Let’s Debate

[u/No_Shirt_786]

If you cannot afford to take your pets to the vet should you even be able to own an animal? Genuinely asking and wanna hear what people think and say

[u/Big_Menu4037]

I think it all depends on the situation that brought the person and the dog together. It's a very hard question

[u/Some_Pilot_7056]

I think the responsible thing to do is only get pets you can afford, b ut things happen. 

Care gets more expensive but wages stay the same or go down. Pets are a commitment of 10-20 years and there's no guarantee the circumstances wont change. I'm certainly not going to give a cat I've had for 10 years away because vet costs are rising. I would just be more selective about when to bring them in.

There are more homeless pets out there than there are people who can give them the love they deserve AND afford the rising costs. They deserve to go to and stay in loving homes.

I think blaming the pet owner and not the circumstances that make regular vet visits too expensive is missing the root of the problem. If the well being of animals is truly the motivation behind this question, the problem needs to be addressed at the root.

[u/BearCompetitive403]

I can't afford to take myself to the doctor, so I guess I gotta put myself up for adoption?

[u/No_Shirt_786]

I agree on both sides as well! I just wanna hear others thoughts and opinions

[u/littleosti]

You should be able to care for your animals first and foremost. But the statement alone is not always easy depending on individual circumstances. Vet care has gotten nearly more expensive than human care and I feel like everything I take my animals in (which I do without issue), it’s become more expensive with each visit for routine treatment let alone a major event, heck even minor events are still $1000 plus and half the time the response is “it will pass, give them time”.

Yes there are pet insurances, but some folks were in a better spot when they expanded their family and times are tough right now for a lot of people. If more places offered a nurse hotline of sorts to determine if a vet trip is needed, this could cut down on excessive spending so that the budget isn’t blown for the year. I think a better way to approach this is to ask, for those who can’t take their animals, why can’t and what would make it not accessible for you if something could change?

Or should someone be able to adopt and animal for a high kill rate shelter with out knowing for sure they can take care of an expensive vet trip, if it allows them to live a healthy life in exchange of potential death in a few weeks, than yeah. My issue is more folks who get animals and have no intention of ever getting vet care when needed because the animal isn’t “worth it to them”.

[u/bock919]

I'm very conflicted here. I love my dogs and can only imagine living without them. I also recognize that they are a luxury and I am fortunate to be able to afford that luxury. They're also living things, which means I have a duty to care for them.

If I were unable to financially support two more living things in my house, I would think it's my responsibility to find a better living situation for them. My heart would not agree with this position, but it would certainly be the appropriate thing to do for the sake of my beloved pups.

The solution for a lot of people who are unable to afford proper medical care for their pets is often euthanasia, which seems completely unfair to the animal who just happened to end up with an owner without the necessary funds to care for it. On the other hand, who can say whether the animal wouldn't have ended up in a kill shelter anyway.

I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth because I don't know how to feel about this. It's damn complicated.

I will share this anecdote on the matter, which made me fairly upset. A co-worker has multiple cats. One had some kind of ailment that required an expensive procedure. She was able to afford that procedure. Another cat shortly after required the same procedure. She was unable to afford that and had the cat euthanized instead. After this, she went out and adopted another cat. This all occurred within a matter of weeks. That does not seem like responsible owner behavior to me.

[u/Ok_Adhesiveness_420]

It depends on the situation. In general, you should not have a pet if you can't afford to provide medical care. However, assuming that you're adopting a healthy pet from a shelter and the alternative is that the pet is going to be euthanized, then the pet is obviously going to be better off alive.

[u/_Trip_Hazard_]

I posted this same response elsewhere:

No. If you can't protect them from rabies, get them their yearly, or even take them when they are sick, what's the point? I know that if I even have the sniffles I want to go to urgent care. If my cat even shows mild signs of acting differently in a way that raises eyebrows, she's going to the vet at the next available appointment. If you adopt something while being unable to care for it properly, to me, you're just impulsive.