We dearly loved our first Pembroke Welsh Corgi. All the forums have the canard, " you will know the right time."

Bunk. Dogs are too stoic about their pain.

If you're not fully-mindful, on the day you pick up the little bundle of puppy-love, that there will come a time that you, personally, will have to make the decision to put that specific animal down, then you shouldn't have a pet. It is the one, inescapable constant of having them. It should be in bold type in every purchase or adoption agreement - One Day, You Will Have To Kill This Animal. OK?

I do detect a growing trend in small-animal vets to offer more and more services which are solely to prolong life. I think it's a bad trend. A week or two of prednisone to keep Rookie comfortable while you come to terms with what you have to do is one thing. Months or years of complex medical and surgical interventions is something else entirely - that's being done for the owner, not the pet, and that's the wrong reason. Large-animal vets are a lot more humane about this, I find. The vet schools need to work on this area.

llater,

llamas

I've found that vets w/children are much more in tune w/the feelings involved in putting down a loved pet. I've also stopping being stoic about it. It's very hard.

I went through this a few years ago with my dog. Our vet was wonderfully supportive. I remember something she told me, which made a big difference to me: "Most people think their pet is going to pass away naturally in his sleep. That almost never happens. Nine out of ten pets need to be put to sleep."

Bad altruism doesn't have to come from some secret narcissistic impulse or other unrealized emotion. The truth is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Wanting to do good just isn't good enough. You need to have good outcomes as well as good intentions.

This is why I rarely give money. In my experience it is really difficult to give money and have good outcomes. Most of the time a lack of money is only a symptom instead of the root problem. So just like the drug addict you are enabling a problem. It is much easier to be effective when you give time, or labor, or even just a friendly ear.

My daughters and I have been fortunate to share our lives with 4 Boxers and 1 cat over the last 27 years. We still have one Boxer with us, he's about 8 now. I've spent more money on this particular dog - but not to keep him alive, just to keep him healthy. He had a couple of mast cell tumors that I had removed, gingival hyperplasia surgery (it came back, won't do that again), allergies to fleas/plastic/grass and grains, constant yeast infections in his ears (one drop of water and it's full blown infected). He's happy and healthy, and I do what I can to keep him that way. I joke that of the other 3 Boxers (2 males, 1 female) and the cat (also a male), only the female was considerate enough to die peacefully in her sleep, in her favorite spot on the couch. The irony is, I had an appointment with the vet to have her put to sleep but was waiting for my daughter to come home from school. It has always been a decision made as a family, and we have always gone together as a family, with the other dog in the house (until recently, we have always had Boxers in pairs). It is the most difficult decision, but also the kindest decision.

I went through this a few years ago with my dog. Our vet was wonderfully supportive. I remember something she told me, which made a big difference to me: "Most people think their pet is going to pass away naturally in his sleep. That almost never happens. Nine out of ten pets need to be put to sleep."

Posted by: Brad R at July 20, 2015 5:37 AM
_____________________________________

Wow. I never heard that. That makes you think.

I MAY have had a slight idea of how often it really needs to be done, back in the 1980s, when Lucille Ball was interviewed by Rolling Stone; she said something about how she ALWAYS had her beloved dogs (she had many) put to sleep when they were old and suffering. Of course, she was one tough lady.

At any rate, while I would love to live with several animals, aside from not wanting the time-consuming work that comes with that (btw, NEVER keep birds in a household with animals big enough to kill them - I heard about that second-hand), I would feel decadent just about all the regular vet bills and food bills when there are homeless people in the world. (I seem to remember hearing of Third Worlders' bewilderment at finding out how much money and affection Americans tend to shower on their pets and how relatively little Americans do that with strangers in need.)

Also, our pets are living longer than they would if they lived a "natural" life (and so are people these days, but that's another topic altogether).

During his lifetime, we spent a good amount of money on our pup to ensure his daily health, and a good amount of time making sure he had sufficient exercise and pack-time. But my husband and I are of the same mind about quality of life; we knew that when the time came, we would want our pup to be put to sleep at home, in our arms. At 12 years old, our active dog had been slowing down for about a year. Then, abruptly, he stopped eating and drinking. Our vets are wonderful, but they provided a number of life-extending recommendations that would prolong his hours and days, but at the cost of his happiness and dignity. We stuck with our original decision and had a peaceful, if sad, ending at home. A friend had a pet in the same situation and spent two weeks force-feeding and administering a daily fluid drip before the animal passed away.

