When my kitty was diagnosed with lymphocytic lymphoma, the vet explained all the options. He also let me know that the goal was quality of life as opposed to a cure.

Each critter tolerates chemo differently, so we gave it a try.

We tried a standard therapy of Leukeran, but it was too much for him and he got really droopy. We cut back to 1/2 pill three times a week coupled with Prenisolone. He not only tolerated it, but went into remission for quite awhile. Of course, he ended up being diabetic from the steroids, but it was a small price to pay for him to feel good. The Leukeran was stopped when he came out of remission and the Prenisolone was increased.

The twice-daily routine of testing his glucose (I won't touch a cat with insulin without testing BG first), pills, poke and needles as well as the frequent doctor visits weren't a problem to him. Bless his heart, he wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box. I truly believe he saw it as individual attention.

He was with me for two full years after diagnosis. He was happy and went about his business as if he weren't sick. When he starting losing his energy and the bright personality faded (at the same time he got uncontrolled diarrhea), the vet and I made the decision to let him go.

I do not regret a single penny that was invested or any of the time spent caring for him. Rest in Peace, Winston Alexander.

I guess the only hope Winston ever had of "resting in peace" was to escape you and your monstrous veterinarian. How lucky for him that he was “too dull a pencil” to realize that diabetes, droopiness, pills and pokes from needles weren’t unpleasant things, just “individual attention”. Of course it was too much for you when he developed uncontrollable diarrhea due to your care, and even the vet at that point agreed that it was time to say goodbye, because kitties that smell like poop just aren’t worth saving, and the sooner gone the better. You say that his discomforts were “a small price to pay” in order to extend his life as a sick pet and keep you happy. Well, what makes you think YOU are worth so much? The pain you spared yourself you put on him. “Each critter tolerates chemo differently, so we gave it a try” - this reasoning actually worked for you! So how about you buy a gun and play a game of Russian Roulette before bringing another pet into your home? Chances are you’ll survive, the odds are on your side, and what you did to Winston was no different. If this sounds harsh to you, please understand that that is my intent. Take it as hard as you are able, before finding someone else to bear your pain. The fact that you are ill does not excuse what you did to your dull little pencil, God finally rest his soul.

Sir, have you ever had a pet be diagnosed with a terminal illness and have it on your shoulders to decide what is right?? When a love of your life still wants to be part of the family and sleep at your feet? When you look into her eyes and see a being you promised to protect and wonder what is right and how far do i go?
If you read the poster's comments, her kitty lived for 2 years without much pain. Yes, to have any diagnosis, diabetes, thyroid issues, bone and joint issues, there are frequent visits to the vet which are unpleasant for the pet and the owner. But the visits are short and then life goes on. To come on to this website and ridicule and put down something you clearly have NO understanding of is quite "monstrous" in my opinion.
If you have been through this then you clearly have no understanding of Veterinary Chemo. It is NOT the same as chemo for people, who actually SUFFER quite a bit more to reach remission. What is right to you may not be to another. That is life. Your opinion is simply that. Your opinion. Keep it to yourself. You are a cruel and angry person. Why else would you come to a website where owners are trying to educate themselves on a decision which is QUITE agonizing to put them down and call them cruel?? Shame on you.

You wanna hear harsh Richard? You are an absolute #$@%*&! Hope you read this - and I bet meeting you is like sucking on a lemon. Wonder if you had cancer you'd just let yourself die and not do chemo...but I bet you would if that was a chance at your life. You got bad khama coming your way - you're mean and insensitive and righteous - just hope others treat you in a similarly cruel fashion when you need support. Then you might learn how to behave like a compassionate human being. Bad wishes and bad luck to you Richard.

Dear Richard,

It has finally happened. Your comments actually make you look like a bigger arse than any politician.

Perhaps all living beings - cats, dogs, humans, should just suffer & die with their disease. Based on your comments, I should go home & shoot 2 cats & then myself - for all 3 of us have cancer & all 3 of us are undergoing treatment.

I sincerely hope you never get anything worse than a cold. Or perhaps your wife would want to put you down, as well. You're an unhappy, nasty man. I feel sorry for you.

