I  was wondering about how the vets feel about people like myself. I am too crazy when it comes to my dogs health, my cats too.  I will have upset stomachs every time my dog seems ill.  My dog seems to get sticks caught in his gums too oftne, I know it isn't life threatenening but I have to take a sedative each time to calm myself down.....it really interrupts my life, I seemingly will go no where so I can stay home with my dog. He is 12 yo now and has been with me almost every day of his life. I know I am crazy about this, I was once dioagnosed with obsessive compulsive disprder when it comes to my dogs healt, but sine then I have been diagnosed with just a generalized anxiety disorder triggered by my dogs healt.  My last dog died quite suddenly while I was away for a day so I think this is just stuck in my brain and I am frightened to leave my present dog. Anyway I know my local vet understands me but I did wonder about other vets I have visitied over the years.....I am just too crazy about my dog, and at this time in my life I will not get another dog once this one passes to give myself a break for awhile.................well I say I won't anyway, we shall see, but hopefully not for another few years. Thanks for listening, this writing is good therapy for me.

"Animals are more than ever a test of our character, of mankind's capacity for empathy and for decent, honorable conduct and faithful stewardship. We are called to treat them with kindness, not because they have rights or power or some claim to equality but, in a sense, because they don't; because they all stand unequal and powerless before us." -Matthew Scully

I don't see this kind of behaviour very often in my veterinary work, and I'm pretty sure it's due to the fact that in Canada we can see medical doctors and go to hospitals for free (but have to pay private insurance for any other kind of medical service, like physiotherapy or dentistry.) So the concept of having to pay for health care for pets is understandably a bit of a hurdle for many people. So pets do tend to get less expensive care in Canada, in a general kind of way and highly dependent on income and expectations. Health care is not seen as a profit endeavour over here, but over time, it has expanded to things beyond simply medical and emergency care. And of course veterinarians have to do "everything" - not just medicine, but they must incorporate dentistry, physiotherapy, psychology, etc. It's hard to be good at everything at once. To me, the vet's role is to advocate for sustainable medicine, and not insist on the best-or-nothing type of care. Has to be done both with general guidelines as well as on a case-by-case basis - I don't see any other way around it.

HaHa...Dr. Khuly, that's one more thing I totally forgot I did for them...well, actually the boy does that part...but it's still just another way I'm a "slave" for them! And God willing, I will remember to pick up their doggy treats on the way home or it's hell to pay!

Maria and Kara: Yeah, the discussion devolved, a bit, did it not?

Your comments made me think about a relative who lived with dogs in a big city. She once remarked that if aliens ever arrived in NYC they'd be confused as to who was in charge. The higher evolved species must certainly be the one who gets his poop scooped diligently, right?

Amen, Kara! Who owns whom, anyway? Also, some animals DO choose their humans, ala our working Border Collie Bo, who walked 12 miles twice to live with us after carefully evaluating food, furniture, attention and other amenities. We lost her last year at age 15, but I assure you she did indeed make a considered choice of "owners", and continued to work stock from time to time because SHE wanted to, not because we forced her to.

I'm a little behind and just now read (briefly) through the last conversations...I'm a little confused here? I'm the one who has to feed and water my dogs. I'm the one who has to bathe, brush, trim, etc. my dogs. I'm the one who buys their food, treats, toys, shampoo, and god knows what else. I'm the one who gets crammed into the corner of the couch if one of them wants on the couch. I don't get the couch when both of them are on it, either. I have to wash their beds and keep them clean too. I have to go to work to pay for the vet bills, the monthly heartworm and flea medicine. I'm the one who gives belly rubs, head scratches, kisses and hugs. I'm the one who buys 500 dollar vacuums to pick up their hair from their dwelling. I'm the one who bought and installed the doggy door. I hate to say it, but me, myself, and I became my pets slave the moment I adopted them. I became owned the moment I looked into their eyes and realized that it was up to me to take care of them. And as one lays on her bed across from me, and the other beside me, I promise if you asked them their choice of the life they lead, this would be it! I know that there are some animals who are less fortunate, and it breaks my heart and leads me to question humanity. And perhaps those people treat their animals as "slaves", but I highly doubt those are the people reading dolittler. Unfortunately, when you make statements along those lines, the people on this blog DO take it offensively since their animals are probably taken better care of than the norm.

(laughing)

Too bad you're the one who doesn't listen :)  Sometimes you lead the horse to water and sometimes you want to shove the horse under water and hold them there.  Oh, sorry, that's humans, horses usually are smart enough to drink.

Hey...thanks for the unsolicited lecture and critique of my writing, "PJBoosinger". (laughing) Your commentary is so very, very familiar. (laughing even louder)

Marjorie, There is every chance to "exchange ideas in a reasonable, respectful, H-O-N-E-S-T fashion"; however, your goal appears to be to engage in a Socratic discussion and, frankly, I got enough of that nonsense in law school.  Alternately, you may be attempting some form of rhetoric, perhaps in the style of Paul McHenry Roberts.  If that's the case, you should probably go back to his most famous essay and get some practice on his concepts in a creative writing course.  There they will teach you that inflamtory language leads to inflamation and heated exchanges rather than civilized discourse and that inflamatory language is generally counter productive to the art of persuasion.  Of course, we all have our days... :)

I don't know about any of the others but I'm not going to spend all day in long debates, particularly when they've strayed this far from the topic.  But for your reading enjoyment, try http://www.apostate.com/how-say-nothing-500-words

PJBoosinger,

I'm worried that now, especially with this latest influence, there's no longer a chance to exchange ideas in a reasonable, respectful, H-O-N-E-S-T fashion. Still, that is my goal. So read on, if that is your goal, too.

