How much money would you spend to save your pet from cancer?

[Pet Friend]

Given the hypothetical situation that your pet had cancer. How much money would you be willing to spend on health care and treatment for your pet?
a) less than $700
b) $701- $1,000
c) $1,001 -$2,000
d) $2001-$3000
e) $3,001 -$5,000
f) $5,001 or more
And which of the following factors that would influence the amount you were willing to spend to treat your pet
__ age of the pet
__ the quality of life the pet would experience during treatment
__ the quality of life the pet would experience after treatment
__ success rate of treatment
__ your financial status
__ other (please specify)

[PetBrags Pet Lovers Paradise]

Any amount.

[Schnauzer]

If you feed your pet a proper diet (aka, for dogs, no Purina products, no Hills, nothing with carbohydrates.. no by-products, no preservatives, no "animal" aka unidentifiable meats, etc.... same for cats too), then you lower the chances of them developing cancer to almost nothing... It comes down to genetics from there! Good diet and exercise is the BEST thing you can do to avoid cancer, along with staying away from certain chemicals. My mum's Miniature Schnauzer and my German Shepherd certainly aren't the best breeds anymore for genetics, but I know one thing... they won't be getting any food-related cancers! (kidney, stomach, intestinal, bladder, liver, spleen, esophageal cancers...). They're being fed the best "dog food" you can buy. When I have more money, they will both be going on the BARF (bones and raw food) diet - the most proper diet for dogs, which are carnivores. With that being said, you spend less money at the vet during the life of your pet, because they are healthier. Oh one more thing... I keep the dogs LEAN! Studies have shown that keeping your dog lean increases life expectancy on average to 1.8 years longer, and prolongs other age related problems 2 years. Most of America's problem with cancer and their pets is related to the food they feed them, and the recent problem with overweight and even obese pets. Genetics plays the other big part, with the most popular breeds in America suffering most (aka breeds like Boxers and Golden Retrievers are notorious) due to indiscriminate breeding for pet shops and increasing demand. My grandparents had a Treeing Walker Coonhound and a Rat Terrier for 20 years... guess what they lived off of? MEAT. Were they overweight? No. And they died from old age - NO cancer!! And they NEVER saw a vet! Amazing, yes? With that being said, if one of my pets STILL got cancer anyway, due to bad genes, I'd spend whatever it took to save them if there was even a 1% chance of them pulling through. So to answer your question more specifically, I choose (f) and none of the above for influencing factors.

[Juliet Varns]

As much as I could, honestly. I don't have alot to spare so it probably wouldnt be much...unfortunately.

[sharon wiggins]

Before i adopted kanga  i had a Lurcher named joey  he passed away when he was just 6 yrs old  he was a beautiful sensitve boy  always willing to play very loving always so happy one day by accident i found a small lump in his neck area i  immediately took him to see the vet after a routine exmaination i was told it was nothing serious a week later the lump had grew twice the size we returned to the vet  he took a biopsy ant told me i would have to wait 2 weeks for the result

in the meantime joey was less like himself and i wasnt happy having to wait a whole 2weeks so i took him to liverpool university animal hospital which straight away he was admitted and the following day was diagnosed with cancer  he was in the hospital for 3 days before he passed away during the night in his sleep the vet visits and the admittance into the animal hospital came to the grand total of £1800 i would of paid the world to save my boy   i couldnt put a limit on him or kanga

[Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen]

It depends simply on wether one of my lads can be treated and the outcome is a more healthy and happy hound. I will do everything in my power if my lads can recover with good results. I would have done anything to save Connors life but alas I never had a choice. For me it is a matter of what can be done to aliviate suffering. If the suffering is continuos and there is no improvement to be made for the hound or dog in question it is perhaps more humane to have them pts. Mind you it is never an easy choice nor should it be an easy way out but if everything has been done and there is nothing but pain and suffering to look forward to I think it would be more humane to pts than let it continue. In a sense it may actually turn out to be the better more humane option. For me there is no doubt prolonged suffering for the animal in question because the owner will do anything  to keep the animal alive. We have got to ask ourselves wether we are doing it for the animals or ourselves.Other than that it is not a question of money but rather concience.

