# I think I'm too sentimental



## Cranwelli (Mar 24, 2009)

Whenever any of my animals get sick, mouse, frog or scorpion, I will pay out any amount to get them treated (if it's not something I can sort out myself.)

I know for a fact half the people on here would simply get another one. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## eve2611 (Jul 28, 2009)

nope im exactly the same i paid £12 for my guinea pig Henry but when he got ill i spent £270ish pounds on him trying to save him and get him better, eventually i had to admit defeat!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Careful who you paint with the same brush - I recently paid out £200 for a member of this board's poorly rat the day after he got here (she'd left him with his leg hanging off from a rotting injury), he's still here to this day as a much loved pet. I would do the same for any other animal in my care. :2thumb:


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

I'd pay whatever was needed. We spent about a grand in total on the care needed for one of our rats after she broke her spine (included a new cage for her). They are our babies and we'd do what it takes for them.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

I'd pay whatever was needed also. I've paid several hundred pounds on one rat before. And a couple of hundred on all of them at once a couple of times too.

I do get what you mean, but there are good people here too who DO care. Just because many dont and see them as disposable pets, doesn't mean it's the majority.

IMO any sick animal needs to see a vet. If someone doesn't agree with that, or cant afford it, they shouldn't have the pet.


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

I adore my rats and they give me so much pleasure so I would spend as much as was needed to make them well again just like I would do with any of my pets


----------



## Marinam2 (Sep 4, 2007)

Nope what you do would be the right thing to do in any circumstance. Your responcible for its life and health.

Marina


----------



## Jacs (Jun 7, 2009)

i got my degu for free... i recently spent £209 on him because he had lost alot of weight and couldnt eat. turns out his teeth are wonky so dont grind down properlally, so not only have i spent £209 it will cost me every year (we dont know how many times yet) around £100 a time for him to have them filed down! i however dont care because he is happy and healthy now and i would do anything for him, untill he is suffering or in pain i will be paying out for him =)


----------



## Mischievous_Mark (Mar 16, 2008)

I paid over £100 for one rat after he has a fight with the other rats and they tried to castrate him, My dad said it would have been cheaper to get another so i slapped him lol


----------



## Jacs (Jun 7, 2009)

Mischievous_Mark said:


> I paid over £100 for one rat after he has a fight with the other rats and they tried to castrate him, My dad said it would have been cheaper to get another so i slapped him lol


when my degu was in the vets, the amout of people that said to me "why dont u just get another one?" :whip: i just ignored it the 1st few times... then it started really pissing me off! many people got rather a mouthful off me :whistling2:


----------



## Cranwelli (Mar 24, 2009)

£35 for ten minutes it cost me to get my mice seen, so I can understand why people wouldn't want to bother with the vets. Why on earth do they charge so much? It's understandable if you're paying for antibiotics or something but other than that they're taking advantage of a nation of animal lovers.


----------



## vonnie (Aug 20, 2007)

My vets seem to think I'm a bit batty for taking in my poultry. As does my OH to be honest. But to me I have the same responsibility to them as I do to my dogs and cats.

It was a long time ago now, but when I used to keep rats I was quite disgusted by the attitude of the vets (this was in Sheffield, not here), who seemed to consider them not worth treating.

I know that I can be too sentimental in that I'm always distraught when I lose any animal, and haven't hardened to it over the years and probably never will. But when it comes to doing everything you can for the animals in you care, I don't think that's too sentimental at all, it's called being a caring owner :2thumb:


----------



## RhianB87 (Oct 25, 2009)

I was close to paying nearly £200 for one of my old rats (r.i.p spot) when he had tumours on his skin, but they found a large one in his stomach so I decided it was kinder to put him to sleep, but I would of paid anything to get him healthy again if it was best for him.


----------



## Carol (Aug 2, 2007)

I'd pay whatever was needed.

I found a cat at the side of the road that had been hit by a car we took it to my vet and told them to do whatever was needed (it was a new vet that I had not seen before) and she looked at me funny and said "but it's not your cat", I said that it does not matter just do what you can.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Cranwelli said:


> £35 for ten minutes it cost me to get my mice seen, so I can understand why people wouldn't want to bother with the vets. Why on earth do they charge so much? It's understandable if you're paying for antibiotics or something but other than that they're taking advantage of a nation of animal lovers.


