+57 People who put their pets through harsh medical treatments are selfish, amirite?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Same here, my friend. My girl was 16 and I'd had her since she was a kitten. Most heartbreaking thing I've ever had to do. I couldn't put her through cancer treatment though. They don't understand, you know? She was the best girl and didn't deserve that.

by moenalexzander 1 week ago

Somewhat agree. I doubt people would go through with such expensive treatment if they didn't love their pet and hope it would work out. Yes, that can be selfish but not intentionally. Rather than just blaming and mocking them, it should be understood they are pretty much in the denial stage of grief.

by Few_Atmosphere_2665 1 week ago

I agree, but at the same time, I feel like it shouldn't even be an option. I don't understand why people do that. The most you'll likely get is another 1-2 years. Or pets don't live long enough to try to save them like we do humans. Just because there are cancer treatment options for pets doesn't mean you should go through with it. Besides, cancer treatments are miserable, and you can't tell an animal what you're doing and why you are making them so sick. Imagine how scary that is for them. I feel sorry for pets who are put through cancer treatments.

by ConfidentSpace 1 week ago

Nothing regarding medical decisions is black and white. I got 3 extra years with a great dog thanks to chemo, and the side effects weren't that bad. It's all a case by case basis.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Honestly, I'd want to just go on hospice if I wasn't going to make it and chemo would only extend my life less than a few years. But people call that selfish because "wHat AbOUt yOuR fAmILy?"

by Outrageous_Fish_8591 1 week ago

Doesn't the same logic apply to the inverse though? The pet isn't human and therefore doesn't have any concept that their suffering is being prolonged, and because of that you can argue the owners can make the decision to extend their time with their pet as long as they're able to.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean the pet still has a concept of how life used to be vs how life is now. Like in the example someone gave above - the dog would notice if one day it woke up without being able to see. So even if it doesn't realise it's suffering is prolonged, it knows something has gone wrong, just no idea why it's not dead yet.

by Simple_Departure 1 week ago

They aren't even good months either, they're miserable.

by Dangerous_Extent 1 week ago

I work at an animal hospital and I see this all the time. It is heart breaking. So many people taking animals home after being urged by the vet that they are suffering and should be humanely euthanized.

by daughertyaracel 1 week ago

Not sure if this is unpopular or not, but I agree! I understand wanting them to live, but the quality of their life matters more, imo. Being a responsible pet parent is doing the hard things for them bc they depend upon you to love & care for them…this is part of it.

by Sam56 1 week ago

Yeah true I wouldn't put my cat thru that. Horrible

by anasatterfield 1 week ago

My beloved cat of 16 years (profile pic) suffered sudden kidney failure in mid-2022.. She lost the use of her hind legs as well as not eating. Only taking small sips of water. The vet basically said we can keep her alive but... She would be diminished and in considerable pain. I made the painful decision to put her down. Let her go in peace. It was hard, but... At least I was there with her in her final moments.

by Clyde21 1 week ago

I often feel the same about humans

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Same should be for humans. If I want out then I should have a safe and humane way of taking my life

by Careful_Recording834 1 week ago

Here in the UK politicians have just narrowly passed a bill that will legalise assisted dying for terminally ill people. I think it's a good thing, it's controversial, but if I was ever in a situation where I was terminally ill I would rather go out on my own terms.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

It's a complete joke that it's controversial at all. You would think this is something all political sides could agree on

by Preston28 1 week ago

My father in law is currently unable to eat, swallow, talk, or move laid waiting to die of cancer. They said "a matter of days" a number of weeks ago, and it's just inhumane. I wish we could take him to a vet as we would an animal and let him go peacefully. (He would agree also).

by Fmuller 1 week ago

I'm sorry to hear that dude. Hoping he has peace soon.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Thank you

by Fmuller 1 week ago

If you actually looked at the arguments you would see they arnt claiming that. They are pointing out that unless the system is perfect there will be people who are pressured into it. Or how it will cause the removal of support systems that would result in people selecting it who wouldn't if said support systems were there.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Most assisted dying schemes require a large amount of mental as well as physical assessments to be passed to be selected to go forward. They aren't just getting popped off there and then from just a walk-in. If they were being pressured in to it, it would more than likely flag up during the time period of assessments - one of the main reasons they are in place. No system is perfect and to expect so is ridiculous. However people with terminal illnesses should be given the option for end of life care and assisted dying.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

... you good man?

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Living the the dream my friend. And apparently if I wasn't, I'd be able to walk into a pharmacy...

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Yep it's the same issue as with the death penalty, in theory it would be great, but in reality there is too much risk for corruption.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I believe only about 15% of dogs experience negative side effects from chemo. I've seen dogs get chemo and be totally normal dogs with a high quality of life while getting to spend some extra time with their family.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

You're the one making a decision either way as it lacks agency in the matter. You're saying quality of life is more important than time with loved ones and that's just your view of it. Plenty of people choose harsh treatments in palliative care to spend more time with their families. Either way you end up making the decision for the animal based on your values.

by Existing-Whole 1 week ago

I don't think this is an unpopular opinion. I think what you're describing (expensive treatments on a suffering animal to delay death) is the exception, not the norm.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

People do the same for their kids and other loved ones. Perhaps all those with cancer should be let go with dignity. Chemo is torturous.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I mean people with the cancer usually have an option if they want chemo or not

by JelloClear 1 week ago

I literally just woke up from a dream about this, in my dream my cat got hit by a car. It was going to be $10,000+ to save him. Then I woke up. I don't have that kind of money to spend.

by Dangerous_Extent 1 week ago

People do it for their loved ones. The people who do this probably feel like their pets are family too.

by Turner50 1 week ago

People do this to their human family members, too. Pressuring them for painful treatments that might extend life just a short while. It's not just pets.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I agree. This dignity should also be extended to humans.

by Several-Mongoose 1 week ago

I don't know if that's unpopular, as most people would not spend thousands on chemo to keep their pets alive. Most people would agree it's better to put them down.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

I will never do chemo to my pets, I will absolutely do everything else. Chemo will make them sick, they don't understand what's going on, all they know is that they feel miserable, and if I'm the end it didn't help, I'll feel super guilty that I forced them through that. I did however put my pets through surgeries hoping we would be able to remove all the cancer, they will feel weak for a few days, but that's it. With our cat the cancer came back and then we did decide to put her down when we noticed she was not herself anymore. We have put thousands of euros into our pets to help them live longer pain free, but when it's incurable, or chemo is the only option, then we're done. We just wait it out until they aren't themselves anymore, in the meantime we spoil them rotten and then say goodbye when it's necessary.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Why does anyone allow vegetables or people with severe physical/mental disabilities to continue living? That person is NOT living a quality life, despite what the family keeps telling themselves. Emotions. They're important to have, but stupid at the same time.

by tjones 1 week ago

If my dog got sick with anything expensive. I'd bring her out back and tell her to think bought them rabbits.

by Great_Present 1 week ago

God you're annoying

by Salvadorstehr 1 week ago

Pets unfortunately have a financial limit. If i had to drop $2000 on my 21 year old before she had passed in any one go i wouldve put her down instead. My 3 year old however that price is in the budget for her age. Its never an easy choice but yeah cancer should really be something we accept for putting them down for.

by Anonymous 1 week ago

Those same ppl totally watched the 17th season of Grey's Anatomy. Shows over. It was lovely. Let them go.

by Anonymous 1 week ago