I think you may be missing the point. Or, rather, your strong reaction is exactly my point. You seem to be reacting in the way that is precisely why I use those terms. It shocks people into considering the real relationship between humans and owned animals...without all the political correctness. ...Without the fluff and sappy sentimentality. (No one could ever accuse me of being sentimental. I have been described as being "mired in reality" though.)

Instead of imagining the good home you undoubtedly provide your animals, imagine the dog that used to live down the street from me. Kept chained, isolated, in the garage 24/7. Now recognize that the dog didn't ask for that, and yet it is completely powerless to change its circumstances. The owner isn't even breaking a single law. If that isn't a prisoner, I don't know what is. How about animals used to haul carts? Standing on unnatural surfaces for hours and hours every day. Wearing all sorts of physical restraints. Sometimes hauling more weight than should ever be expected. Is that animal not someone's slave, by the very definition of the word?

Now imagine the lesser extremes. A dog that just wants to urinate. A horse that is bored stiff in its stall. A cat that is being fed an unsuitable diet. Should these animals have to live like that? I mean, when I was in university, I worked at an entry-level job parttime, where I had to ask a replacement to sit-in I went to the washroom. If no replacement was available, I couldn't go. After that experience, I knew that no creature should have to worry about basic, natural, bodily functions, even if they are capable of holding it. ...So, I do everything in my power not to force my dog to hold her bladder longer than she wants. If I leave her at home, I try not to stay away more than 4 hours.

Is it better to call owned animals 'indentured servants', as you suggested, even though indentured servitude was something entered-into willingly, by both parties and, therefore, doesn't resemble, in any way, how animals are acquired or kept? Are you saying you need a less disturbing term for owning and keeping animals without their consent, and then it's okay? Is it all semantics for you? (I don't buy the argument that because human slavery is so abhorrent, the term can't be used to include animals. I see slavery as abhorrent, no matter how many legs the victim has.)

That's the thing I'm seeing, the more comments like this I read. The unwillingness to admit that owned animals don't have a choice. They can't be consulted. They don't get to choose their owners, where they live, or what happens to them. They are our prisoners...our slaves. It is precisely this knowledge that propels me to do better by them.

Maybe the confusion is the silly idea that I somehow revel in being a warden or slavemaster? I think everything I wrote makes it pretty clear that's not the case, but I suppose misinterpretations can be made. When I describe what I find to be unethical in the care of animals, the idea that I like weilding some kind of power over animals is pretty much refuted.

I'm a pretty good slavemaster/warden, I think. I have my animals' very best interests at heart at all times. (I'm more like a parent, when it comes to my animals, than I am like the brutal slavemasters and prison wardens I've read about. But, unlike a parent, animals aren't my offspring, and they really have no business living in my home, or by human social rules. That said, it should be obvious that while domesticated animals still exist, they will need human guardianship of some kind. There is absolutely nothing unethical about providing a responsible, loving home for a needy, domestic animal. In fact, it demonstrates all the best qualities of our humanity.)

I trained dogs for 30 years (and specialized in successfully re-training aggressive dogs for much of that time); trained horses and riders for almost 20 years; was a canine legislation consultant, and taught resposnible dog ownership, among other things. Trying to get people to have better, more compassionate, more ethical relationships with their animals is something I've spent years dedicated to. I used to run several successful web sites, to that end.

For the record, I don't have a "dark relationship" with my animals. The complete opposite of what has been suggested, as someone who views yelling at an animal to be unethical, I dare say I see most people (who do that, or worse) to be the ones having the "dark relationships" with their animals. I receive nothing but compliments concerning how I relate to animals. One woman who asked for my training help said, after witnessing me working with her dog for less than 5 minutes, "It must be something to be a dog owned by you." That made me blush, but I get that kind of sentiment a lot.

I'm exceedingly gentle and respectful of animals, even the difficult ones I've worked with. People have remarked with quite some astonishment, "You're so patient!" I receive numerous requests from friends, family members, and former associates begging me to either work with needy dogs, or just look after their dogs for a short period. People who know me, know their animals are in pretty much the safest, most responsible, ethical environment imaginable, while in my care. I won't trust anyone else with the care of my animals (precisely because I find most people are unethical in the way they relate to animals), and those who are truly concerned about their animals' welfare find a kindered spirit in me. I respect animals so much I wish none of them ever had to live under any human's thumb. Does that sound "dark" to you? It shouldn't. It's the opposite. It's light and respect and compassion.

Shellie: I'm glad you got your GB surgery...huge pain not to be tolerated! But, I hear ya & identify!