That's pricey for a small animal consult. It's under £20 here, and my vet is expensive!


----------



## Shell195 (May 31, 2007)

My vets charge about £8 for a small animal/exotic consultation and they are very knowledgable about all animals and what they dont know they find out


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Cranwelli said:


> Whenever any of my animals get sick, mouse, frog or scorpion, I will pay out any amount to get them treated (if it's not something I can sort out myself.)
> 
> I know for a fact half the people on here would simply get another one. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


Well I certainly wouldn't! If any of my pets need a vet they're taken and I pay - shimples!! I wouldn't dream of leaving any of my pets to suffer and die just cos I could replace it cheaper!


----------



## Jacs (Jun 7, 2009)

someone on the forums pointed me towards the vets i use now, they specilise in exotics and are amazing, they are just as great with domestic animals. our previous vet let my sisters bullmastiff poo in the cage after being spade because she got snappy and they refused to get her out of the cage... ever since then she has been terrified of vets (before we got her we think she was badly treated and whenever she does toilet inside she is mortified she has had 1 accident in 3 years and i honestly have never seen a bullmastiff so upset/scared  )... this vet said they risk life and limb to make sure any animal no matter how big or small gets everything they need, be it going outsie for toilet or coming out cage for meds. they charged me just over £20 to check my hamsters over, they are a little more expencive than other vets i have been to, but for the service i get from them im more than happy to pay extra!


----------



## Krista (Jul 18, 2009)

Hi,

Our vets here are rather pricey as well, and as are their medications! :devil:

We take on our pets and want the best for them, and as many have said on here....I too have taken my Ratties to the vets to have various things fixed and have and always would pay for whatever needed.
I have found that some of our vets here do not understand why I would pay out £200 for an operation to save my rattie? but it's ok to have a dog on long term pheno's??????????? :censor::censor::censor::censor: :whip::whip:

The vet that treated my Rats has sadly left...she was very good with all of them and spoke to them like she did with all my dogs.:flrt: :flrt:

Jingle Bells


----------



## ditzychick (Aug 21, 2009)

The way i see it, people may disagree, but if one of my kids was sick or injured i wouldnt just let them get on with it i would take them to the doctors. We should look after our pets and get them treated simply because we can, why sit there and watch them die when there are plenty of vets about, i admit they charge a fortune sometimes and that may put people off taking a pet, "so much cheaper to get a new one", those that think that surely should not own animals. :bash:


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Cranwelli said:


> Whenever any of my animals get sick, mouse, frog or scorpion, I will pay out any amount to get them treated (if it's not something I can sort out myself.)
> 
> I know for a fact half the people on here would simply get another one. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


And your point is?
Are you saying that you are better than someone who won't pay a king's ransom in order to 'save' a pet worth a couple of quid?
I wouldn't. If I have a sick mouse, I cull it. I have more sense than money. If I have a sick chicken (unless it is one of my very rare breeds) I cull it. Does that make you better/kinder/more of an animal lover than me?


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Shell195 said:


> My vets charge about £8 for a small animal/exotic consultation and they are very knowledgable about all animals and what they dont know they find out


Ours are about the same, £35 for consultation is mad! It cost us less then that for a guinea pig consultation, 1 Sub-Q Baytril and a 5 day course of oral Baytril! :gasp: It only came to about £27, and the vets are lovely, very knowledgeable and always happy to help. :flrt:


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

fenwoman said:


> And your point is?
> Does that make you better/kinder/more of an animal lover than me?


 
Simple answer? Yes. No need for culling if something can be treated.


----------



## Cranwelli (Mar 24, 2009)

fenwoman said:


> And your point is?
> Are you saying that you are better than someone who won't pay a king's ransom in order to 'save' a pet worth a couple of quid?
> I wouldn't. If I have a sick mouse, I cull it. I have more sense than money. If I have a sick chicken (unless it is one of my very rare breeds) I cull it. Does that make you better/kinder/more of an animal lover than me?