Unkind and entirely unnecessary.

How dare you judge another persons decision to help their animal. I hope it is nerve on you to decide anything of the sort. How dare you even speak to some one that way when they are grieving.

You did what you thought was right and i am sure you did agonize over what to do, when to do it, is he suffering and i can't see it. For those who do not understand, I say keep your comments to yourself. These are not easy decisions we make. we do it out of love.

Old Broad - we also have a cat on Leukeran (same diagnosis) & he's doing very well. He was also diagnosed with hyperthyroidism, but his regular vet assumed he'd be dead in a month & so wouldn't treat it.

It's been 4 months. His hair began falling out from the thyroid. 3 weeks into thyroid pills & his hair is growing back. He's 14. He plays like a kitten, purrs until he squeaks, & eays voraciously. Until he tells us he's done, we'll keep him on this regimen. (with his new vet).

My hat is off to you - I applaud your hard word & dedication to your fur-friend. (Ignore Richard)

We have another housecat - Oliver, age 16. Squamous cell cancer of lower jaw. He has 1 more radiation treatment & is also on a chemo pill.

Some people - like you & I - do what we can for our Furry Friends. Until they tell us they can't go on. Others (like Richard) change pets like people change underwear. To each his own. I prefer to take care of my friends.

As an aside - I am certainly glad my hubby did not decide to let me die instead of attempting chemo + radiation for my cancer. And we're both glad we made the decision to attempt to treat & keep comfortable our 2 older cats.

Thanks, Olivers mama.

Winston couldn't tolerate a whole Leukeran pill every two days. We dinked with the dosage until we hit on 1/2 pill three times a week. (Keeping track of that was a challenge!) He was happy and had a great quality of life past the median survival time of 2.5 years... almost 3.

I'm so very glad to hear your lymphocytic lymphoma/hyperthyroid kitty is doing well. I'm also really glad you switched vets because there's nothing so frustrating as a doctor who won't work with you and your critter.

Old Broad - similar dose for our Edgar! 1/2 pill every 3 days. Plus his daily pred & thyroid. No side-effects whatsoever. And - being a cancer patient myself - I KNOW side effects!

I hope we get the extra time you had with Winston. Financially, we're in no position to do this (actually, the chemo pills for he & Oliver aren't expensive - the radiation treatments for Oliver are, tho). But we'd already decided that, if you adopt a pet, you OWE THEM to take care of them.

I'm in Calif - had a friend in Texas that was a vet oncologist. It was she who educated me about viable treatments - that's why we switched vets. And I'm glad we did! :)

Winston wouldn't eat at all without the Prednisolone. He got 10 mg a day which, naturally, turned him diabetic. He was happy as a clam even with the constant ear pricks to check his glucose level, insulin injections as well as the twice daily sub-q fluids.

Bless his heart. He wasn't the sharpest pencil in the box. I really believe he saw all the pills and pokes and prods as individual attention.

If I would have had one inkling that he was unhappy or didn't have a quality of life, things would have been drastically different.

He even had a great quality of life for about 8 months after coming out of remission and we stopped the chemo.

New post at the Daily Vet!

Dr. Patti,
Had a vet tell me years ago that he wasn't really into chemo, due to watching his mother suffer so much when she had breast cancer. I think it's a rare person who has not had someone in their family/life be stricken with this disease....and remembers treatment side effects. No matter what you say, or how much treatments have changed in the intervening years, it's an emotional reaction that's hard to overcome. And we all remember human Drs pushing to do something, anything, even when the outcome was not good, and the patient was suffering.

And personally, I have a lot of sympathy for those whose reasoning is lack of funds coupled with palliative care as the outcome is inevitably terminal. Just in that moment they're struggling with having to give up their pet, facing a big bill (isn't chemo expensive?) with the end result having to struggle once again with giving up their pet.

The best you can probably do is to give them printed info to take home, some websites, and time to make a decision. I think time is a crucial factor. Even if it would be better to start treatment today, rather than next week, without breathing space I doubt many will want to treat with chemo.

