pet martyrs

[BlaqueKatt]

one of my FB friends is perpetually reposting pleas/stories from "private animal rescues"(some may just be hoarders in training).
Rescue in this case will remain in quotes, as these aren't recognized rescues, just people that take in numerous animals, and never really seem to adopt them out.

At what point is the "medical treatment" of the neglected/unwanted animals become torture so the rescue owner can e a martyr/feel good about themselves?

two recent examples:

one animal the "rescue" was begging for money because for the treatment of one animal she has maxxed out care credit, and 3 credit cards, and has neglected her own health because she can't afford the copays on her medication/medical treatments, because of a single animal. The animal hasn't gone more than 6 days without requiring emergency treatment, and her words "I need $4,000, or to find someone willing to take on the {animal} and bills the only other option is just unthinkable"

another one was a rabbit that was severely neglected(warning: descriptions of animal injuries)


One leg was infected to the point that it was falling off(surgically removed, bone necrosis), the teeth were overgrown and abscessed so had to be surgically removed/drained-IV antibiotics administered for a month, lost an eye to infection from the teeth. Due to overgrown teeth/abscesses causing damage to the skull(weakened bone) couldn't be near any other rabbits, as a bump would lead to a skull fracture.

This poor animal had 10 surgeries in two months(all donated money), and died less than 2 weeks after the last surgery, still with numerous open wounds that hadn't healed/been addressed yet. Yet through the *daily* updates HUNDREDS of people were telling "rescue" owner how strong she was for "saving" the animal, and how brave for sticking it out(and of course the purchasing of shirts with the rabbits photo on it, they sold a lot of those).

I was becoming ill at the thought that these "animal lovers" were effectively, supporting torture, so a *person* could feel good about themselves. How many other animals could have been helped with the nearly $7,000 spent on one animal that wasn't healthy enough to deal with all that medical intervention.

It's just at what point does someone go that far that actual cruelty is seen as "heroic", because they can't see what they're doing is cruel/won't let go?

Am I wrong in feeling like this?
(I've started filtering posts because I'm both disgusted and angry)

[Andara Bledin]

You're not even remotely wrong for feeling that way.

I'm a major advocate for quality if life being more important than quantity and have been for years.

There is a certain point where you have to have the personal fortitude to realize that the entity in question would be better off if allowed to pass on. It's an incredibly tough decision to make, but sometimes it's the best out of a lot of bad decisions.

[Kuari]

I am a volunteer with a recognized rescue, and there comes a time when we realize that it is more humane to have the animal put to sleep. It upsets us to no end when we get an animal that cannot be saved, but clearly wasting money on an animal who is not going to have an improved quality of life is simply not an option. Putting an animal out of its misery is much more humane then allowing them to linger in pain and diminished capacity.

I have been on support groups where people have displayed the level of stupidity the OP describes, and I end up having to leave before I lose my mind and my temper to the point where I get banned. I have been known to call people out on their stupidity when they support somebody who refuses to see reason and cause an animal unnecessary pain and suffering.

[Stormraven]

Indeed. We've had to put down our pets, because we loved them, because we knew that extending their lives would not be a favor to them. There's nothing heroic in extending pain if it cannot be ended.

[s_stabeler]

yeah- there comes a point where, to be frank, it is better for the animal to be humanely euthanised. For example, my family had a pet cat that more-or-less grew up with me (I think he was a year or two younger than me) and about a decade ago now, he had various problems, including fits ( I don't know what it was) and apparently, his liver gave out from the medication he was prescribed- regardless, he was apparently in constant pain ( and he was 15 or 16 at the time, IIRC) and my parents decided to get him euthanised at the vet.

not to mention, as a general rule, individual "rescuers" are generally actually horders. It will probably come as no surprise to hear that legitimate rescue organisations have to spend an annoying amount of time rescuing animals from the individuals when they take on too many, and can't cope.

[Kuari]

not to mention, as a general rule, individual "rescuers" are generally actually horders. It will probably come as no surprise to hear that legitimate rescue organisations have to spend an annoying amount of time rescuing animals from the individuals when they take on too many, and can't cope.

Yep, you are absolutely correct. There are several legitimate rescues here besides the one I am a direct volunteer with, and they will often reach out through the various legitimate rescues for assistance with fostering and other assistance. I see it all the time and it makes me happy that no one group is trying to take on more than they can handle.

