The Lives of Pets
I’ve been reading this article, and the comments posted along with it. The essential idea behind the article is that the author feels a little “uneasy” with the fact that veterinary medicine has improved, and thus the length of a pet’s life can be increased, often with a large price tag. “I think I’d be a better person to let my animal die naturally and then give $1,000 to combat child poverty, or even animal abuse.” And many of the comments, at their core, reflect the sentiment that people deserve advanced medicine, while animals do not… as well, people are better than animals.
Somehow I feel that it is necessary to respond to this in some sort of way, as many of you are aware from me telling stories, my cat has had extensive surgeries, at a cost of upwards of three thousand dollars. And since the surgery he has been required to eat a special diet of prescription pet food. At around four years old, my cat was diagnosed with Feline Lower Urinary Tract Disease. He was unable to urinate due to blockage, and was brought to the vet several times to be catheterized, in order to empty his bladder, and to clear the blockage. Unfortunately these measures were unsuccessful, and we had to bring our cat late in the evening to an emergency veterinary facility in Hartford, a forty-five minute drive. We were told that toxins were building up in his system, death was imminent, he might not even survive the trip to the hospital. At the hospital we had to make a decision: emergency surgery, or euthanasia.
Let me just say this: if your child needs surgery, there is no way in hell that you are ever forced to make a decision for surgery based on economics, you either pay for it, or we let your kid die. I suppose this is where the issue gets touchy. Euthanasia is acceptable for pets, it is not for people. I will say that I don’t totally agree with that idea. For an old, sick, animal, (or for that matter a person) with a low quality of life, I see euthanasia as an acceptable option. However, my four-year-old cat hardly fit into that category. The average lifespan for an indoor house cat is around fifteen years, and so I reasoned he had significant time left to live. Ending a life, any life, due solely to economics seems wrong to me.
We opted for an emergency perineal urethrostomy: the necessary surgery to save my cat’s life. His penis was removed, and his genitalia were reconstructed to prevent future blockages; he essentially had a sex change. I attempt to explain this to people and generally they think I am a dipshit and I don’t quite understand what happens when a cat gets neutered. I do wonder about what exactly would happen if my cat were to go missing and I made a poster… list him as a male, or female? Nomatter, my cat is now celebrating his tenth birthday. He has lived six years since his surgery and is in wonderful health. There is no doubt in my mind that he will live many more happy years.
As I sort of draw my little quasi rant (that likely no one will read) to a close, I will step away from the possible open door of making a statement about religion; it tends to be my experience that people who clearly view human life more important than anything else as religious. I will also ignore the “normally intelligent” comment by the author, which seems to imply that they view pet owners that believe that the value of a pet’s life with the same respect as a human life, as stupid.
Was it worth spending more than three thousand dollars for a surgery to prolong my cat’s life? I say, hell yes. I view the life of my pet and his right to live equal as that of any person. Would it be acceptable to allow a person to “die naturally?” What in the heck does that even mean anyways? If you want to get right down to it, if we lived “naturally” I’d have died as a kid, picked off by predators. I’m scrawny as heck, with horrible vision. If we lived “naturally” I’d be dead, and not ever have the chance to reproduce: the “better” humans would. We don’t live naturally, we do, however, live based upon our morals. Failing to give medical care I just don’t think is morally right, human, feline, canine or otherwise.
December 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Emily,
I can understand the emotions you’re feeling when you discuss this issue. This pet has become a part of your family. Your mothering instincts have broadened to include species other than your own. You’ve decided to include your pet in the group of species that deserve to live. Noble indeed. We’ve come a long way.
I’d like you to consider your feelings for even more species, if you would. Would you kill a mosquito drawing blood from your veins or let him go about his business? A vicious dog has your cat cornered and is undoubtedly about to make a meal of him, is capable of killing you, but you have a gun. Your cat is covered in fleas. Would you give him a bath to kill the fleas even if you thought about the flea’s right to live? A cockroach is gathering food for his family from your kitchen. Would you exterminate?
The scenarios are endless. Most of us eat meat but would never consider killing the animal that produced that burger, steak, fillet etc. Even vegetarians must live with the knowledge that farmers must kill several species to produce a crop. If a farmer catches a deer, rabbit, rat, coon, possum or crow feeding on his fields they will be killed.
All people who feel a need to preserve life will choose which species they think deserve it. Some will say that only humans have a right to live. Some say that the right to live extends to the cute domesticated animals. Some extend the right to live to all mammals. A buddist monk might say that even the mosquito has as much right to live as the human.
We all fall somewhere on that scale somewhere between the extremities. Would anyone be willing to spend millions of dollars trying to find a cure for diseases that shorten the life of mosquitoes? How many of us would find it ridiculous if our government spent our tax dollars on that kind of research?
If you boil it down to it’s essence……..We really are making a choice. When we spend our resources helping another species we are denying some measure of life or quality of life for one of our own species. It is an emotional decision, not a rational one.
Suppose you had just enough money to get your daughter the life saving surgery she needs but there is another child in another country that needs the exact same surgery to save her life. Which would you spend the money on? Of course you would spend it on your child because you care more for the life you became attached to.
The same holds true for those willing to spend their money on pet surgeries. They are making a choice. It’s a choice between extending the life of their pet or the life of a poor human child. Because they care so deeply for their pet, it’s a choice they’re willing to make. If they had time to spend with the human child and grow fond of them then the choice would become more difficult.
I have no judgement toward you for the choices you make. If you didn’t work hard for your money it wouldn’t be there to spend. Maybe preserving the life of your pet helped motivate you to work hard for the money. ……………..
It’s your money.
I will say that my mother died of breast cancer 4 years ago………….I still miss her. I believe her presence made this world a better place. I also believe that if she had enough money to afford better care she might still be around today. Like it or not the right to live comes with a price tag. We just didn’t have enough for her.
Respectfully
Tim Bridges