After 3 pets (and 3 family members) with cancer, with the last one I just woke up and said, I have no control over this. Doesn't matter what I do. I think people swing both ways, depending on what they've already been through, petwise and peoplewise.

See, here's where I get my hackles up. A veterinarian is supposed to be a scientist, advancing options based primarily on evidence, less so on emotion. As long as a veterinarian offers an objective set of options and their chances of success, emotion is a perfectly acceptable backdrop. It should never be how the stage is set.

To be fair, the discussion was at my request, it was not like it was the first thing out of his mouth. Cancer in question was mast cell and from reading the article you highlighted, doesn't look to me as if there's much to be done after surgery that would give you more than a couple of months at Grades 2 & 3. I thought they were using steroids now with some success. This was over 15 yrs ago and I don't know what was available then as opposed to now. After surgery (Grade 2 if I recall right) we used Tagamet for antihistimine effect. He didn't tolerate that well either. Mast cell is a highly metastatic cancer. Grades 2 & 3 I wouldn't go for chemo. To prevent MORE metastases? If it's already metastatic, that's it.

A dog I found with the lump the size of a small grapefruit (fibrosarcoma) lasted 14 months with surgery alone. When we found it had regrown internally (really one that big, you can't get out all those roots from the initial tumor, even though they tend not to be metastatic) I wanted some painkillers as he was uncomfortable. After trying an opoid which zoned him out, I was given Rimadyl. He had a great weekend, then had black stools. Liver obviously shot. He was euthanized that following Monday. In some cases, that's all a client may want, a chance to spend a few more days, especially if they're good ones. I think it's really hard to make a decision on any of it right after hearing the word CANCER, which, really to most people means Death Sentence.

I don't blame the vet for having an emotional response. I think it's hard to cut that away entirely, especially if the experience was bad. You had a good one with Sophie, so you feel there might always be hope. Same thing, really.

Lymphomas are a whole different ballgame, as those are the cancers that respond the most to chemo.

I think your point about giving people time to process the information and make a careful decision is so important. Thank you for emphasizing that aspect of it.

My Basset was disgnoised with a tumor under the spine at the shoulder area. He was in terrible pain but was not ready to give up and die. Our option was surgery with no guarantee or chemo. We were told chemo does not affect dogs in the way that it affects humans so we opted for the chemo. The first and only treatment was done at UT Veterinary Teaching Hospital. The reaction to the chemo was horrible. Immediately started continious vomiting and diarrhea to the point that it progressed to continious blood. He lived another two weeks at which point we had to have him put down. Chemo may work great for some animals but I would never ever put another one of mine thru it. I would rather let them live the remainder of their life with diginity until there is no more quality of life then I will let them go.

I am very sorry for your loss. However, I would very strongly urge you to reconsider chemotherapy for your future pets. Bad reactions to chemo are generally considered to occur in less than 15% of cases and, more often than not, subside relatively quickly. The way I see it, if the chemo causes suffering and the cancer is already causing suffering, it's probably time to make the final decision. What harm, then, in trying the chemo when your alternative is euthanasia?

Think about how horrifically agonizing it must be for the pet's owner who can't afford the treatment. There are more and more people unable to afford to exist; not to mention medical care for their families, themselves or their pets. Yet, pets are so important to people, especially the elderly on meager fixed incomes, so please don't be so hasty to give the impression that the client chooses not to spend their money on their pet. It very well could be that they have no choice. How horrible to face your beloved pet every day knowing you can't afford the recommended health care!

I agree with your comment 100%. Dr Khuly does not seem to have much sympathy for the people who are concerned with the cost of chemo and follow up testing, but the cost may be totally relevant for someone living on a small pension and/or SS. In this case asking for something to make the pet feel better may just be a request for some pain medication until the end is inevitable, such as when the pet no longer shows much interest in food or activity or human contact.
Chemo is no guarantee of anything, it`s a hit or miss situation for those that have the means of paying, so let there be another choice for those that truly can`t pay... pain management.

I agree with Dr. Khuly that many times, clients who say they are unwilling to "put their pet through treatment" are, in fact, simply unable to pay for treatment. While I can sympathize with their situation, it is the lack of honesty that is so frustrating. We can't do right by your pet if you're not honest with us.

