[catsmom21]

Originally Posted by SouthernBelleInUtah

It is a combination of cost and what quality of life the animal will have afterwards. If a person choses to do chemo in the hope that they will live longer, fine. But to do that to your dog or cat - how do you explain the pain and nausea to gain maybe 6 months or so? If the car were different, maybe, but I am not putting them through heroic measures if I cannot be absolutely it would be worth it.

Cats actually don't have the same side affects of chemo that humans do. However, I'm not sure it is something I would do.

I know a couple of cats who went through chemo. One had breast cancer. She did really well and last I heard there's been no recurrence, though it's been a while since I heard from that person. The other was a cat who had an internal tumor. The chemo sessions were extensive, but it worked, he is cancer free now and living a good happy life. There was a lot of traveling, a lot of work for the humans involved. I live alone, and work a lot of hours. How would I manage? And it would depend on the cat too. I have one cat who, I really don't think the stress the trips and treatments would cause her would be worth it.

But there are a lot of other things, besides cancer and chemo, that can rack up vet bills. My boy who left me in November, when his seizure disorder started when he was three, I spent several thousand dollars on specialists and tests. And over his lifetime another $30,000 or so in his care. But his cancer, when it came, was untreatable. And even if there had been a "chance", I don't think I would have put him through any more. But for his sake, not mine.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by SouthernBelleInUtah

It is a combination of cost and what quality of life the animal will have afterwards. If a person choses to do chemo in the hope that they will live longer, fine. But to do that to your dog or cat - how do you explain the pain and nausea to gain maybe 6 months or so? If the car were different, maybe, but I am not putting them through heroic measures if I cannot be absolutely it would be worth it.

that is exactly how we feel as a few others have commented. It is a hard decision and one that each person has to decide for him/herself, but our pets can not talk, we have no idea what they are feeling or going through and the cost ins't the only thing to consider. It is one issue, of course, but out animals are still not human; we might think they are our kids, we know the grief of losing them, but spending thousands of $$S may not be the best thing for anyone.

Nita

[ParallelJJCat]

Originally Posted by SouthernBelleInUtah

It is a combination of cost and what quality of life the animal will have afterwards. If a person choses to do chemo in the hope that they will live longer, fine. But to do that to your dog or cat - how do you explain the pain and nausea to gain maybe 6 months or so? If the car were different, maybe, but I am not putting them through heroic measures if I cannot be absolutely it would be worth it.

As another poster said, chemo does not have the same side effects on animals that it does on people.

The other thing you have to understand with chemo treatment for pets is that often the dose is very different. In people, the goal is almost always to 'cure' the cancer...even if the likelihood of a full cure is very slim, we're still driven to try. With pets, chemo is often used as palliative care. The goal may not be to cure but to give the animal more time...and to make sure that the time is good quality time without pain.

It's also important to remember that cancer is not one disease. There are endless forms of cancer and each has its own treatment and prognosis. I would put my cat through chemo without blinking an eye if the prognosis of remission or a cure were good. As a vet tech I saw animals being treated with chemo many, many times. They simply don't have the violent side effects that people do. Which is not to say they don't have side effects at all...they do, but they tend to be much milder.

If the prognosis was not good but a palliative dose could help extend my pet's life, I would definitely consider it. Six more months of good quality pain free time is a lot.

We lost our cat Heather to brain cancer last year. We were offered chemo, but there was no way to know what kind of cancer it was without a brain biopsy. That meant the chemo wouldn't be well targeted to her particular cancer...there were two possibilities and the treatments were very different. She was also already bleeding into her brain stem. We tried palliative treatment with pain killers and steroids for a few weeks, but it was clear that she was suffering and we opted to euthanize.

On the other hand, JJ once had a bad reaction to a vaccination. There was the possibility that it was a vaccine related sarcoma, a very aggressive form of cancer. The only option to possibly save his life would have been amputation of one of his hind legs followed by chemo. The vaccine had been given low enough down that amputation very likely would have curative, though there was no guarantees (this particular cancer can spread quite far.) Thankfully the biopsy came back negative (though he can never be vaccinated again.) If it had been the sarcoma, the leg would have come off..and JJ would have recovered, adapted, and had many more years of being his punk self.

We actually removed JJ's left eye because of the risk of post-traumatic ocular sarcoma, a cancer that sometimes occurs in badly damaged eyes in cats. That particular cancer is always lethal and usually isn't found before it has already invaded the brain. He actually had a very small amount of sight left in that eye (light and shadow), which shocked every vet who examined him because the interior of the eye had collapsed. I was completely torn about the surgery, but the risk of the cancer developing was too high and the eye kept developing ulcers. When he first came home he just laid in one spot and seemed so depressed...I felt like I had broken him and stolen the last little bit of sight that he had. It got to the point where I couldn't look at him without crying.

Then I came home one night to find that eye socket swollen...turned out he had a hidden infection. Once it was drained and he came home, he jumped out of his carrier and wanted to play fetch for an hour. It had never been the loss of his sight that had him depressed.