No need to get touchy. :Na_Na_Na_Na: 

None of us said anything about being better than anyone else. I feel sorry for your mice and chickens but I understand that not everyone has enough money to treat their animals. But surely you would feel bad for killing something which you've raised from birth?


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Horatio said:


> Simple answer? Yes. No need for culling if something can be treated.


 In your opinion only. If something was worth £2, would you really spend £500 on treating it? If so, then I'm afraid that you are indeed sentimental, not compassionate and you must have more money than sense.
If you had an 11 year old dog with cancer, and the vet said it could have an operation costing £600 to remove the lumps he could find, and that the op would not actually prevent any more lumps happening and wouldn't prolonge the dog's life, would you do it?


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Cranwelli said:


> No need to get touchy. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


 no need to get so bloody condescending :Na_Na_Na_Na:



> None of us said anything about being better than anyone else. I feel sorry for your mice and chickens but I understand that not everyone has enough money to treat their animals. But surely you would feel bad for killing something which you've raised from birth?


 You have no need to feel sorry for my animals. They probably get as high, if not higher level of my care than a lot of other people's animals do. Vet treatment has nothing to do with having enough money or not enough money. Indeed, I spent over £400 at the vet last month and another couple of hundred the month before and no doubt a good £200 will go the same way next week. I am at the surgery most months. However, I'm not silly. Nor am I sentimental. I don't happen to believe that sentiment has any place in animal care. Compassion does though. Sentimental people will allow a chicken to die slowly over the space of a week or more because their vet doesn't treat chickens, and they cannot 'bear' to kill it as it would upset them too much. I've seen just this happen. Sentimental people will put a rat under the knife to have tumours removed, time and time again despite the fact that it is a farly short lived animal anyway. They'll see the animal go under the knife, and fork out hundreds of pounds for the treatment, just so they can make themselves feel like they are better than other rat keepers. When I see this, I pity the poor bleddy rat, having to suffer the pain and trauma of surgery because of silly sentimental owners.
Sentiment causes more suffering than compassion does.
As for killing something I reared from birth, no I do not feel bad. Animals live, and some are destined to die to become food for other animals (humans included). Are you telling me that you eat no meat, drink no milk, eat no eggs, cheese butter, fish? Since if you do, these are killed on your behalf, how does this make it ok in your eyes? Or is it OK to kill an animal only as long as you never saw it being killed?
I have a young billy goat here, named Daniel. I bottle fed him when his mother rejected him. He's a sweet thing. As soon as he is large enough, he is off to the abattoir to be killed and put in my freezer. Am I cruel? Nope. He's had a good life here with the company of other goats, warm dry house, good food, never known a hand raised against him, nor a harsh word. Nor will he ever. The alternative is to sell him or give him away. The problem being that I have seen sentimental people keep goats even though they don't know enough about how to care for them properly. They tether them on a chain because proper fencing is too expensive/ too much like hard work/takes up too much room. They keep single goats because it's not convenient to have more goats. They won't or can't trim the hoves every 6 weeks as it's too much hassle, they don't worm or vaccinate them and then after it becomes too much hassle, they sell them on. After several such homes, they might end up as halal meat, being hoisted in the air and having their throats slit while they are fully consious and a religious man says prayers in order to drown out their terrified screams. That's what a sentimental owner does. A compassionate one cares for him and makes his life pleasant, then ensures that his death is swift and pain free.Eating the meat is a sign of respect for the life he gave to feed me. 
Occasionally, I get too attached to something, like my large billy goat Solomon. Really, I should not keep him. I can only use him on 2 of my females as he is father to the others. However, he is expecptionally calm, kind and affectionate. So for now, he stays. If there comes a time I am unable to keep him, he too will go to the abatoir. I will feel regretful that he has to die, but will remind myself that a life which is happy and short, is far preferable to one which is long and miserable. That's compassion, not sentiment.
I make no apologies for being a compassionate animal keeper. I would be deeply ashamed to be a sentimental one. I see nothing to boast about there and certainly see nothing to be proud of when telling people I put myself deeply in debt over an animal.
Of course all this may be hypothetical as the people saying that they would spend whatever it costs for their pet cockroach, mouse, or whatever, may not have actually had to do that but rather like the idea that if it ever came to it, in an ideal world, they would be able to afford it. I'm sure the vets with mouse owners willing to spend £500 or more on them, welcome them with open arms and laugh up their sleeves at their folly.