KateH: hope you find employment real soon & I know you must be devastated.

JCB: something like that woman w/parakeet would have sent me home in tears

Marjorie, My heart aches for you that you have such a dark view of your relationship with your animals.  As for using the terms slavery or prisoner to mean "prohibited from exercising free will", well, sorry, you clearly don't understand what slavery really is.  That isn't calling a spade a spade but intentionally using an inflammatory term and giving it a connotation different from its true meaning.  Blowing things grossly out or proportion seems to have become an American past time.

Kim, I've had a few with wanderlust over the years too.  All but two came back to me.  I think the dogs call us "Alpha" but I'm not sure what the Feline equivalent is.  (One of the two found a home she liked better and I gave her to them; think she preferred being an "only child".  The other's whereabouts I never discovered and it still haunts me.)

Kim...(laughing...heartily)

...Not volunteering to be my 'pet', but still suggesting being owned is 'all that', huh? Interesting...

Still, what I wrote (to PJBoosinger) is right there in black in white. Nearly all your arguments directed at me are based on fabricated statements or conclusions I didn't actually make, or your own, misguided hypotheses about what you *think* I believe. I trust other readers can see through all that.

I'm sorry, Marjorie - but reading that post, particularly the portion regarding what you term "brainwashing" on your part, I suppose only one term comes to mind - hypocrisy. 

I can not imagine anyone who truly believed, as you claim to, that a single leash correction is abusive and simply having an animal companion is equal to having a "prisoner" or "slave" (and I agree with the previous poster that it is beyond distasteful that you use that term, particularly in the way it belittles actual historical and current slavery victims) would continue to have companion animals.

If your opinion is such that you feel apparent disgust over your own actions - how could you possibly continue to perform said actions?  If pet "ownership" is so equal to slavery, are you suggesting that it's only the illegality of the situation preventing you from owning human slaves?  I mean, you're already supposedly going through the motions - if this is truly how you feel, truly what you believe, one has to then extrapolate that you're therefore accepting of the notion of human slavery, provided conditions are deemed acceptable (ie, meeting whatever standards of care YOU have set out).

Come on, no one would claim such a thing.  I'm sure you are as disturbed by the idea as I am by your flippant uses of terms such as "prisoner" and "slave."

Actually Cats have two basic requirements for domestic living.

Keep that litter box clean! Why should I have to climb over a mountain of poo everytime I want to use the box!! And, why do I have to beg when I need something to eat? Keep that bowl on the floor filled 24 hours a day seven days a week!  LOL it's true it really is.

And what's a veterinarian or veterinary technician's role, if any?

Whatever it has to be under each and every unique set of cirumstances.  LOL . . not easy by any stretch but it can be done. If you can master that you'll probably end up having to turn clients away you'll be so booked up. The other option then is to expand.

PJBoosinger, (assuming this comment shows up) ;-) ...naturally, I respectfully disagree. The definition of the words 'slavery' and 'prisoner' merely indicate the individual is prohibited from exercising free will. My precise point is the need for so many to use prettier, less-offensive terms in describing the lot in life for owned animals. We don't like to think of ourselves as prison wardens or slavemasters, even though that's precisely what we are.

I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. I'm one of those who defiantly uses the word 'kill' rather than 'euthanasia' when it comes to killing animals for any reason other than mercy, in medical situations.

It is precisely by using this kind of factual terminology that I hope to remind people that their pets did not, in fact, choose to live with them, or in the way they dictate. I find that when people view animals as furry humans, who live "with" them, as though by choice, they tend to neglect many areas of the pets' species-specific care/needs.

You know...there's an old saying, "When a man's best friend is his dog, that dog's got a big problem." I both "get" the humour in that, and agree with it.

My main point, earlier and now, remains that, as the guardians of these lives, it is our duty to make the best choices for them, since they can't (or aren't permitted to) make those choices for themselves. Of course we always have the option to rationalize/justify/excuse the decisions we make for ourselves. It's akin to the legal terms of care. When you're asked to provide care, it is expected to be ordinary care. When you request the privilege of providing that care, you're charged with providing great care. When it comes to owning animals, we choose them. Thus we are charged with providing extra care than we would if the animals chose us.

In conversations of this kind, I often invite anyone to come and live as my pet, if they think being owned is so terrific. (But remember...once my pet, you're here for the rest of your life...unless I decide to trade you to someone else...which I wouldn't...but I could.) I have, by most accounts, a pretty fabulous lifestyle to offer any 'pet'. I've been told I'm "kind," "generous," and "patient." I certainly wouldn't intentionally harm my pet, and would try to be as educated about his/her needs as I could. I'm fanancially well-off, with loads of luxuries, a beach house, a private island, loads of travel, and on and on, which any 'pet' might enjoy. The caveat is, as my pet, you have to live as I say. You have to eat what I provide, how much I provide, and when I provide it. (Did I mention I'm vegan?) You may only eliminate when and/or in the facilities I make available. Your only entertainment will be what I think you'll enjoy, and when I permit it. (By the way, I don't read any fiction, and hardly watch television at all. I like all kinds of music, but you can find me most often listening to rap, classical, dancehall, and jazz. I'm not a big fan of pop, rock, or country. So sorry if that's not to your liking.) I will have any medical procedures I deem appropriate performed on you, without your consent. (F.Y.I: I'm a big fan of neutering.) Ultimately, it is my decision if/when I kill you.