[ducky]

I KIND OF LEAN WITH LISBETH ON THIS ONE. MY THOUGHTS ARE YOU DON'T WANT THE ANIMAL TO SUFFER. AS FAR AS THE MONEY GOES ITS A FACTOR BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE. THE AGE OF THE DOG THE PROGNOSIS,A WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS BESIDES MONEY.

[ducky]

BTW DO YOU BELEIVE IN THE MERCY THING THAT KEVORKIAN ADVOCATED?

[sharon wiggins]

yeah i couldnt disagree with you on the money issue Don but if they were able to remove the cancer , put it into remission so joey would have had a decent life for a little longer andwas in no pain then i have to stick by what i said  id pay whatever the cost so long as he could live without pain  he wasnt an old age and id never let an animal suffer for my own ends

donald de macio said:

I KIND OF LEAN WITH LISBETH ON THIS ONE. MY THOUGHTS ARE YOU DON'T WANT THE ANIMAL TO SUFFER. AS FAR AS THE MONEY GOES ITS A FACTOR BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE. THE AGE OF THE DOG THE PROGNOSIS,A WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS BESIDES MONEY.

[sharon wiggins]

im not sure what this one is Don  let me know
donald de macio said:

BTW DO YOU BELEIVE IN THE MERCY THING THAT KEVORKIAN ADVOCATED?

[sharon wiggins]

well said Lisbeth  i wouldnt ever want any of my pets to suffer  but if there was a glimmer of hope that he could of gone into remission without pain and live a happy life  then i would of tried my best to give him that , id never want to see him in pain thats why i wasnt happy with the vets telling me i would have to wait 2weeks for results  i took it upon my self to take him to an animal hospital to get a second opinion because on my first visit to vets they told me it was nothing to worry about and a few days maybe a week later it had grown twice  the size , im glad i did what i did and got him the second opinion and didnt wait a whole 2weeks for results, he died in his sleep  peacefully and for that i was grateful. Anyhow dear friend  how are you ?  have ou made any decision yet on the little greyhound  or are you not ready yet , im sure though your emotions are still very raw yet , i know your boys are so very important to you and that you have to base your decision not only on yourself but on your boys too, im sure whatever you decide when the time is right  itll be a decision that will bring you much happiness , i wish you a wonderful day , takecare and i pray your pain eases a little  more each day xxxxx hugs from both of us to you and your boys xxxxxx

Lisbeth Mønsted Larsen said:

It depends simply on wether one of my lads can be treated and the outcome is a more healthy and happy hound. I will do everything in my power if my lads can recover with good results. I would have done anything to save Connors life but alas I never had a choice. For me it is a matter of what can be done to aliviate suffering. If the suffering is continuos and there is no improvement to be made for the hound or dog in question it is perhaps more humane to have them pts. Mind you it is never an easy choice nor should it be an easy way out but if everything has been done and there is nothing but pain and suffering to look forward to I think it would be more humane to pts than let it continue. In a sense it may actually turn out to be the better more humane option. For me there is no doubt prolonged suffering for the animal in question because the owner will do anything  to keep the animal alive. We have got to ask ourselves wether we are doing it for the animals or ourselves.Other than that it is not a question of money but rather concience.

[ducky]

SHARON ,KERVORKIAN ADVOCATED MERCY KILLINGS FOR HUMANS WHEN THERE WAS NO HOPE FOR A DECENT LIFE, SERVERLY DISABLED ETC. HE BROKE THE LAW BIG TIME HERE BUT HE BROUGHT UP AN INTERESTING QUESTION. IM UP IN THE AIR ON THAT ONE.

sharon wiggins said:

im not sure what this one is Don  let me know
donald de macio said:

BTW DO YOU BELEIVE IN THE MERCY THING THAT KEVORKIAN ADVOCATED?

[ducky]

BTW I KNOW NOBODY ON HERE INCLUDING YOU WOULD LET THEIR ANIMAL SUFFER.. I WAS TALKING IN GENERAL TERMS