In today's paper - opinions

[Rosie]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1879

I will make my comments when you have all read it.

[smudgley]

She should have found a decent vet in the first place instead of just bloody moaning about them.

[random]

Ah, I will keep my comments to myself I think. I'm glad they put her to sleep in front of her, she sounds incredibly selfish to me. JMO

[Moli]

She does not seem to give a dam.....Like Random will keep my thought on this to myself...!!

[yola]

It made me very cross reading this. It could just be the 'angle' but the author came across as very callous and frankly, disinterested in her cats. Having shared the best part of 20 years with her pets per attitude was remarkably throwaway when the time came to part with them.

Most 'normal' people would probably be happy to invest £400 in finding out what might be the matter with their pet (yes, even those on limited funds rather than a flush journo); as we all know, cats with kidney disease can go on to live a long happy life - GIVEN THE RIGHT TREATMENT!

And the card? Most people would find that a touching gesture - I know I did. But then I took the time to build a relationship with the vets/nurses at my cat's practice. To fall about laughing over this really does highlight this woman's shoddy attitude.

[Rosie]

I think the woman knew her own animals and was probably right about the decision to pts. I would not want my very old cat/dog to have to undergo lots of painful tests to prolong its life for a very short time. When my 92 year old father was diagnosed with terminal cancer I asked that he should just be treated with paliative care which my daughter did not agree with. To put a human/animal through unnecessary distress for the sake of an extra couple of months at best seems cruel in the extreme.

My only negative feeling towards this woman was that she would not do the very last compassionate thing most of us would do for our friends or relatives or animals, and be with them when they took that final journey.

[borderdawn]

Mmm tricky one. I think the woman loved her Cats, they certainly wouldnt of lived that long if she didnt.

I have come across similar occurances at my vets recently, with 2 of my Cats, some of you may well disagree with me too.

Scooter, seen at the Vets over a year ago for the first signs of heart problems, a small murmur, not causing any problems, but may well get worse as he gets older (baring in mind he is 15yrs old!) Took him a few months ago for the same thing, as suggested and expected showing more symptoms, getting out of breath if runs, no coughing, but definate distress if over did things. I saw the Vet who said she agreed it was more than likely congestive heart failure, very common in all old animals. BUT, he could have a chest tumour! She said she wanted to xray him. I asked what the treatment would be if it was a tumour. "None in all probability, they are very rarely treatable especially in old animals." I then asked what the treatment would be if he did have a tumour, but still had a good quality of life, "we treat the symptoms" was the reply. So, I said, getting a little angry, "You want to give a general aneasthetic, to a 15yr old cat displaying symptoms of congestive heart failure, to tell me whether he has a chest tumour that you can do nothing about, and even so, treat the Cat with the same drugs as you would whether he had or not!" "Well yes basically!!" Now I think that is VERY unethical and morally wrong! She then wanted to do an ultrasound to determine the same, and when I declined, she said he might have Hyperthyroidism as that can make the heart beat quicker !!(as it was) This wasnt suggested a year previous and the symptoms were similar, the fast heart beat was the same. I said he showed no other symptoms of hyperT but agreed a small number of Cats may not show all the symptoms and agreed for bloods to be done for this. She then said she wanted to test for everything else too! I made it quite clear that was not going to happen and the T4 test was the one I would only pay for. She rings me back the next evening to tell me the test results were completely NORMAL!!! but she had been thinking and Scooter could have blood clots in his back legs!! but Id need to take him for an ultrasound to confirm it!! Can you imagine my reply Long story short, Scooter is on heart pills and is doing brilliantly, showing none of the symptoms he did and is as playful and happy as he always was. So, was I wrong, cruel or selfish not to have subjected the Cat to all those tests for what is the same outcome and the same treatment? Or was the Vet right to want to do all testing, certainly NOT for the Vets benefit, but for hers and the practices bank account?

See I think that article in the paper was worded to cause a reaction, but I still dont agree she was unkind in any way and at 19/20yrs old I think I may of done the same.
Dawn.

[Moli]

I personally think you were right not to have these test done Dawn, As there was no treatment for the problem, why put him through a general ....I would do the same if it was one of mine.....There are too many tests that come back inconclusive, and you pay for them and get no answers....

[Luke]

I tend to be on the same train of thoughts as Dawn here, if age was against an animal and there seemed to be no way of the poor thing recovering I don't think I'd perlong the suffering.
Infact, we've been there and didn't. Our old JRT Polly was probably about 8/9'ish-she was a rescue estimated six months when we got her, but I think she was older and they claimed this age due to her size but she never grew anyway as was just always tiny! She had always been a sickly dog for years, strokes, heart problems and towards the end her organs we're starting to fail..she was becoming incontinent..arthritis was starting to cripple her..apparently she was having points where she was becoming delirious due to not having enough oxygen as her heart wasn't working properly, and in these times she would really "freak out" and be like a raging beast..totally unaware of what was happening, then she'd "faint" [as it were] and come back round and be fine. Closer to the end she was biting, quite badly tbh, many people who just went to touch her as she was A) in physical pain and B) just miserable. To us she had NO quality of life. The vet said their was more medication routes to go down, more tests to be done to pinpoint exactly what the problems were. However when we asked whether all being suggested was a cure or a "fix" we we're told there was no cure, and her body was just beginning to "close down" as they put it. We made the choice, and our vet supported us, to have her pts. She had a seizure the day she was pts which was what halted us to our senses that a dog who had been a loyal,loving family pet and an animal we had been proud of for many years was being reduced to a sickly, shadow of the dog she once was.
Many disagreed with our choice,many said they would have carried on going down every last avenue until there was no more possibilities of drugs to give her extra time. But that's their choice. We made ours, and ours was to let her go when we did.
So I think in the situation in the article, although I do not agree with many ways in which it was worded, i'm not sure whether I would have gone through with extensive medical treatment. I just hold the belief that the quality of life is more important than quantity, and I'm not one for allowing an animal to live leading even a life that's just half of what they lead before.

[smudgley]

Am I totally missing the point here?