I can honestly say I've never looked down on a client who elected euthanasia because they couldn't afford treatment for a pet who was suffering, even if the pet had a good chance of improved quality of life with treatment (although those cases are inevitably sadder). I certainly don't look down on those who elect euthanasia for a suffering pet for whom treatment is prohibitively expensive AND unlikely to provide an improvement in quality of life.

I’m at my last two minutes at this site, nothing on earth could drag me back. So sickening to hear from yet another vet who suspects me of dishonesty when I refuse to let him play Russian Roulette with my pet’s quality of life. I have my doubts about you, too. I do not find it insignificant that you profit by playing hit and miss with the well-being of suffering animals. The money that passes between you and me is your business and mine; the money I keep in the bank is not your business at all, and who the hell trained you to think that it was? Your frustration is unwarranted and masks an arrogance I find intolerable. Goodbye, and God help any pet you treat.

God help any pet you ever have, Richard.

Again great perspective. It seems as though Dr. Khuly is suggesting that only the affluent who can afford end-lfe cancer treatment, i.e., chemo be allowed to own pets.

I think you all need to try reading Dr. Khuly's column again. Because I don't think that's what she'saying AT ALL.

No, thanks. I've read it several times already. Another go around will only make me ill.

Good bye and good riddance!

It's a shame you didn't just leave without leaving - once again - your terribly unkind, unnecessary comments. How dare you presume that you know our pets better than we do?

Anyway, I'm not going to feed the troll any more.

Many people truly cannot afford the treatment. Others say they can't afford it, have the pet put down, & drive away in their Lexus. A week later, they've gotten another animal.

It's a disposable society.

I have a friend whose 11-year old dog was found last month to have "aggressive cancer" and she turned down radiation treatment. Is "radiation treatment" the same as chemotherapy?

Also, what is the average cost involved for chemo, and what is the average length of benefit for the pet? Thanks.

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy are different. Chemotherapy is administered via oral medications or intravenous, radiation therapy works when an instrument delivers photons that damage the DNA of cancerous cells. The end result is the same.

However, every cancer responds differently to the different treatments. Thus, we need to find the modality that is most effective at treating a particular cancer.

Because every cancer needs different drugs and responds differently, there is no set cost. Practices may have 'lymphoma packages' that include all the drugs, lab tests, vet visits, etc, but it will also vary across the country.

Most cancers we treat with chemo and/or radiation tend to fall into the 7 to 12 month average time in remission. My Sophie Sue's brain tumor was irradiated for an extra 12 months of life (the average for most brain tumor radiation treatment). And ever single day was a comfortable day. So, too, are three of my patients currently undergoing long-term chemo for their lymphoma. All are well past six months. One is going on two years. Only one patient in the last two years did poorly with the chemo. We stopped it and she was euthanized two weeks post-diagnosis. They're all different. But the stats for most cancers we do treat with chemo and/or radiation are good and improving every day.

The fact that your questions needed asking under a piece ostensibly addressing “price vs. physical welfare” really ought to tell you something. Dr. Khuly was perfectly able to address both questions without their being asked, and knew perfectly well that most people accessing this page would be after those answers specifically. But she chose instead to focus on her personal frustration with those of us who refuse to play Russian Roulette with our pets’ lives. Typically the owner gets an estimate as late as possible. Our vulnerability is key to the vet’s success in obtaining the money that keeps his or her practice going.

NO-WAY.....The pain,feel sick and most of time it does not work, and if it works, may give you a year, Not for me or my Pet Kids. We will have our Doctors cut it out. Leave the rest up to God. This my stand, not mean for others.

Having had a cat go through chemo, I can say frome experience that you have missed the message of Dr. Khuly's column and are just the person who needs to read and understand what she is saying.

Generally speaking, chemo does not make a dog or cat sick. It makes them feel better. We need to be able to differentiate our human responses to treatments and medications from canine and feline responses, which are often quite different from the human one. Plus the protocol used with cats and dogs, having the goal of improving their quality of life, is aimed to make them feel good, not bad.