Which is the long way round to say, I wish vets would be more forthcoming about that hard discussion of when it is time to let go.

My friends have a 17-year-old dying cat to which they administer medicine down its throat and daily injections. They have been doing so for about a month and can no longer afford to do so. Also, the cat has taken to dragging its broken self into impressive hiding places to avoid its twice-daily torture. Even with this regimen, the vet gives the cat a few months, maximum.

They told me they are considering setting up a "go fund me" page or somesuch to see if people will donate to the cat's care. I told them, "Maybe it's time for kitty to cross the Rainbow Bridge." It honestly never occurred to them that they weren't doing the right thing. Because, obviously, spending all your money on keeping your cat alive (but miserable) for a few more months is better than just killing it, right?

Well, I have several animals. Two horses, 10 chickens, 3 cats and 2 dogs. Yes, it is costly - in the thousands. Do I feel bad for the starving and homeless? No. Should I let the homeless live in the three empty bedrooms I have? No.

One of my dogs has lymphoma. My vet said most people in our community put their pets down because of the cost, up to $5,000. I've spent more than that to date because the U of M vets have had to do different protocols to keep the nodes at bay. She has never had a sick day; she has never showed any signs of being sick. She is the hero dog at oncology - plays with, and cheers up everyone. Should I have put her down? I didn't because I wasn't ready to let her go - she was too young and was my right hand around here.

Each of us has our own specifics. Quality of life is important. We should not let our animals suffer.

Thankfully, I have a really great vet, who is caring and supportive, but also realistic and informative. One of the reasons we have approached our decisions for end of life measures as a family decision as it relates to our pets, is that for better or worse, it has taught my children about love and loss.

Four horses, 8 llamas (and counting), 8 Dobermans (and counting) too many cats to count (and counting), a miniature donkey.

Number of deaths from natural causes - 1.

Do the math.

I've had to administer the injections myself. Nothing focusses the mind on the responsibility of owning animals like doing that. Every first-time pet owner should at least have to witness a humane euthanasia before they get to take Muffles home.

@lenona - your altruism does you credit, but bear in mind that every dime we spend on our animals goes directly to creating employment, the surest and most-effective cure for hunger and homelessness. It dwarfs what we might ever give in 'direct' charity. Those in the Third World who are 'bewildered' about how much Americans spend on their pets, don't grasp how an economy works.

llater,

llamas

Scott Adams had a wonderful post his experience with a dying pet. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/102544432311/my-cat

Our 8 year old Boston terrier fell suddenly ill last March. He was diagnosed with Insulinoma which made it impossible for him to maintain his glucose levels. We weren't ready to say goodbye to him. Even though there were no guarantees, we decided bring him to Tufts to have surgery. His surgery was scheduled for a Monday but he never made it. Sunday morning at the hospital, he started seizing and they couldn't stop it. We made the decision to put him down. We weren't at his side which bothers me to this day, but it would have taken almost an hour for us to get there and we didn't want him suffering for one more second. It was heartbreaking. We have a 5 year old Boston and we will not drag out her life if she falls ill. We will do the right thing for her and end her suffering.

My sister also once made the choice to have surgery performed on her dog, and it only bought her 3 more months. The costs outweigh the benefits in many cases, IMHO.

By "costs" I am referring to pain and suffering on behalf of the animal, mental anguish and suffering on behalf of us, those who love said cat or dog, and also from a monetary standpoint. Is it really worth it to spend $5K on surgery for your pet when it's not a guarantee it will help improve their health/quality of life? Last March, it seemed to make sense to me, but having gone through what we did, I will never put any of my pets through something like that again. It's too much for them, and for me.

"I would feel decadent just about all the regular vet bills and food bills when there are homeless people in the world."

lenona,

Guess you don't do Starbucks then. How's the composting toilet working for you and the solar panels? I know you want a low carbon footprint so that 10 speed bike will come in handy (wear a helmet especially when towing the little ones to dance class).

Appreciate your recycling the wine bottles (dandelion?) and water bottles (although there are filters you know), and I do hope your garden does well w/o pesticides (do you miss the oranges, grapes, and bananas?). Trust you have a bunch of those MREs on hand in case of insects or drought. Who needs Whole Foods you know.