----------



## Cranwelli (Mar 24, 2009)

I've got to say I agree with Horatio.

But I get what you're saying Fenwoman but you seem fixated on the initial price of the pet. That shouldn't be a factor. A £100 snake is not better than a £15 gecko. They both deserve to be treated if you've taken them on as pets.


----------



## Cranwelli (Mar 24, 2009)

I wrote a reply but Internet disconnected. Here it goes again...



> Sentimental people will allow a chicken to die slowly over the space of a week or more. Sentimental people will put a rat under the knife to have tumours removed, time and time again despite the fact that it is a farly short lived animal anyway. They'll see the animal go under the knife, and fork out hundreds of pounds for the treatment, just so they can make themselves feel like they are better than other rat keepers.


Well we're talking about extreme sentimental people here to the point where it is cruel. I could go the other direction in an extreme fashion also. Anyway I don't think people get their rats treated because they want to make themselves feel better than other keepers. They do it because they are willing to spend money on a pet they care for. Most people will know when it is appropriate to let it go. The point I'm making is that any animal should be given a chance if you decided to take it on.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Completely agree with Horatio, I wouldn't home any animal to someone who valued them purely on the price they paid. I pity anyone who feels that way about their pets, and the animals they keep.


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

fenwoman said:


> In your opinion only. If something was worth £2, would you really spend £500 on treating it? If so, then I'm afraid that you are indeed sentimental, not compassionate and you must have more money than sense.
> ?


See my post on the first page of this thread. It's not about what the animal 'costs' to buy. It's about how much they mean to us - and that is not something than a value can be put on. We don't have and never will have children, the rats are our children, so we get the necessary vet treatment whenever it is needed. We wouldn't put them through something heroically extreme, but if something can be done to help them then it shoudl be.


----------



## fenwoman (Apr 15, 2008)

Horatio said:


> See my post on the first page of this thread. It's not about what the animal 'costs' to buy. It's about how much they mean to us - and that is not something than a value can be put on. We don't have and never will have children, the rats are our children, so we get the necessary vet treatment whenever it is needed. We wouldn't put them through something heroically extreme, but if something can be done to help them then it shoudl be.


 So, out of interest, what is the most amount of vet bill you have spent on a pet of yours and what pet was it?
If people are going to argue about hypotheticals and not on actualy pets and actual vet bills, I'd like to know so that I can make wild hypothetical arguments too instead of trying to be factual. I've spend shed loads of money on my animals. £600+ in April on 2 goats worth around £50 each. And £500 on a dog worth half that. And £3000 on my old collie cross who was worth about £50. The latter nearly finished me though and took me months to catch up on financially. I envy those with spare thousands of quid just sitting in a bank waiting to be thrown at a vet to treat a pet mouse. At the end of the day, I guess it must be down to my being a countrywoman with more calls on my finances. I have to look at an animal's worth, whether it be emotional worth, or financial worth. I am not too emotionally attached to livestock I know are destined to be eaten, nor am I over emotionally attached to any of the rodents, although I'd regret if certain ones fell ill and had to be culled. I would never spend say £500 on a rat which might have only another 6 months left to live. I consider that immoral. If I have so much money to throw around on a mere rat then frankly there are human beings starving elsewhere in the world who need that money to survive.There are children dying from lack of clean water, or lack of a vaccine. There are female children being left to die in orphanages in China. To spend £500 on a pet rat when that amount of money could make a massive difference elsewhere in the world is bloody immoral and wrong!
I'm afraid, it does matter to me about how much a vet bill is. I have to consider the emotional tie I have with an animal, its lifespan after treatment and to a certain extent, what it would cost me to replace that animal and lastly, whether the treatment is for the animal's ultimate benefit or mine. To force an animal through painful unpleasant procedures, in order that I might have another few months with it, is unacceptable to me. It's selfish.
To those with only one or two pets, who have formed a strong emotional bond with that pet, I can understand that they have an emotional need to keep the pet alive for as long as possible. But I still think that if they spend inordinate amounts of money to do so, or put the animal through pain and ditress to do so, for their own feelings, is simply not right. I could have made myself popular for telling you all that I remortgaged my home, to pay a £10,000 vet bill to operate on my pet rat and allow it a further 3 months of life. No doubt you'd think what a lovely caring lady I was. However, the love you have for an animal does not always equate to the amount of money you spent on it.
Anyone who says that I should not own pets becasuse I'm not prepared to bankrupt myself for them, doesn't know me at all.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Most pets cost into the hundreds throughout their lifetime, if one thinks that's excessive the easy choice is not to own them. :2thumb: 