You know...I haven't had any takers yet.

Maybe being owned isn't so hot after all? ;-)

Of course, that presumes the 'pet' still gets to decide. I'd really rather prove my point by just kidnapping someone, and keeping him/her as my 'pet'. I can't imagine anyone choosing to live under the thumb of someone else, especially in such intimate terms.

Imprisonment can be physical (tethers, fences, cages, locked doors, etc.) or it can be psychological (such as domestication or rearing). While domesticated animals no longer have the tools necessary to survive in the world, on their own (thus necessitating human guardianship of one kind or another), that doesn't change the fact that domesticated animals are still our prisoners/slaves. It is pure dumb luck when they're acquired by people who are kind and ethical. (I won't even get into taking animals from the wild, to be kept as "pets".)

I have to say, having worked as a canine legislation consultant for so many years, I'm all too familiar with animal abuse/neglect cases. I can't think of a single case, no matter how severe and obvious the cruelty, where the owner didn't claim to love his/her animals, and provide good care for them. ...Even the ones they killed. Pretty much everyone, it seems, believes he/she provides at least adequate care for the animals they own, whether or not that's actually the case.

In terms of what I consider unethical treatment, I'd rather, for example, count the dogs being walked by my home, whose owners AREN'T choking them. It's a much smaller figure. Since I consider even minor choking, neck yanking, yelling-at or otherwise intimidating, animals to be unethical, maybe then you can better understand where I'm coming from.(?)

To suggest that a domesticated animal, devoid of its natural instincts, and raised to trust humans and see them as their sources for food, shelter, and companionship, is somehow exercising free will by coming home after an escape of the physical confines, is rather naive, in my books. I've brainwashed enough dogs to love nail trimming, tooth brushing, heeling, etc., etc.; enough horses to love jumping over 6 1/2 foot fences and having their teeth floated, to know you can shape pretty much any behaviour. There are loads of abused women who truly don't think they can survive without their abusers. Coming back to the only home you've known, is not exactly proof of autonomy.

But I've gone on too long. I really wasn't trying to debate the ethics of animal ownership. My point is, and always has been, to say that I understand when people seemingly are more concerned about their pets' welfare, since it is their DUTY to do so. When making choices for others, we have a duty to make better choices than we might rationalize for ourselves. ...That's all. :-)

I see my Cat (our fifth) as what he is. A unique individual evolving through life's stages like all of us. Kitten-Teen-Adult-Senior.  At five he is pretty darn cool cat. Ultimately our pets have provided the unconditional love and companionship without the neurotic expectations and text book rules and limits that go with human relationships. That's the bottom line.  There is a spiritual side, approach to it also but what works for us may not work for others. That approach is my pet is a mirror who ultimately reflects my own state of being at any given moment right back to me.  Ultimately I can only marvel at this "relationship" between myself and this feline companion in life. I find it astounding and wonderful this little "animal" (ugh hate that term) is so open, trusting, fun, eager, happy, comfortable, and in sync with the here and now, and circumstances in which he has been placed.  Is this not a compliment of the highest order?  Come what may we practice developed discernment when approaching health issues. We are not dogmatists by any stretch. We are opened minded.We have had our share of the good, the bad, and the ugly, the loss, the heartbreak, but time marches on for all of us.  There is always another day.

Do you treat your pets better than you treat yourself?

Oh about equal. No one get's spoiled we just work at going with the flow and allowing everyone to be themselves. But we are not flakes or space cases by any stretch. We just work at "the art of living" pretty much. We are not hypochondriacs.

Home is our temple of "peace" our escape from the "world out there".  Rule number one is not to turn our home environment into a stress factory.  This most definately nurtures better all around health.  My belief is negative stress is the biggest illness creator, killer, and problem in Western society.

I have to also add that it's the forcible restraint portion of prisoner that I don't agree with.  As I stated before, my cats return home immediately if they do happen to accidentally get out, and my dogs don't even like being in the back yard without company - they would much rather be where we are.  I'm not sure what word they would use to describe their existence if suddenly provided with the english language, and of course I can only speak for the animals that I personally live with - but I am positive it would not be either "slave" or "prisoner."

In addition, while in the legal system (for the most part) I may be described as their "owner" I do not believe this term describes our relationship.  In fact, the only reason the push for the term "guardian" hasn't been more widespread is the fear of the legal ramifications that would follow, and the general consensus that, if misused, this new term could cause both pet parents and the animals they care for to suffer, rather than to further the cause of animal welfare which was the original intent.

Marjorie, I "get" what you're saying too but I would consider my pets more as dependents or, at worst, like indentured servants with nominal "work" requirements.  Having been domesticated, they can no longer fend for themselves nor is that world in which they could have really in existance any more.  That makes them dependent upon those they choose or who choose them.  Like any dependent, we make choices for them, set limits; however, that does not equate to slavery nor prison in my opinion.  And, while they are legally my property which entitles me to certain rights, I am amongst those who believe all rights come with responsibilities.

