Is spending shitloads of money on pet vet treatment immoral?

[Alan C.]

Latest post of the previous page:

The affirmative posters on this topic may be horrified, the positive posters will probably be amazed at the technology, half hour video. (maybe only available in the UK)
The bionic vet.

[david house]

I understand why people keep pets. I have had a dog in the past and we spent quite some sums on him when he got sick. In more recent times though I have travelled much further around the world and seen what the lack of medical care and hunger can really mean. It cost me about £10,000 to pro-long the life of a child who had a brain tumour (my wife's niece). Without us she would be dead by now for there is no free health service in her country. If you cannot pay you get dumped on the street. Quite literally. Such things have made me feel that we really do need to ensure our resources are directed correctly and treating pets must come below treating kids.

[jaywhat]

agree

[Mike]

Sorry but I disagree.

[Gurdur]

I'm half/half.

[Alan C.]

We decided when we got married that we would not add to an already overpopulated planet, instead we would have rescue dogs.
We do give to children in need, Oxfam et al, and I refuse to feel any guilt when I have to spend £400 on an operation for the dog, our dogs are our family.

[Marian]

Isn't there enough money in this world for both?


Yeah, go ahead, call me a dreamer...

[Emma Woolgatherer]

Isn't there enough money in this world for both?


Yeah, go ahead, call me a dreamer...

Wouldn't dream of it. Yes, there is enough money in the world for both. It's not shared fairly, but refusing to spend money on veterinary treatment for pets (or insurance for pets) is not going to help redistribute it. Let's assume that humans are more important than other animals. Let's assume that owning a pet is a luxury. Virtually everyone in the developed world spends more money than they actually need to. We all have our luxuries. David House talks about "travelling much further around the world". Would it be too cheeky of me to suggest that being able to do that is something of a luxury? That in general we don't need to travel abroad at all? Many of us spend far more than we need to on holidays, cars, televisions, computers, iPods, mobile phones, clothes, shoes, haircuts, cosmetics, jewellery, meals out in restaurants, alcohol, theatre tickets, sports tickets, books, objets d'art, home furnishings and ornamental plants. Why pick on veterinary treatment for pets? Only the saintliest of people could be expected to give up all their income beyond what is needed for food and shelter and the very basic social and psychological needs. If we allow people to spend the bulk of their income on what they want, as well as what they need, then obviously they get to choose what they spend it on, and what business is it of anyone else, unless what they are doing is harmful to others? And if people pay tax, and especially if they donate a decent chunk of their income to charities that help sick children and tackle poverty and support other causes deemed sufficiently worthy, then what more can reasonably be expected of them? Well ... actually, I think there's a strong case for redistributing wealth a fair bit more, and I would be happy to pay more tax if everyone else (who could afford it) did too. But a person's income after tax is for that person to dispose of.

I will own up to spending a few hundred pounds a year on pet insurance and vet bills for our dog, and if she needed expensive treatment that wasn't covered by insurance, it is quite probable that we would pay it (unless the treatment was risky and involved putting her through a lot of pain and we decided against it our of compassionate for her). Like Alan C. and his wife, we consider our dog to be part of our family. Oh, I might as well be honest about it: we love her. Others may find that bizarre, but I don't care. It is less bizarre, in my view, than loving one's motorbike, or one's CD collection, or one's wardrobe. Where would be the logic in denying our dog expensive veterinary treatment out of guilt about people dying for want of medical treatment if we continued to spend money on other things that we don't actually need and that are actually less important to us than our dog?

Is anyone here really suggesting that people should spend their income only on what they really need, and donate all of what's left to the world's poor? Is anyone really advocating sainthood?

Emma

[Gurdur]

.... refusing to spend money on veterinary treatment for pets (or insurance for pets) is not going to help redistribute it. ......
Is anyone here really suggesting that people should spend their income only on what they really need, and donate all of what's left to the world's poor? Is anyone really advocating sainthood?

Bingo. This.

I've known a few people to donate extensively for animals; those selfsame people often donated very selflessly for other people as well.

Spending loads of money on animals is not automatically wrong at all.

[Mike]

I will own up to spending a few hundred pounds a year on pet insurance and vet bills for our dog, and if she needed expensive treatment that wasn't covered by insurance, it is quite probable that we would pay it (unless the treatment was risky and involved putting her through a lot of pain and we decided against it our of compassionate for her). Like Alan C. and his wife, we consider our dog to be part of our family. Oh, I might as well be honest about it: we love her

Ditto and I refuse to apologise for it. My dogs (and my wife's horses) mean the world to us. I am astonished that folks have a problem with that. How I spend my money is my affair, what charities I choose to donate to is also my affair. Or are Humanists suggesting that we go down the same road as religious folk and donate to those that we are told to donate to?

To (mis)quote George Orwell - Four legs good, two legs bad

[Marian]

Would it be too cheeky of me to suggest that being able to do that is something of a luxury? That in general we don't need to travel abroad at all? Many of us spend far more than we need to on holidays, cars, televisions, computers, iPods, mobile phones, clothes, shoes, haircuts, cosmetics, jewellery, meals out in restaurants, alcohol, theatre tickets, sports tickets, books, objets d'art, home furnishings and ornamental plants. Why pick on veterinary treatment for pets?

Oh, it would be very cheeky but I like that!! I think you've hit the nail on the head. I would go on to suggest that pets are even more valuable than the luxuries. Pets provide us with companionship that far outweighs anything material, imo.
I don't think it's bizarre to love your dog. Many times they are more loyal than humans. Of course, I'll have to draw the line at motorbikes...