The most I have spent on a small animal is £250 for an emergency operation and aftercare, she was a one year old rat and had another year and a half in her if she survived (she didn't). I spent £200+ on Farley, I had him less than a day and given I didn't pay for him and he couldn't ever be replaced (I don't value my pets purely financially, personally), I don't think that was excessive. I didn't do it for me (as if lol), I did it for him, even if he turned out to be 18 months old, that's another potentially year in him, that's a long time to a rat in which he would have a lovely, happy life as opposed to what he had before. As for it being ridiculous to treat small animals, if you don't expect to pay vet bills, you don't take them on. Simples.


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

As I said, we spent about £1000 in total on our rat. We noticed she was dragging her tail on the Sunday evening so took her to the emergency vet. We then had to see our own vet the following day. She worsened and we were referred to an exotics specialist, who then referred us for an MRI scan. This confirmed a spinal injury with an intact spinal cord. So a good chance of recovery. Add in the new cage we bought, as she needed a flat cage, and the 2 new companions we got for her (rescue rats). She then started to recover feeling and movement in her legs and tail, but then developed a lump and had that removed. Then finally she went downhill a few weeks later, and lost loads of weight. The vet could feel a mass on her liver and we made the decision to have her PTS. But up until that point she had been fighting and recovering. If she hadn't been then we wouln't have put her through unnecessary procedures. 

She was only 6 months old when she died so potentially would have had another 18-24 months with us. And yes, she may only have cost us £10 but that's irrelevant. 

I make my charity donations, plenty of them, and regularly, through direct debits. So why the hell should I feel guilty about getting the best possible treatment for my babies?


----------



## nigels mommy (Oct 6, 2008)

firstly i understand people love their animals, i never thought i would see the day ,but i actually agree with fenwoman there has to be a point when it is unethical towards the animal and your own pocket to keep spending money. sometimes we have to admit that an animal is destined to die and no amount of money will keep it alive. i cannot see where it is being fair to any animal just to keep it alive because you dont want to say goodbye to it. surely that is putting your own needs before your animals.


----------



## feorag (Jul 31, 2007)

Cranwelli said:


> Whenever any of my animals get sick, mouse, frog or scorpion, I will pay out any amount to get them treated (if it's not something I can sort out myself.)


But the OP's original point was that if her animals are sick she will get them treated - she won't just let them die because she can buy a new one for less than the vet bills!

It wasn't about paying out a fortune in money to keep an animal alive, when clearly that animal has no quality of life and is going to die anyway, because she can't bear to lose them!

As far as I'm concerned, there is a difference!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

nigels mommy said:


> firstly i understand people love their animals, i never thought i would see the day ,but i actually agree with fenwoman there has to be a point when it is unethical towards the animal and your own pocket to keep spending money. sometimes we have to admit that an animal is destined to die and no amount of money will keep it alive. i cannot see where it is being fair to any animal just to keep it alive because you dont want to say goodbye to it. surely that is putting your own needs before your animals.


With all due respect, noone said in these cases that the treatment was purely to keep an animal alive that should be put down? I think it says a lot about some members that they would claim that any small animal needing vet treatment that *might* die without it therefore should be left to die. That's disgraceful. 

In Horatio's case it was one of my rats that I bred, and I am absolutely forever indebted that I have an owner who cares for her rats that much. She was a young rat with her whole life ahead of her, who is anyone else to tell her she didn't do the right thing? I know she did. She knows she did. 