Don't know your source for your definitions but "Slavery is a form of forced labor in which people are considered to be, or treated as, the property of others" is, IMO, more accurate and the "forced labor" part is inherent in slavery.  In addition, slaves generally have no rights whatsoever, even that of being fed; generally they are fed only if the owner feels that keeps them productive.  "Slavery" is a very loaded term and to equate pet ownership with it does a genuine disservice to all who are or have been in actual slavery.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave

...For some reason, the rest of my comment was cut off, and I can't be bothered to write it all again. Sorry. :-( I was just clarifying why I use those words to describe all owned animals, not just my own.

Kim, I "get" what you're saying. Really, I do. I just want to clarify that everyone's pets are their slaves/prisoners, whether nice, well-meaning people want to believe it or not.

slave (slv)

n.

1. One bound in servitude as the property of a person or household.

pris·on·er (prz-nr, prznr)

n.

1. A [person] held in custody, captivity, or a condition of forcible restraint.

Jackson,  Good news.  You can be sedated during dental procedures from silly gas to complete IV outage!  You'll have to do some hunting for the dentists and anesthesiologists and there's a cost but, for me, due to prior traumas, I'm such a difficult dental patient that it's easier and cheaper when I'm knocked out.  I no longer need more than high levels of silly gas for cleanings but I go with IV for everything else.

One major difference between pet doctors and human doctors is caring.  My cats are treated with more compassion by their doctor than I am by mine.  With the exception of my pediatrician, every doctor I've had has essentially kept one foot out of the exam room.  They seem to be half listening, clock watching, and thinking about their next room before I've said two words.   Most often, I'm given a shrug, and if I'm lucky, a prescription.  On the other hand, my veterinarian takes the time to do investigative work, because they can't take their patient's words and form a shallow diagnosis.  Vet visits are simply more worthwhile, because these doctors give more time, thought, and effort to our pets.  

(with apologies to the human doctors on this board)

Guilty as charged. My 6 pets get annual/semi-annual exams depending on their age, bloodwork, fecals, flea and heartworm preventive meds, dentals as needed---all out of pocket. I, on the other hand have health insurance and until recently have been pretty remiss about my own annual exams, labwork, etc. (and I work in healthcare, and oh, yeah Barbara, I am also on the far side of 50). My reasons are pretty lame...no time, too busy, work, volunteer work, family commitments, yadda, yadda, yadda. For the past 6 months, have known I needed gallbladder surgery and kept putting it off. Finally, after numerous attacks and basically living on lettuce, lowfat yogurt, and grilled chicken, I finally had it removed last week. And despite the minimal residual post-op discomfort, I actually feel good for the first time in a long time. I hope I've learned my lesson, and will take care of the little issues before they become big ones, the same as I have always done for my animals.

I'd get my teeth cleaned more often if they'd maintain me on inhaled anesthetics throughout the procedure! 

Interesting post...brings to mind one of my clients who owns a sweet little budgie (parakeet). As we explored diagnostic options for her sick bird, she told me she can't even afford to feed herself, and which test will have the best chance of finding a way to save her bird? The economy is hard on her, but she will do anything for her bird, her only companion, her only friend in this lonely time for her. That is going beyond my-pet-gets-better-care-than-I-do, and it broke my heart. (Epilogue: we took a wait-and-see approach with some empirical therapy and the bird is doing better, owner is eternally grateful.)

When I had a bird dying of kidney failure, a vet told me to consider euthanasia and I was incensed.  A human in kidney failure would be placed on a transplant list and have frequent dialysis.  Unfortunately this isn't an option for birds. 

When I hear about people with pets who aren't taking good enough care of themselves, I just try to gently say "remember that you have to take care of yourself in order to be able to take care of your pets."

I am in an interesting situation.  I get a certain amount of free vet care at the clinic I work at, but not nearly enough to cover the costs for 6 animals, 4 of whom are getting quite elderly.  And that's as it should be - my boss should not be subsidizing my pet family.  Also, I have no health insurance, because the cost would take half my pay, which I need for things like housing, electricity, food, college education for my kids, etc.  So I end up in the hospital, have huge bills to pay, and my old cat needs a dental.  He isn't getting it, since I had to make a choice.  My ability to work to pay the bills, which requires being able to walk; or a dental for my cat.  Still, I feel guilty every day!

I have a somewhat opposing viewpoint - to a certain degree.

I have to side with the above posters, arguing that these animals did not choose me - I chose them.  It was a conscious decision (I realize for some people it's an impulsive issue, but that does NOT excuse you from the consequences of your choices) and I enter into any new animal relationship with the full knowledge that I am taking the life of another in my hands.

While I don't go as far as Marjorie and consider myself a "warden" and my dogs/cats "prisoners" (and they certainly are not "slaves") I do freely admit their lack of choice in the matter, to a certain extent.  That being said, my cats return home if they escape outdoors, and my dogs, while sociable, really don't have more than a few minutes for anyone other than their beloved mom and dad.  Ethologists have long referred to pets as parasites on humans, and while some relationships are more symbiotic than others, the term certainly does fit in the truest definition of the word.

