the reduced orange juice and the lemon juice, whisk together, and let stand for 10 or 15 minutes. Add the honey and mix together. Pour this mixture over the rabbit pieces, toss so that each one is evenly coated, and let sit at room temperature for about 1 hour, loosely covered. Toss the pieces every 15 minutes.

Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Remove the rabbit from the marinade and place on a rack in a roasting pan. Roast the rabbit for 20 to 25 minutes, until done through with no trace of pink remaining. Baste once with the marinade halfway through the cooking time, then again when you remove the rabbit from the oven.

Place the rabbit pieces on a platter and surround them with sprigs of watercress and wedges of lemon. Drain the onion slices briefly on paper towels, separate them into rings and scatter them over the top.

Also I didn't laugh at or even read a thread about someone whos marriage is falling apart, so wtf are you on about. You're just trolling, and fuck that for a laugh.

Yes, it's about time she got a job, got a flat and stood on her own four feet

you know how it is man, you get older & you start agreeing with the people who once struck you as totally backwards

I got extra geritol if you need it

is this an in-joke?

xp

It is possible to disagree with someone without being rude to them.

That (the image) is unbelievable, I'm just astounded by it.

I wonder what he's up to now...

xx-post

Go in peace and sin no more.

Ethan and Banana

Somethings I want to add that I didn't think were too important at first.

1. This cat was picked out by an ex-girlfriend. She wanted a cat, not me. She was from Canada (going to school in the states) and said she'd have a hard time getting it back. Actually, I think she more or less just casually abandoned it. It was never my idea to get a cat. My mother had cats when I was growing up, I liked them but never wanted one for myself. I don't like cleaning up shedded fur and litter's not a treat. And then they die, and it's a bummer.
Plus it's just something I never felt that I needed as it's such a responsibility.

2. My budget goes as follows: my mother borrows money from me all of the time, mostly significant amounts. My father is absolutely out of the picture. My extended family has been mostly worthless for emotional support since I was a youngster, let alone the idea of financial support. It's kind of just me here, you know?

So, let the truth be known, I didn't want the cat in the first place. I'm happy to care for it and I'm HAVING A REALLY HARD TIME with this decision. I haven't made up my mind at all. I think it's really easy to say, "hey, have a fundraiser!" and go back to eating your pizza. I also feel terrible and I really do like my cat. I'm not going to get another when she does finally go.

Please no "girlfriend in Canada" jokes. And thanks a lot for your opinions.

Anyway, derek, I had a cat that had something similar to what you are describing! She was a few years older than your cat, maybe 14 at the time. At any rate...it went away. On its own. I mean not "went away" as in it healed but it just kind of cataracted over and she was fine. The vet was against doing any surgery on her because of her age, he said that cats of a certain age don't recover too well and it'd be better for them to not have to go through that. Really I think you might want to consider taking the cat to a different vet to get another opinion.

It's easy for me to say just pay for the operation, because I know that between my girlfriend and me there would be plenty of money for either or both of our cats to get a similarly priced operation. Even if I lived alone I could scratch up that much money without breaking my budget or bank seriously in the long term, and I personally would.

I know my situation is not the same as yours, and I can understand your hesitation. I'm not saying $1500 is a drop in the bucket.

I don't presume to know how much a cat can understand, but it has been my observation that they love unconditionally, so the idea of a cat being upset that you weren't able to justify an operation for monetary reasons is pretty absurd. Ultimately it boils down to whether or not your are going to be upset with yourself. I personally agree with some of the very early posters to this thread. Your cat probably brings you more happiness than $1500, and if that $1500 isn't going to leave you without food or rent or something, it's probably well spent for the amount of happiness it will continue to afford you. Even if the cat only lives another year it seems a bargain to me.

I can guarantee you that a healthy cat with one eye will still love you just as much as it did when it had two.

Ally's suggestion of a second vet opinion is a good one.

I prefer to think that my cats would eat me if they had to. In my experience, cats don't just eat things because they can. If that were the case why would they bring dead animals into the house, play with them and then leave them there, uneaten.

There's really nothing to be said for just being an asshole.

trife in being a holier-than-thou cunt shockah.

Do cats have emotions? Silly question, perhaps, to all of us that live together with a cat or two. It’s impossible to mistake a morose cat for a happy cat. An angry cat leaves noone in doubt what goes on, while a cat who loves his buddy shows it in a way nobody can misunderstand. But do cats have emotions the same way we humans do? Yes, say scientists, and recieve both praise and harsh criticism.

By Connie Garfalk

In an evolutionary perspective it is not that long ago since we humans climbed down from the trees and started walking on two legs.That was a meagre beginning of our development towards the species we are today, but we didn’t start with two empty hands. With us we brought our brain, the one we had inherited from the mammals we came from. In other words, we were not handed a brand new brain when we split from the animals.

– The emotions, our feelings, are located to a primitive part of the brain, and they are as good developed in mammals as they are in us, says veterinarian Geir Erik Berge at Nordberg Animal Clinic in Oslo.