Ah, what fun...
__________________________________

Guess you don't do Starbucks then.
______________________________________

Correct. Takeout food costs ten times or so what on-sale groceries do. Short-term luxuries (as in, forgettable luxuries) are childish and wasteful. How many trips to Starbucks - or any restaurant, for that matter - still give YOU lovely dreams years later? (I'm a big fan of "The Complete Tightwad Gazette" - one example of long-term luxuries, by comparison, could be antique furniture, provided you can actually use it.)

Not to mention all the things that come with takeout food that can't be easily recycled, if at all. You can't recycle dirty paper napkins or paper cups, and certain forms of styrofoam often get recycled in cities only twice a year. The first rule of conservation is REDUCE, not recycle. That doesn't mean dying of boredom - learning to cook more and different meals can be fun, as is creativity in general.

Besides, I never learned to like coffee or even alcohol much - and if something isn't that healthful anyway, why bother learning to enjoy it?
___________________________________

How's the composting toilet working for you and the solar panels?
__________________________________

If Texas and California are any indication, a lot of Americans in those states and elsewhere could find themselves submitting to "toilet to tap" programs, because they'll have no choice once the droughts get worse. Which is why I do everything to save on water (as do other worried people in my building, whom I don't know that well), especially collecting it in gallon bottles whenever I need to heat it up first in the shower. I'd love to have a solar panel, but for multiple reasons, I can't.
______________________________________

I know you want a low carbon footprint so that 10 speed bike will come in handy (wear a helmet especially when towing the little ones to dance class).
_____________________________________

People who REALLY care about a low carbon footprint don't HAVE children - or at least, not more than one. I'm childfree. Check out Bratfree sometime - they're very foul-mouthed, but many of them are very smart.

(I admit, Al Gore, with his four kids, didn't care as much as he probably thinks he cares - but most people of his generation were probably brainwashed by the pro-natalists. BTW, in Jeremy Irons' grim 2012 documentary, "Trashed," Irons talked about the need to reduce wasteful packaging, but nothing, IIRC, about the need to shop less in general! Don't know why - it wouldn't exactly have felt like a tangent.)

Also, biking around here is a bit too dangerous for many, so I use public transportation.
______________________________________

Appreciate your recycling the wine bottles (dandelion?) and water bottles (although there are filters you know), and I do hope your garden does well w/o pesticides (do you miss the oranges, grapes, and bananas?). Trust you have a bunch of those MREs on hand in case of insects or drought. Who needs Whole Foods you know.

Posted by: Bob in Texas at July 20, 2015 11:45 AM
_________________________________________

Not sure what you mean. I'll happily eat all-organic if I can ever afford it (yes, even childfree people are not necessarily rolling in dough - I know a very well-educated homeless man, aged 47, with no dependents who's suffering terribly right now - he claims that unless you're a woman with a baby, you have to wait years to get into public housing), but as I implied, I don't buy wine and I don't recycle wine bottles, I REDEEM those the neighbors carelessly toss into the recycling bins, and I have NEVER bought those pint-size water bottles in my life, though my first reason for that was simply that I could always put tap water into my own bottles and save money. For me, recycling is about those containers that simply can't be avoided - such as the boxes that come with butter packages, and paper egg cartons.

And, I would add, I also know a childfree man (aged 50) who works maybe 60 hours a week just to keep his head above water, so while I'd love to talk to him more often - whether by phone or email - he usually doesn't have time for either one. (He lives in San Luis Obispo, California, for what that's worth.)

We had a very old mutt who wondered off and died about a year ago. She was 17, we think. She was the only animal we've had who died naturally.

We had a Great Dane years ago who we kept alive through medications for the last year of his life. After his initial heart failure, he recovered well, at least for a while. Toward the end he declined steadily; I knew it was time when he refused to eat anything- even peanut butter. The vet's office was clearly terrifying for him- whenever I took him there, he was obviously distressed and would pant and get crazy-eyed. I had a mobile vet come out to the house to put him to sleep, so he could spend his last day at his own house. It was considerably more expensive but very much worth it.

Most Drs and RN's and other medical staff have DNR's and other documents, stating very plainly what they do not want done-which is generally any invasive life-prolonging procedure. It's because, working with people who are very ill, seeing the suffering, the family determined to "do everything" that just prolongs the death, we have the benefit of hindsite-in-advance. We see others suffer, we do the thigns that make them suffer, because we have to, but we don't intend to suffer like that when it's our time.