Now have check-ups. Most Cancers can be Stop, before they become cancer. Get rid of those moles, you do-not-like-them-anyway. Eat right. Take those darn test we would, like to a void. Yep do your part.

>>Now have check-ups. Most Cancers can be Stop, before they become cancer. Get rid of those moles, you do-not-like-them-anyway. Eat right. Take those darn test we would, like to a void. Yep do your part.>>

On some of these points you're absolutely right: we all should eat right. Quit smoking and wear sunscreen, too. Suspicious moles (or lumps and bumps on your pets)? Definitely get those checked out.

Unfortunately, however, we are now finding that many screening tests in humans are NOT very effective at changing long-term outcomes. Frequently, tests do detect cancers at an earlier point, which may result in the patient living longer after diagnosis. This is not the same as living longer overall, but it does mean the patient realizes he or she has cancer longer (there's an entire philosophical argument right there).

The fact is, many cancers in both humans and animals should probably be managed as chronic illnesses vs. diseases with a "cure". The focus for cancer patients of all species should be on living well for as long as possible.

That said, I agree with Dr. Khuly: if the cancer has already progressed to a point where the pet has begun to suffer, and the owner elects not to treat, the only reasonable alternative is euthanasia.

The cancers I see in horses are predominantly skin tumors. Recently I've seen a couple of horrific cases in which owners have not understood that the horse is suffering. In one case, the owner refused all treatment for several years, until the horse was euthanized for economic reasons (unrelated to veterinary bills, since she'd refused to treat the original tumor). In another, the owner elected palliative chemo, which worked for a while, the problem being the owner then didn't accept that the horse was no longer responding and allowed it to suffer for another six months before the horse was euthanized for a surgical colic (maybe unrelated to the original tumor, but maybe metastases).

IMO, human oncologists have made this discussion very difficult for veterinarians. What is interesting is the recent revisions in human oncologists' thinking about the behavior of cancers and the role of palliative, vs. curative, approaches. Some thoughtful human oncologists have begun to sound more like veterinary oncologists, and as someone who has seen loved ones die of cancer - badly - I welcome this change.

Everything I have ever read about cancer and recovery in animals is more about managment of the illness rather than remission.

Animals do not seem to stand much of a chance. maybe six more months of life? It always seems to return if in remission too.

That is why I have never elected to go through with chemo.

As far as getting rid of the cancer before it becomes cancer like Equine DVM suggests. That has not really happened for my pets.I mean if it does happen for others GREAT. It just has not been my experience. I go for the regular check ups on my dogs and still I have animals that get cancer and the vet never knew it was coming.

It does not seem to be that easy to stop, prevent or treat in animals.

opps sorry I did not notice equine vet was responding to that statement.

Yes I agree with that, it just is hard to detect.

I wish it were easier to have those conversations about cost. It's not always either-or, can't afford it vs. not understanding that chemotherapy is a palliative. It's not just do you want to help your pet feel better or can't you afford it, it's how much better, for how long, at what cost in money, time and difficulty for pet and owner? Some people can't afford it no matter how good it is, but even wealthy pet owners get to decide whether they think spending the money is worth it.

I'd want to drill down and understand how it stacks up against other palliative treatments like steroids, pain meds etc. and what the relative costs and outcomes are. If chemotherapy is the best solution for my pet (and I'm open minded, maybe it is), what are the important advantages over other therapies that would lead me to spend that much money and time into treating my pet?

Maybe there's also a better term vets could use for chemotherapy that would separate it from the impressions we have of human chemo. Low-dose chemotherapy or something like that?

First of all, I am a cancer survivor who underwent agressive chemo in hopes of a cure - so I know what it feels like.

My dog was diagnosed 2 yrs. ago with anal gland cancer that had just started to spread to his lymph nodes. He had surgery to remove the gland and affected nodes. Then it came time to decide on chemo or not. The vet explained that the dose given to animals is only a fraction of that given to people so they don't get sick. He also explained that we'd stop chemo if he did get sick. It's about quality of life. We knew we wouldn't be curing the cancer since it had spread to the lymph system, but slowing it down.