As for Farley, he could've died, but with his leg removed he would live another (at least) year and a half. Who am I to say that he doesn't deserve that year and a half because it's a large amount of money? Since when does it make it unethical to treat an animal based on the amount and not their potential QOL or lifespan?


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

Thank you Kathy. 

Made me cry again tho!


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I'm sorry Kate, I didn't mean to upset you. Just can't believe some people's disposable attitudes to animals.


----------



## Horatio (Jul 16, 2009)

KathyM said:


> I'm sorry Kate, I didn't mean to upset you. Just can't believe some people's disposable attitudes to animals.


No you didn't really, just me being emotional. especially when i read some of the posts on here.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Don't let the bastards get you down Kate, you're the best owner I know. :notworthy:


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

To be fair, if I had a rodent, I wouldn't shell out hundreds of pounds to fix it. If it's easily treatable, anibiotics ect, then yeah, go for it. I wouldn't have an animal operated on when it's life-span is only 2-3 years, although obviously I wouldn't allow it to suffer. I didn't with my hamster, he was 2 with tumors, I chose to have him PTS because it was the sensible and ultimately the kindest thing to do. I wouldn't want to put an animal down myself, but I'd pay for the vet to do it.
My gecko was only "worth" £15 but I still spent a fortune trying to make her better.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

That's really sad. I wouldn't ever home any rats to people who said it wasn't "sensible" to operate on an animal because they only live 2-3 years old. When a rat needs treatment that will let it live a normal, healthy and active life, then it needs it. If the rat was likely to die or suffer either way then I would understand someone being more cautious. 

If you wouldn't give an animal any expensive treatment because it wasn't "worth" it, then you wouldn't be a fit owner for one.


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> That's really sad. I wouldn't ever home any rats to people who said it wasn't "sensible" to operate on an animal because they only live 2-3 years old. When a rat needs treatment that will let it live a normal, healthy and active life, then it needs it. If the rat was likely to die or suffer either way then I would understand someone being more cautious.
> 
> If you wouldn't give an animal any expensive treatment because it wasn't "worth" it, then you wouldn't be a fit owner for one.


I would, I spent a fortune on my gecko, even though she was only "worth" £15. But take rats for example, operating for tumors, why, it's stupid, there's every chance they could return, they should be put out of their misery, not have their suffering prolonged.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

The mind boggles as to why somebody would get a pet with the mind that if it gets sick it would be culled.....


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Depends on the type of tumour surely? Spaying and removal of mammary tumours has pretty promising results for many people. I wouldn't operate on a 2 year old rat with respiratory problems and mammary tumours, but if that rat was 1 and had good health, then it would be neglecting them to put them down for a problem that can be helped. 

Farley's amputation cost £140 for the op and he had some aftercare that took the total to just over £200. He was roughly 6 months old though and if you'd have put him down for him not being worth it only being a rodent, then he would've missed out on 3/4 of his life as a healthy and happy rat.

I find it really sad to see this fast becoming the accepted view on this forum, that small animals aren't worth decent standards of care or veterinary attention, and are replacable. And yet lots of people on here were praising me for saving Farley, it was one of these "it's only a rat" types that left him in agony for weeks (and yet is still a member here lecturing others on prompt veterinary care of their reptiles, despite having abused animals). How many of those people claiming to root for Farley would've just killed him and wasted his life. How many people who said I was ace for saving him would've left him to suffer? I dread to think now after reading this thread and others recently. 

I despair I really do. Thank God for people like Kate. If I was to read this board only and not have good owners like her, I would just want to give up.


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

LoveForLizards said:


> The mind boggles as to why somebody would get a pet with the mind that if it gets sick it would be culled.....


I wouldn't with most animals. But in my view, with rodents, especially, if they cannot be treated simply, then I would not put them through the trauma of operations, anaesthetic and all the rest of it, I'd rather not let them suffer, if other people want to give them a chance of life, thats fine, but sometimes sentimentality causes suffering.


