As you are probably aware, our family has two beagles, Tucker (9.5 years old) and Tabbie (almost 8 years old). I can remember so clearly the day we brought Tucker home as we cared for him like a baby, our first born. He was our test-run to see if maybe we were fit to be parents. We adored him and praised his growth. As we tried to start a family which was more difficult than expected. And after 9 months of infertility treatments, we decided to hold off on the baby and that is when Tabbie came to live with us. Much to our delight, the next month we discovered we were expecting Audrey and Carson and Creighton followed 2 years and 3 months later.So you ask, what does this all have to do with loving your pets? Our once beloved and adored dogs are now aging and frankly, the last priority on our long list of responsibilities. So the last few weeks I have been pondering...What is our moral obligation to our pets? Is it to provide them with a loving home and feed them? Or, is it to provide them with the same care and consideration we would our human companions?
As I was raised, pets were to be outside and outside only. We have departed from that philosophy as both of our dogs are inside pets. They sleep is a nice comfy bed (ours) every night and treated as one of the family. Now for the big moral question...how much medical care should be provide so that they can live a life outside of the typical life span? I worked for a short stint at a veterinary association and developed programs for vet re-certification as well as managed a class for vets who are adding acupuncture to their practice. Yes, you read that correctly, pet acupuncture. The programs I arranged were across the board for veterinary medicine from treating cancer, eye disease, brain dysfunction and so on.
While I was working there I never questioned the why. I couldn't. I stayed focus on developing the best programs for the market. But, I am questioning it now, big time. Why are we doing this? I don't have the answer.
When we returned home from the reunion, Tucker wasn't feeling well and he urinated all over the house during the night, including on me on my bed while I was sleeping. I knew something was wrong. So every time I take our dogs to the vet, I prep myself for the worst case scenario. As we have a growing family that stretches our financial means, it is always an issue of money. To walk into the office is $45 and testing for a diagnosis is even more expensive. And the sad thing is that once they figure out was is wrong, the likelihood of affording treatment is not going to happen. So in my case, we think that Tucker has a urinary tract infection. The other possible problem could be bladder stones. Both are treatable for the right price. Bladder stone would require surgery and the UTI, antibiotics. So we did the test (another $45, thank you) and started him on the antibiotics (another $20, thank you again). We will receive the test results today, which might be inconclusive anyways. We opted not to have blood tests done (for a mere $145) since we know that if bladder stones were discovered we would not do the surgery. If Tucker does not recover with his round of antibiotics, we will have to say our goodbyes.
While at the vets office, l felt awful, like the most unethical scum. How could I not treat something that can be fixed? Don't you love your dog? You must be the most shameful pet owner. This is the most awful feeling. And, yes, I love my dogs, but my priorities are for my children. How are we expected to go into debt for life saving treatments for our pets when they have lived a good life...maybe not a long as possible, but still a good life. Should only the people that can afford medical care own pets? Or, is it adequate to give them a satisfied life with food, shelter, and love for the time they are here?