– A cat has all the emotions we have, like love, jealousy, fear, hatred, friendship, joy, sorrow and so on. We humans have a more advanced brain because we have developed the cerebrum on top of the old one. In this new part of the brain the ability to analytical thinking is located, however, as most of us have experienced, our feelings can very seldom be governed by our intellect, says Berge.

The ”mammal-brain” constitutes so to speak our basic brain, and here most of our fundamental functionalities lie.

Geir Erik Berge is by no means alone in claiming that mammals have an emotional life as well developed as we humans have. Researchers that study the biology of the emotions, a science that is still in its infancy, are so far united in the belief that emotions stem from ancient parts of the brain that are located below the cortex, areas that have been preserved across many species throughout the evolution.

Scientists who engage in neurochemistry, the chemical processes in the brain, have found several similarities between the human brain and the mammal brain. Steven Siviy, a behavioural neuroscientist at Gettysburg College in Pennsylvania, USA, has found that rats while they are playing, their brains release copious amounts of dopamine, a chemical substance that is associated with joy and excitement in humans. Another example is the hormone oxytocin, associated with sexual activity and maternal bonding in people (for instance, it is released when mothers nurse their babies). This hormone is supposed to have a similar effect on animals, since it seems to influence the attachment to other individuals. Neuroscientist C. Sue Carter at the University of Maryland, USA, has studied voles and found that they react much in the same way as humans do to the hormone oxytocin. Voles are monogamous, and when they meet someone who makes them tick and start their lifelong ”marriage”, their behaviour is strikingly similar to people in love.

– If you believe in evolution by natural selection, how can you believe that feelings suddenly appeared, out of the blue, with human beings? neuroscientist Stephen Siviy says to the US News and World Report.

Even though it has started coming more and more scientific evidence that indicate that mammals and human beings share the ability to have emotions, and the same kind of emotions, there are still many that warn against anthropomorphism.

In her article ”Do cats have emotions?”, Sarah Hartwell writes that those who deny animals the capasity of having the same kind of emotions as people have, might ”do so in order to justify animal experiments which others consider inhumane”.

The acknowledgement of an emotional life similar to what the human being has, might also be considered as rather awkward to industries that are based on what animals produce. An ”emotional animal” might need better environments and treatment than ”production animals” recieve today? This could lead to new laws and demands that would increase the production costs and thus minimise the industries’ profits.

However, the comprehension that animals do have the same kind of emotions that we have is constantly winning more acceptance among scientists. In an article about animals and personalities, published by the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Samuel D. Gosling points out that ”Scientists have been reluctant to ascribe personality traits, emotions and thoughts to animals, even though they readily accept that the anatomy and physiology of humans is similar to animals.”

Given that animals will be acknowledged as emotional in the same sense as humans are, what does this understanding lead to in practical life?

– It means they are not just objects with whom we can do what we want, says biologist Marc Bekoff at the University of Colorado, USA, in the article ”Do Animals Have Feelings?”, published at PetPlace.com.

He has studied animal behaviour and emotions and has also edited a new book, ”The Smile of the Dolphin”, in which dozens of animal researchers explain why they believe animals have emotions.

We who live together with cats are hardly surprised that scientists now support what we have observed all the time – that our cats display the whole register of emotions that we ourselves have. Love and jealousy, friendship, grief when a beloved friend dies or disappear, anger, hatred and disgust. They don’t tell us verbally of course, but they show us their feelings with behaviour and mimics it’s impossible to misinterpret.

If we are to accept that our cats are emotional the way we are, that must lead us to evaluate our way of keeping cats in a much more serious and binding way. Do we for instance have more cats than we are able to give the individual love and care they are entitled to? In this connection, however, we must keep in mind that animals, including cats, develop different personalities, just as we humans do. Some become very extrovert, open minded and sociable, while others are more introvert and like to keep to themselves a bit more. The point is, our cats need to be met by us according to their personal needs.

If one accepts the cat as an emotional equal, it does add to the responsibility we have taken upon us when letting a cat come into our house. Or, as one also could put it: ”Help, my cat loves me! What do I do now?”

I just want to say I think the original poster has handled these responses like a prince. Good luck with your decision, derek.

I find the idea of you not initially wanting a cat to be irrelevant at this point. You've had the cat for so long that it seems bringing this up is just you perhaps trying to convince yourself that it will be okay if you put her down. Just do what you need to do, but if you're going to go ahead & pay for this, don't resent your cat. I think it would be better to do some research on other alternatives for her than just to euthanize. It might be helpful to get a second opinion as well, especially if the eye could take care of itself.

Anyway, just my two cents.

2. Open a blog. Explain your situation, alongside heartbreakingly cute pictures.

3. Request donations.

Derek, I'm with those who said, get 2nd opinion and also google around and see if you can locate a vet clinic or school that will help w/keeping the cost down on surgery if it comes to it. Even if you strike up an email correspondence w/a vet you may find one willing to help the cat w/i your financial means. If you must kill the cat, take a friend along for moral support. Best of luck.

Would it be churlish of me to say thanks?

Thanks.

-- Streatham's Paisley Princess (masonicboo...), November 8th, 2005.