Domestic dogs and cats, as a species, would not have achieved nearly the biological success they have so far without the aid of humankind.  While I realize this relationship is mostly beneficial to the dog/cat, at the same time I also do understand where Marjorie is coming from, in that this level of biological success (going from pariah dog to fireside companion) was OUR choice, not theirs.

Because of the elaborate care doted on all the animals who share my home (canine, feline, avian and reptilian) and the relatively average care doted on myself, I have personally put quite a bit of thought into this whole equation.

Dr. K - there is no simple answer, because there is no single situation.  Just as Marjorie views her terms of care different from myself, your clients differ from each others - even when the standard of care remains the same.

What I mean to say is that our reasoning is very personal.  You're always going to have your crazy cat/dog man/woman who simply can not deal with reality and so centers their life around their animals - again, there are as many reasons for this behaviour as there are words on this page so far, but you get the idea.  But then there's the rest of us.  I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself it comes down to responsibility. On this point I believe Marjorie and I would agree.  ;O)

Why we enter into these relationships is also different for each person.  Some people want a fashion accessory, some people want a partner, some people a child, some people just WANT.  Personally, I feel that my life would not be complete without the critters who share my home - and beyond that I also need to reach out to other animals and their companions who are in need.  My dogs in particular are my grounding rod.  They keep me focused, even my moods, bring me joy and love (and sometimes sorrow), teach me new things every day (particularly patience) and bring much needed humour into every moment.  They are there for me every moment of every day - call me extreme, but how can I not repay that with the best care I can provide, or provide something while KNOWING that I could do better?

I think what you need to do is examine each case.  In a lot of the truly serious incidents, such as people who fail to purchase their own necessary medication in order to provide for their pet's (as someone here said, what good are we to our pets if we're not all there ourselves?) you're dealing with an individual who truly lives FOR that pet.

I understand why this is upsetting, and I applaud you for your compassion and concern - but to a lot of these people a life without their beloved pet is not a life worth living.  And as much as I (realistically) agree, who are we to judge?  Forgive me for prattling on, but would we be having this same discussion if we were talking about someone who was caring for a child, or a spouse, a family member or a parent?  I'm not arguing that these lives should be considered equal (frankly, that's not a discussion for this board I don't think...) but when the life in question is not yours, does your consideration really matter?

I want to clarify here that I'm not suggesting that this is normal, or acceptable for that matter - but really, who are any of us to judge - except to judge ourselves, of course.  If the only person suffering is the one making the decisions... is there really a wrong being committed?  Just putting it out there...

I guess in some ways, some people could say I take better care of my cats than myself.

I frequently forget to take my vitamins & glucoasmine but I rarely if ever forget to give my kitties their meds.

If I see a 'bump' or other strange thing on the kitties they go right in, but for my own 'bumps' I tend to put them off, sometimes for a couple years unless they're bothering me physically.

However the similarity usually boils down to a couple things...money vs pain vs consequences.

For myself I know that a couple hundred dollars for regular teeth cleaning and occasional filling is much cheaper and less painful than having teeth capped or pulled. I use the same idea with my cats. It's cheaper and less painful for them to have regular teeth cleaning as the vet recommends vs the pain and consequences of waiting too long, let alone expense.

However in the case of my kitties it's far cheaper to take them in to be checked for any suspicious bumps or minor ADR than it is to go to my own doctor for the same things, and they can't tell me how they're feeling to tell me it's just an 'off day' or something like that.

Plus I have the fortunate option of asking the vets personally if this is something that can wait, needs to be seen now, or can be treated without seeing. I can't do that with my own doctor at all.

I try to deal with each situation individually, weighing finances with overall consequences of doing or not doing something whether now or later.

Normally I'd say I try to balance the care of both myself and my kitties. I'm not going to sacrifice their care for myself if at all possible, but I'm not going to sacrifice myself for their care either within reason. It's a delicate balance that usually comes down to a money issue vs consquences in many cases. I'm not made of money and I'm not going bankrupt for either myself or my kitties.

My cats are like my children, but are not human children, although some of my family claim I treat them as if they were anyways.

I agree with one of the other commentors that a vet's observations or lectures about a person's health would probably not be appreciated. On the other hand, many of the vets I know get asked about human health issues all the time. I think you're in a very difficult position as you can "see" that there may be medical problems, but can't ethically or legally do much about them. Yet, this is true of most professions. In the end, I think we just need to let one another know that we care about each other and are "there" for people should they need a referral, a bit of education about a condition, etc.

I for one have a 10 month old dog and I already dread the fact that her lifespan is so much shorter than mine, so I am adament about making sure that I do everything I can to keep her healthy. At the first sign of anything, we are in the vet's office. I think the reason my dog gets better care than my husband or I is because we are so aware of her compressed life cycle and the urgency of prompt care, as well as her extra exposure to environmental toxins.