So glad you had your friends experience to follow. When my sweet kitty, that I got when I was 5 years old-was at the end, I was in college and working at a vet clinic. I took her in that am with my mom, and we held her as she slipped away. Then I worked my usual shift. They all thought I needed to go home, but I wasn't sad! The missing her hadn't kicked in yet- I do still miss her-but I knew she'd had a long and great life, and was more than ready to stop hurting, and I was willing to do that for her. I was glad she went peacefully and without pain. It was the least she deserved.

My dads mom jjst recently died. She was 95, and had (FINALLY-something they should have done years ago, she was so much happier there than home alone) moved into a nursing home a month or so prior to her death. She fell at the nursing home (falls are the initiating event of the cascade that leads to death 60% of the time in the elderly) and then while in the hospital had a stroke. It took her weeks to finally die, and all that time my dad and his siblings were talking about "getting her better" and "rehab" etc. It was so painfully obvious that wasn't happening, and all they made the medical team do to try and force that to happen, merely prolonged her suffering before she went. I hope I do better, for my loved ones.

And people-watch those fall risks! No animals, no throw rugs, no clutter....falls kill!

Lenona, assuming you'd just as soon have the human race continue (if not, stop reading here, we've nothing to say to each other) then someone has to have kids. Having only one kid is NOT the best for the environment. The best is for some families to have lots of kids (the duggars are amazingly resource-efficient) and most families to have none. My 4 kids used one crib, one stroller, hand me down clothes from kid to kid, etc. 4 families with one kid each would use...4 cribs, 4 strollers, 4 wardrobes, etc.

I've no issue with those who choose not to have kids, I think it's rather great if I bother to have an opinion on it at all, and wish more would make that choice, but generally I think about it just about as much as I do people who chose not to have cats as pets, ie not at all.

Agree w/momof4 (surprise!) although I never had 4 back to back (just through marriages - 2).

I was the only boy and the oldest and until I saw it I did not understand/expect the supportive nature that siblings could give to each other overall.

Never had it myself but saw that it was very good and necessary (would have eased some bumps in the road for me).

I think that is what we ultimately look for in our spouses and hope for in our churches.

To momof4:

You had some good ideas, but all I'm saying is, while we obviously can't afford to cut the global population in half in just 10 years or so, that would never happen anyway, since even the Depression and WWII failed to halt global growth, even temporarily, believe it or not. So we need every childfree couple we can get, plus those who adopt and do not reproduce.

As I've mentioned before, there seem to be two likely scenarios: Either we'll continue to increase by 1 billion every 12 years (or even fewer years), just as we've been doing since 1987, or we'll DOUBLE in size every 45 years or fewer, just as we've been doing since 1930. Either way, we'll hit 10 billion sometime between 2032 and 2047. Not a pleasant thought, what with all the water problems we're already having.

And people-watch those fall risks! No animals, no throw rugs, no clutter....falls kill!

Posted by: momof4 at July 20, 2015 5:53 PM
____________________________________________

Something I sent to a columnist yesterday:

...when it comes to those things that really NEED to be done - that is, chores - it's not a matter of whether or not one spouse enjoys housework and the other doesn't; what matters is that all necessary work is just that, whether paid or unpaid, and EVERY adult is entitled to a more-or-less equal amount of time to just plain goof off or to do things that benefit No One Else, such as staring at the clouds or watching TV, so it's not fair to deprive one's spouse of free time (which includes time to spend in the BEDROOM!) just because one hates housework more than the spouse. Also, working with your spouse at getting the house neat and clean every week isn't just about pleasing one's spouse, it's about accepting that any guests at your house may be too polite to say anything, but yes, they really ARE offended by any dust mice or stenches or worse that they encounter, so it's not fair to act as though they should just accept it. (Same goes for any slippery magazines left on the floor - it's too easy to slip on one and break a leg.)

I just watched my dad go through the decision to put down the dog that he and my stepmom had and loved for 18 years. She was a great dog; she traveled well and my dad has pictures of her with them in places all over the USA. (I'm jealous; both of my cats totally freak out if they find themselves in or on anything that moves the slightest bit.) My dad is in his mid-80s, and within the past few years he's been through the experienc of burying his four brothers, plus a lot of his friends and former co-workers are either gone or suffering from dementia. Death is just a damnable, hateful thing. And there's absolutely nothing we can do about that.

In that respect I was fortunate with my first cat. He died abruptly of a heart attack. It took us 10 minutes to get him to the vet; by the time we got there, he was already gone. I didn't have any decision to make.

I have a twelve year old dog and a thirteen year old cat. I'm not looking forward to the time when I have to let them go.

I will do it, though. That's part of having pets.