----------



## captaincaveman (Nov 6, 2006)

i had one of my beardies break its jaw on a rock, had it rewired and had to feed it through its back(cant remember what those tap tingys are called) for months, made a full recovery and bred:no1: was still its usual self too


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Depends on the type of tumour surely? Spaying and removal of mammary tumours has pretty promising results for many people. I wouldn't operate on a 2 year old rat with respiratory problems and mammary tumours, but if that rat was 1 and had good health, then it would be neglecting them to put them down for a problem that can be helped.
> 
> Farley's amputation cost £140 for the op and he had some aftercare that took the total to just over £200. He was roughly 6 months old though and if you'd have put him down for him not being worth it only being a rodent, then he would've missed out on 3/4 of his life as a healthy and happy rat.
> 
> ...


I'm not in the view that any animal is "just a rat/hamster/gerbil" ect ect. It's great that you saved him, I wouldn't have left him to suffer, but I may have had him PTS.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Then thank God they come to me and not you, frankly. I don't mean to be awful but you're saying it's ok for rats like Farley to be destroyed as young and healthy animals to "avoid suffering". That suffering was easily fixed by veterinary treatment, but the owner thought that it wasn't worth it, he was just a rat. I put him out of his suffering by getting his leg amputated, he now lives a normal and very healthy and happy life. He did not suffer by my hands (in fact within minutes of me getting him here he had substantial steps taken to ensure he wasn't suffering at all), so who are you to say he would've been better off dead? Ending suffering isn't just about destroying them, if you can end suffering and fix the rat as I did and as Kate could well have done had circumstances/fate allowed, then it is our absolute duty to preserve their chances of a full and healthy life. I do not understand the mentality of "destroy it and save the money" when the rat has a good chance of surviving and living a great life, then call that ending their suffering. It's a crock to make tight people feel better about making the wrong choices.

ETA: that rabbit in your signature is a rodent by the way, I hope whoever gave him/her to you knows you would kill it rather than fix it.


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> Then thank God they come to me and not you, frankly. I don't mean to be awful but you're saying it's ok for rats like Farley to be destroyed as young and healthy animals to "avoid suffering". That suffering was easily fixed by veterinary treatment, but the owner thought that it wasn't worth it, he was just a rat. I put him out of his suffering by getting his leg amputated, he now lives a normal and very healthy and happy life. He did not suffer by my hands (in fact within minutes of me getting him here he had substantial steps taken to ensure he wasn't suffering at all), so who are you to say he would've been better off dead? Ending suffering isn't just about destroying them, if you can end suffering and fix the rat as I did and as Kate could well have done had circumstances/fate allowed, then it is our absolute duty to preserve their chances of a full and healthy life. I do not understand the mentality of "destroy it and save the money" when the rat has a good chance of surviving and living a great life, then call that ending their suffering. It's a crock to make tight people feel better about making the wrong choices.
> 
> ETA: that rabbit in your signature is a rodent by the way, I hope whoever gave him/her *to you knows you would kill it rather than fix it*.


Firstly, she isn't a rodent, shes a Lagomorph, and if you believe the books they're more closely related to horses than to mice. She's a her, and I wouldn't kill her rather than treat her, ever, she has another 8 years left in her. Im not a cheap skate, I'm not after saving money, I just wouldn't put an animal that's going to live for 2 or 3 years, through surgery, anaesthetic and all the rest of it. I'm not saying that Farley would be better off dead, in fact I think it's brill that you have him back to good health, if it was me, I dunno what I'd do, I know nothing of the rat's situation, age or anything.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

If you'd read the thread you would know, but hey, you said you wouldn't shell out hundreds of pounds on a rodent, that was your first statement. Your next said you wouldn't put a rodent through surgery. So there is your answer over what you would've done to Kate's rat and Farley, regardless of age and situation - both were otherwise very young and healthy rats. And yes, you put a value on them, you made it a financial decision rather than a length and QOL one, so I don't think I'm being unfair in suggesting I would never home to someone who shared your views.


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> If you'd read the thread you would know, but hey, you said you wouldn't shell out hundreds of pounds on a rodent, that was your first statement. Your next said you wouldn't put a rodent through surgery. So there is your answer over what you would've done to Kate's rat and Farley, regardless of age and situation - both were otherwise very young and healthy rats. And yes, you put a value on them, you made it a financial decision rather than a length and QOL one, so I don't think I'm being unfair in suggesting I would never home to someone who shared your views.