Point being, every situation with cancer and chemo is different from the next. People hear the big 'C' word and they shut down and stop listening. It isn't always lethal...in fact, it often isn't. People hear chemo and they think of horrendous side effects...but in animals, that just isn't the case the majority of the time.

[thebunny]

I spent about $3000 on my cat William when he had liver disease. Most of it was initially when he was hospitalized. They said he could have a feeding tube put in, but I said no to that. He was not the kind of cat who would be ok with that. We took him home, encouraged him to eat and he did at first. He was still happy and jumping around. At the end, he was obviously depressed and it was his time. We made the decision to end his suffering. I do however feel that I did the right thing. I was able to give him his best shot, and to listen to his needs and what he was telling me. So, I have no regrets on what I spent, and I likely would have spent more if William had told me that was what he wanted.

[MissNM]

Originally Posted by BlueDay1

With that kind of money, you could have bought dozens of puppies of any breed and the cost to raise them.

Hmm - thought the same thing about my hubby's back surgery.

It's never about the money. It's about that special bond. I wouldn't trade my wonderful husband, or any of my pets for all the money in the world.

[haleybug528]

I would spend as much as necessary. It may take a little doing to scrape the money up but I would do it. Luckily, I'll.be working in the veterinary field my whole life so I can make good use of my employee discount

[jasper12]

I seriously wonder about the ethics of some veternarians...I have a very wealthy friend, her Corgi was ill, he was only 4 years old. My friend told me she spent $20,000 on her dog...until she put him down. Now, knowing my friend...I am sure it was closer to $40,000....or more...she grieved for months...but got a new Corgi...I just think, if a dog has a terminal illness, why drag it out for the owners, and the dog? Isn't it more humane to give them an option? The vet just kept giving her hope...

[SouthernBelleInUtah]

Originally Posted by jasper12

I seriously wonder about the ethics of some veternarians...I have a very wealthy friend, her Corgi was ill, he was only 4 years old. My friend told me she spent $20,000 on her dog...until she put him down. Now, knowing my friend...I am sure it was closer to $40,000....or more...she grieved for months...but got a new Corgi...I just think, if a dog has a terminal illness, why drag it out for the owners, and the dog? Isn't it more humane to give them an option? The vet just kept giving her hope...

That was her interpretation of what the vet said. We as pet parents hear what we want to hear, just as we as patients hear what we want to hear. Not always, but enough times that it is a known fact.

[haleybug528]

I know the vet I work for tries his best to tell the owner all the options but also says whether he believes they will work. But many owners only hear the options, especially if they're like me and don't want to let go.

[ParallelJJCat]

The vet's only job is to provide the options and possible prognosis. It is not to push the pet owner toward either continuing on or euthanizing except in situations where the animal's pain cannot be controlled and the situation is edging into cruelty.

If I opted to go into debt for JJ or Robin (and I would, gladly), that choice would be my own, not my vet's, and the outcome would be my responsibility. There are vets who do withhold options because they don't believe the owner can afford them (or assume the owner wouldn't want to spend the money) and those vets are doing their clients a great disservice.

That said, there are also vets who don't make it clear that trying everything doesn't guarantee a good outcome...but I think they are far fewer than the type who withhold options. Vets, especially old school vets, tend to assume people won't want the 'big gun' options, especially if the client appears poor, talks urban, etc.

But just as in human med., there are no guarantees. A child can die from the flu. A young man can die during routine wisdom tooth surgery. A woman can survive a rare, usually fatal form of cancer and have many more years. A child can be the 1 in a million survivor of rabies.

So should the doctors not try? Or should they be honest and let the pet owner choose for themselves how far to go...but again, with honesty and the courage to admit that in the end, the final outcome may well be out of anyone's hands?

We had a client whose dog had cancer in the lower jaw. This type of cancer is almost always benign, but can grow very large and can spread down the throat. They opted to amputate the dog's entire lower jaw.

It was, of course, an expensive surgery and an extreme option. They were given all of the possible prognosis and options and this was what they opted for. They second guessed themselves after the surgery when they first saw the dog in the recovery ward...they weren't sure if they should have taken things that far. The dog recovered beautifully, however, and within a week was eating, drinking, and playing fetch. Within a month he was back completely to his usual bouncy self.

Then the cancer came back.

Everyone was devastated, including all of the vets involved in his care. Everything we knew about the cancer meant the surgery should have been curative, but in this one case it just wasn't...one little cancer cell got left behind maybe, or it was a new form, or..or..or..

Within six months of the first surgery, the dog was euthanized. The vet didn't mislead the owners. The owners didn't blame the vet or feel bad about the money they spent. Everyone went into the situation with their eyes wide open.

We had another patient with the same kind of cancer, the same treatment, and the dog recovered and lived five more years. We had a patient with the same kind of cancer where the owners opted for no treatment at all and the tumor dislocated the dog's lower jaw (and suddenly then they were all about treating that poor animal...we were by then BEGGING them to euthanize.)

You know you have a good vet when they say something like "You have three options for care. Here's what each means, the probable prognosis, the cost, and the care involved. What questions do you have?"