But I also feel like we just do what any truly responsible pet owner would do. But then every time I read about how people spoil their pets and treat them like people, I see myself and my dog described to a T. I'm caught between wanting to do right by my dog, and wanting to be reasonable. I can't figure out where I fall.

Such great timing on this - I just lost my job today, and the biggest reason involved was that I had not bothered to get a medical conern attended to (serious head/neck pain), and I ended up acting inappropriately in a stressful situation. There were some other issues on the other party's side, but still, if my dog had been exhibiting this (or other) type of pain, I would have taken them right in. Me, I waited too long, and though I now have 3 different meds to try (after a CAT scan and x-rays, as well), the pain is mostly gone (definitely not making me feel like my head's exploding), but I'm looking for another job. Luckily, when I'm working at the vet's (one of 4 - make that 3 - jobs I have), the pain issues never got so severe. Working with critters is much easier and healthier for me, thank doggness.

There's one other thing that most people may not want to think about, but it goes along with what Galadriel said about needing to have some other person concerned about you, so that you feel ... valued enough, I guess is the way to express it, to get needed care for yourself (whether there's $$/insurance available or not). When I worked at a place where my job was to take care of educational animals (as many as 60 of them, with many different needs), the value that I and others put on those animals made them much more important than I was - that's exactly what I thought. Even when I got hurt (numerous times, often seriously), the animals needs came before mine. At the start of the job, I worked 6 months straight, with only 5 1/2 days off - 3 were holidays and 2 1/2 I had kidney stones. A doctor asked me later if I realized what I was doing, taking better care of animals (my own, too) than I did of myself, and I said "Well, yes, but they need me." "They need you physically and mentally able, and if you keep this up, you won't be either," was her comment, which I ended up sort of listening to, but not enough, and 2 years later I had an experience so similar to what happened recently that I'm going to, finally, seek a cure I've always avoided.

Well I'm up in Canada eh, so most of my health care needs are already paid for when they take 30% of my pay for taxes.  And what they don't cover my work covers (ie meds and private rooms etc...).  So I spend more money directly on my animals health than I do on myself.

Also a bag of food lasts us about 20 days right now and costs $77.  So we spend about $120 a month on food.  We probably spend double that on food for us in a month.

I do not have pet health insurance for my dogs, nor will I buy it, yes it may save me money if they require a very costly operation like hip replacement, but I doubt I would put my dog through that unless they would be at least 95% of what they were before the operation and from what I understand most operations like that make not guarantees.  That's not to say that I wouldn't spend any amount of money on my dogs if it would sustain their current quality of life.  Personally I like my dogs and just dogs in general more than most people I've met.  Something that always bothered me was that you can't bring your dog into a restaurant for lunch and have him sit under the table where he wouldn't make a sound the whole time.  Yet people can bring their screaming babies into a restaurant and ruin your whole meal.

Chuck from Canada

PJB - good point. to add to it, which care is managed by insurance: human docs or pet docs?

I agree with the others who have said that they take better care of their pets because their pets don't have a choice.  My dog has no choice in what I choose to feed her (Wellness Core).  She's at my mercy for when we go outside, play tug or cuddle.  Because I never want her to be miserable for any thing of my doing, I go above and beyond in her care.  Yes, friends and family tease me, but I don't care.  I chose her, not vice versa - the least I can do is take the best care of her that is possible.

Pit Bulls Make the World Go 'Round

Got me and ditto, ditto, ditto! I have all the mental excuses in the world : no time--need to bring my pet to the vet, no money--need to bring my pet to the vet, don't want to know--why add on another worry, need to take care of one elderly parent and one chronically ill family member, need to save those vacation days for things more important, besides I went to the doc's for a sinus infection last year and came home with nothing--why bother? I did end up seeking treatment for an issue, but not until I became literally a hazard to myself & others.

Last summer a good friend said, "you're 50+ some "basics" need to be done & ruled out, I don't understand how you can take such good care of your pets & ignore your own health!" ---cited the excuses above and added a few. After several days of her "nagging",and me feeling quite ashamed & like a "baby", she backed me into a promise. Ugghhh, and I don't break promises that can be fulfilled. Well, I got most of it (the major work) over with & still have a few straggler tests left. I actually felt pretty proud of myself that I got there.If it weren't for her consideration of me, I would never have gone.

Dr. K, you are a good doobie to notice, but I think you are in the "minority" of your profession, both in being that observant, and considerate.

Pocket's Story from New Hampshire

Barbara's comments & picture album link

Both of my cats and me have had serious medical crises in the past four years, but we've gotten through them. I'm glad I have health insurance and that I set aside money each month in a high yield savings account for emergency medical expenses for my furry kids.

The other issue is quality of life. My 15-year-old cat is in the beginning stages of kidney disease. I've already decided that when she gets to the point where she needs subcutaneous fluids, I will learn to give them to her myself and make her comfortable for as long as possible. When she eventually worsens from there and is in pain, that is when I will have her put to sleep.

My main concern is always motivated by what's best for my cats and for me. If I don't take care of myself, I can't take care of them very well, either.

In regards to your question, "Why," at least from my perspective, it's about ethics and responsibility.

