I don't see wealthy but callous people refusing treatment while the Noble Poor struggle to do their kindhearted best. Or rather, I see that sometimes, but not enough to form a significant trend. There are jerky, irresponsible pet owners among all classes, and there are well-meaning, caring pet owners among all classes.
And while I'm sure you have a good point, I still believe that if a person can't afford proper pet care, they shouldn't own a pet. I'd rather see an animal humanely euthanized than watch it suffer a prolonged, painful death from a problem that could have been prevented. Yesterday we amputated a cat's leg - as a charity case, because it was suffering - from a tiny bite wound that could have been treated and healed with no long-term effects for maybe $100. But the owner couldn't afford that, so instead the cat hobbled about in excruciating pain for 6 weeks, developed a bone infection that ate off half his foot, and eventually lost the entire limb. That's not fair to the cat.
As I said, I know it sounds harsh. But if a person can't take care of a pet, they shouldn't have one. It's not a matter of arrogance, classism, or greed on my part; I didn't go into veterinary medicine to get rich or to cater to the wealthy. I do this for the animals. I want what's best for them. And that doesn't include neglect. I'm not claiming that people should be able to afford MRI's and high-end orthopedic surgery on a whim, but they should at least manage annual check-ups and vaccines.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2001-12-21 07:44 pm (UTC)I don't see wealthy but callous people refusing treatment while the Noble Poor struggle to do their kindhearted best. Or rather, I see that sometimes, but not enough to form a significant trend. There are jerky, irresponsible pet owners among all classes, and there are well-meaning, caring pet owners among all classes.
And while I'm sure you have a good point, I still believe that if a person can't afford proper pet care, they shouldn't own a pet. I'd rather see an animal humanely euthanized than watch it suffer a prolonged, painful death from a problem that could have been prevented. Yesterday we amputated a cat's leg - as a charity case, because it was suffering - from a tiny bite wound that could have been treated and healed with no long-term effects for maybe $100. But the owner couldn't afford that, so instead the cat hobbled about in excruciating pain for 6 weeks, developed a bone infection that ate off half his foot, and eventually lost the entire limb. That's not fair to the cat.
As I said, I know it sounds harsh. But if a person can't take care of a pet, they shouldn't have one. It's not a matter of arrogance, classism, or greed on my part; I didn't go into veterinary medicine to get rich or to cater to the wealthy. I do this for the animals. I want what's best for them. And that doesn't include neglect. I'm not claiming that people should be able to afford MRI's and high-end orthopedic surgery on a whim, but they should at least manage annual check-ups and vaccines.