I haven't said you're being unfair. I wouldn't put a rodent through surgery not just to stretch another year out of it, I simply don't think it's fair. Yeah, I wouldn't want to spend hundreds of pounds to stretch another year out of it. I'd spend any amount of money on my rabbits, snakes, lizards, torts, cats, dog ect because none of these only have a year or two left. If my dog was 17 years old and became ill, if it turned out, with treatment he only has another year left, I probably wouldn't do it, unless it was simple and easy and with no stress to the animal. Not because I don't care, because I do I'd kill for my animals and walk to the ends of the earth and pay any price, but because I don't think it's fair to put any animal through operations, pain, stitches, ect ect just for it to have to be put to sleep 12 months later.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

The 17 year old dog is a very poor comparison, you're humanising their lifespans. If you had a 4 year old dog of a breed that would normally expect to live to 12+ that needed an operation to save it's life, you'd probably do it, right (God I would hope so)? Or if you had a 2 year old rabbit that was in pain from a leg injury and needed amputation - would you put your cute lops to sleep then? 

A 6 month old rat is only a quarter of the way through it's natural lifespan. Even if it "only had another year in it" (which wuld be an overly conservative estimate considering rats can and do live to 2.5yrs+), that would be potentially another 2 times it's current age in lifespan where it could be happy and healthy. Who is any human to say that it doesn't deserve it cos it's not a long enough lifespan?

So yes, it is absolutely 100% wrong to put an animal to sleep just because a year isn't long to us humans, when it would otherwise live a large percentage of its life "fixed". It's fickle and shallow and selfish. Please don't ever get a small animal, they deserve better. :2thumb:


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> The 17 year old dog is a very poor comparison, you're humanising their lifespans. If you had a 4 year old dog of a breed that would normally expect to live to 12+ that needed an operation to save it's life, you'd probably do it, right (God I would hope so)? Or if you had a 2 year old rabbit that was in pain from a leg injury and needed amputation - would you put your cute lops to sleep then?
> 
> A 6 month old rat is only a quarter of the way through it's natural lifespan. Even if it "only had another year in it" (which wuld be an overly conservative estimate considering rats can and do live to 2.5yrs+), that would be potentially another 2 times it's current age in lifespan where it could be happy and healthy. Who is any human to say that it doesn't deserve it cos it's not a long enough lifespan?
> 
> So yes, it is absolutely 100% wrong to put an animal to sleep just because a year isn't long to us humans, when it would otherwise live a large percentage of its life "fixed". It's fickle and shallow and selfish. Please don't ever get a small animal, they deserve better. :2thumb:


We're going round in circles now Kathy, and not getting anywhere.
Of course I would save my dog and rabbits. I don't keep rats and never have, you'll be glad to know, and maybe I'd feel different if I did, but I don't. I've kept and been responsible for many small animals, not one *ever* suffered, nor would any have been allowed to. All received vet treatment when needed, although none ever needed surgery.
Don't paint me as a hamster crusher who goes around killing rats, because I ain't.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

LiamRatSnake said:


> We're going round in circles now Kathy, and not getting anywhere.


You're right, it's such a shame. I was hoping my initial shock at your posts would dissipate when you posted further, sadly it's just given way to a resignation about sadly a common attitude on this board about disposable pets.



> Of course I would save my dog and rabbits. I don't keep rats and never have, you'll be glad to know, and maybe I'd feel different if I did,


I would hope so but I would urge you not to get any in case you didn't. 



> Don't paint me as a hamster crusher who goes around killing rats, because I ain't.


I haven't done that, I've just reiterated what you said. If anyone gets a bad impression of your attitude towards small animals then that's down to your statements not mine. Personally I think you're a bit of a hypocrite, no doubt you'd scream blue murder at anyone who said the same things about your fluffy bunnies. :Na_Na_Na_Na:


----------



## LiamRatSnake (Jul 3, 2007)

KathyM said:


> You're right, it's such a shame. I was hoping my initial shock at your posts would dissipate when you posted further, sadly it's just given way to a resignation about sadly a common attitude on this board about disposable pets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Course I would if someone was threatening to kill my bunnies lol. Yeah I am a hypocrite, I know that lol


----------