I choose to have a pet. Pets never get to choose their owners, much less how they live. For me, this means that it is my duty to do everything in my power to provide the best, most ethical, most responsible care I can physically, mentally, and financially provide.

Where my animals are concerned, I've often described them as my "slaves" or my "prisoners". So I try my best to be the most "benevolent warden."

As anyone who knows me would attest, I take the ethics and responsibility of animal ownership very, very seriously. While I don't think I neglect my own needs (or even wants) in favour of my pets' care, I certainly wouldn't think twice about doing so, if it meant doing the right thing for my little prisoners.

Boy, this is a tough one. I guess when faced with owners who neglect themselves over their pets, I would mention that if they don't take better care of their health, who is going to take care of their precious little ones when they are gone.

Going to the doctor is never fun, especially if you have to experience long wait times. But simple ailments can become serious problems very quickly when left unattended, for both pet and human patient.

HaHa!! This post struck home for me! I will get my dog Boomer to the vet within 2 days at the slightest onset of a bump.....but I've had a mole that's been itchy for about a month and probably needs to be checked out........but it can wait, right? LOL.

Galadriel's third element is the one that makes me drag myself to the doctors despite my reservations.  It's that old airplane issue: put on your own oxygen mask first...

I think there's two elements to taking better care of my pets than myself:

One, I can see it when they need care, and it hurts me to see them hurting or suffering-possibly more than it hurts them.  I can't really see myself suffering, and often blow off my own problems as minor.

Two, I have studied up on he care of the animals we have: both for regular care (and consequences of failing to provide), and for their various conditions, ailments, injuries.  I don't know how to care for a human *nearly* as well as I know how to care for a horse or a dog.  I am also not directly familiar with the consequences of failing to care for myself; I've seen horses who had never had their teeth done and couldn't even move their jaws, who've never had their hooves done and couldn't walk, dogs who are never brushed and have sores under their mats, etc etc.  I haven't really had that kind of in-your-face experience with various human issues caused by neglect.

And I don't really neglect myself, I just...let things slide because there are more important things. F'rexample, I have good omnivore teeth (they don't keep growing nonstop like an herbivore's, and I don't get cavities), so doing more than regular brushing just seems like overkill, less of a priority.  You know?

Harking back to point one, I do often end up taking better care of my health than I would otherwise, because I know it hurts my husband to see me sick or in pain.  That's good for me: to know someone cares, to know that they think my health is important, that they give me a reason to not ignore this particular whatever-is-bothering-me-now.  I don't know if that might help a vet get people to take care of themselves, but something worth considering, maybe.  Having someone express strong concern, much the same way I worry about my critters, might make a difference to me--especially if it's phrased something like, "Much the same way you care about the health of these guys, I worry about your health" or something like that.

On point two, I am sure I would not appreciate a vet talking to me about the concequences of human health neglect.  Even if I need it, I would not welcome a vet pulling out human diagrams and pointing to various things and saying, "Hey, this might happen to you."  And I really like my vets.

There's probably a third element that isn't applicable to me now, but might be for some people: if I let my health go, who will take care of my four-footed family?  If I am unable to do it, they will suffer.  I am not in that position and don't really know how I will approach it when I do get there.  The rate my body is falling apart, it will be an issue eventually.

Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm guilty of this. Especially the food/nutrition issues

<br>

<br>

I've often found myself saying to a very interested dog, while shovng Doritos in face, "no... you can't have these. they're not good for you". Oh the irony. Now, just extrapolate that to all kinds of foods and treats and I've come to realize I'm a junk-food-junkie. Meanwhile, my dog only eats organice, natural, homemade food. Sigh.

I take a pretty proactive role in both my care and the care my pets recieve.  I will often do without because I have the option to reschedule, fit it in, pay for it or whatever.  My animals do not.  I am their only advocate.  Their care is my burden and my choice. 

I still get the call the bed MINE however.

My first suggestion for Vets would be to point out how similar the issues and information are between pets and humans when that is the case.  I've learned far more from Vets (even the worst ones) than I ever learned from my human docs.

For me, when my pets are ill, I can advocate for them, protect them; when I'm ill, I feel at the mercy of doctors.  Human docs don't (maybe can't) take the time to explain so I make decisions that aren't informed and that makes me angry and makes me feel the relationship is adversarial.  I do for my pets what I'd likely do for me if I had me as a support system.  Unfortunately, like many, I don't have that support for me so I make choices for me based on what I can survive on my own and I don't trust my docs enough to be at their mercy, which I think is actually non-existent or at least their concept of "mercy" differs substantially from mine.

After my mini strokes, my docs pretty much said "hang in there, the abilities will come back or not, not much we can do to help, you'll be at your best in about a year".  At the year point, I was pretty depressed because they were telling me that was about as good as things were going to get.  It was my Vet who said "oh, my mom went through that recently, don't believe that 'one year' thing, keep plugging away, take some risks".

Dentists: I loved my first one as a kid.  It was the second one who pulled my crowned baby teeth without my or my mother's consent, without anesthesia of any kind, who literally put his knee in the middle of my chest to get leverage...  Yeah, that leaves some pretty permanent psych scars.