[wolfie]

YThere is a certain point where you have to have the personal fortitude to realize that the entity in question would be better off if allowed to pass on. It's an incredibly tough decision to make, but sometimes it's the best out of a lot of bad decisions.

I am a volunteer with a recognized rescue, and there comes a time when we realize that it is more humane to have the animal put to sleep. It upsets us to no end when we get an animal that cannot be saved, but clearly wasting money on an animal who is not going to have an improved quality of life is simply not an option. Putting an animal out of its misery is much more humane then allowing them to linger in pain and diminished capacity.

I can see a point that's partway between these arguments: Rescues have limited resources. Do you spend (let's say) $5000 on treatment for ONE animal whose injuries are so severe it can never lead a normal life, or do you euthanize that animal and spend the same money treating a number of other animals that have curable conditions (e.g. cast for a broken leg, antibiotics for an infection, and half a dozen spay/neuters)? By spending all that money on one hopeless case, you're denying care to multiple animals that CAN lead a normal life. It's called "triage", people.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I agree. There's no point in putting an animal thru suffering and misery when putting it down would be kindest. Case in point: my dog. She was fifteen years old when she developed a kidney tumour. Cuz of her age, she was unlikely to survive an operation, was not eating and was clearly in pain. My mum and I took her to the vet to be put down. We both were in tears, but it was the best thing to do.

[Seshat]

It's called "triage", people.

This was exactly the point I was going to make.

Another option for that same amount of money: make it available for vets to use at their discretion for the genuinely-impoverished.
Ideally, both for people who acquired pets at a fiscally sensible time then fell on hard times, and for people who are on pensions (disability/elder) and have a better quality of life with a pet than they would without.

Funds like that could enable these people to have preventative care for their pets; thus saving (everyone) money in the long run!


And yes, I'm another who has put down a pet rather than ... dammit, I'm crying again. You all remember, I'm sure, how I grieved over ElderlyCat. I still grieve, but I do NOT regret the decision.
And both my current pets have reached the age where anything that would require significant work/pain would probably cause us to ask the vet to end their suffering.

Our current vet has a very similar idea (to us) of what's a suitable pain/age/prognosis ratio for the treat/euthanise decision. I think that when one's pet is aging, that's an important thing to know about one's vet.


But yes. TRIAGE. If you're running a shelter, triage is crucial. So is having access to a group of foster families who can ease an animal past the post-surgery phase, and to volunteers who can help you adopt animals out.

If you're not adopting animals out*, you're not a shelter, you're (probably) a hoarder.


* If you're rehabbing native animals for your area, then replace 'adopt out' with 'setting free and/or forwarding the permanently injured to appropriate zoos/forever-homes'.

[tabbyblack13]

I don't mind paying for surgeries on animals that have a long life ahead of them but when people want to soak a lot of money in an animal that won't live long I feel it is cruel. I've paid for surgeries on kittens I can't keep but are young enough to learn to live without a leg.

Now my mom has the touch with animals. She adopted a dog from a no kill shelter that had rotten teeth, heart mummer caused by an infection, and a collapsing throat. The vet gave her 3 months max, she lived for 7 years. It took her a long time to trust us but after that she was the sweetest little chihuahua. A lot of times if a person can give an animal a chance the animal will improve with proper care but if the dog is in a rescue they may not get the proper care they need. It is a balance that needs to be achieved. In the shelter my dog would have been dead in 3 months because they couldn't take the time to help her. In a house, she got the chance she needed.

[Gravekeeper]

Any legitimate shelter/rescue also has legitimate local foster homes/volunteer workers. In fact to be brutally honest if you are doing this sort of thing WITHOUT working with or at least contacting/deferring to a local shelter you are doing far more harm than good. Because you are not an expert. You are a person that hoards animals for sympathy on the Internet.

The end goal of fostering is adoption and thus entails far far more than just paying for vet treatment out of pocket. Its about making the animal physically, mentally, socially and emotionally healthy so that it can go to a new home as a loved pet.

[Panacea]

I can see a point that's partway between these arguments: Rescues have limited resources. Do you spend (let's say) $5000 on treatment for ONE animal whose injuries are so severe it can never lead a normal life, or do you euthanize that animal and spend the same money treating a number of other animals that have curable conditions (e.g. cast for a broken leg, antibiotics for an infection, and half a dozen spay/neuters)? By spending all that money on one hopeless case, you're denying care to multiple animals that CAN lead a normal life. It's called "triage", people.

Exactly . . . and in a disaster management situation (mass disaster), this is exactly the what we would do with people.