After surgery, Max had 4 rounds of chemo and handled it very well. He lasted a year and a half before relapsing. Last August he had a second surgery and is on chemo again. 2 months ago he had a different drug that he had never had before and that made him pretty sick. We put him on steroids for a week and he bounced right back. Then we went back to the original drug we were using. He has slowed down some and doesn't eat quite as much. But yesterday he still walked me for 2 miles and is enjoying traveling with me, etc.

What I'm getting at is you just don't know how an animal will respond to treatment and how long they will last unless you try it - just like people. Drs. don't have a crystal ball.

It has been 2 years since Max's original diagnosis. Sure it is hard knowing that I'll lose him eventually. But for all I know, I could pass on before he does. I'm glad that I've had these additional years with him and for all the adventures we have had together.

I love your blog, Dr. Khuly, and look forward to it every day. I have to think that I am a bit mistaken, though, about what appears to be your opinion on pet owners declining chemo for solely financial reasons.

First of all, and IMHO, a pet owner MAY well say that he or she doesn't "want to put their pet through it" when in fact, the true driving reason may simply be that he/she simply doesn't have the funds to do it. But SAYING that sounds so harsh and cruel and selfish -- how many pet owners will really be able admit to that? It must be a horrible position to be in to have to deny a dearly loved pet an expensive treatment that may prolong its life... but the reality is that many devoted pet lovers simply cannot. afford. it! In this difficult economy, many people are struggling just to make ends meet and put food on the table. Should these people be denied the benefits and enjoyment of having a pet because they cannot afford modern, expensive veterinary options when recommended?

I don't know... it's a slippery slope. But I for one, would never judge anyone for "just saying no".

I think it must be decided on a case for case basis, because all the factors - the owner's financial situation, the kind of cancer, the particular animal, the age of the animnal, what treatment is actually being offered - I think each case is unique.

Having said that, I wish that vets were more accepting of the owner's understanding of the animal. I'm not talking about owners who just can't bear to let go, or owners who can afford treatment but are strongly predisposed against it for some reason; I'm talking about owners who feel that a particular animal will simply not benefit because their knowledge of that particular animal leads them to believe that the animal wouldn't be a suitable candidate in some way.

Some of us do know our animals well enough to predict their probable reaction to some treatments or procedures, and I've seen a couple of cases where the vet's take on the situation was wrong, not so much in medical terms, but because of that particular animal's peculiarities.

I have not yet regretted (except in the most obvious way) having an animal put down, but I have, a few times, regretted on the animal's behalf, being pressured into treating an animal I thought wouldn't benefit. Animals are each unique, and the owner's judgment on the animal's behalf should be acceptable.

Owners' should not be made to feel guilt over their decisions. I know an experienced owner/breeder/handler who an eleven year old dog put down, despite her vet's assurance that chemo would probably give him another ten months. Perhaps he'd have been fine for that rather short period, a period which might have been longer or shorter, but perhaps not; in any case, she declined the treatment. She was still crying over him a year later, not only over his death, but because she had been pressured so heavily to treat him that she was consumed by guilt.

I think her vet might have given her better support, rather than pressing her even after she made it clear what she wanted for the dog, which was evidently the case. I am not aware that even the most skilled vets are possessed of crystal balls.

Our decisions as loving and knowledgeable owners should be supported.

Good for both of you telling it like it is. What nerve to guilt trip ANY client into "treatment" they feel uncomfortable with---I learned that lesson very mightily.

AND who the hell has a crystal ball here? An oncologist, a doctor, a VET?? Gee whiz, have you read the published statistics? Giving a pet a couple more "months" on average (for some of these horrible , high grade-metastatic cancers---NO thanks.

When a pet gazes up at the calendar and wishes to make a special occasion, then I would consider it.

Has most read "human" journals and reports of various chemos? Well some may choose not to take those either (dependant on age, stage, and degree of health) , if they know the average longevity assumed to be added, in trade for feeling like crap.

Everyone hopes to beat the "odds", to be the one different and getting the maximum survivability. But you know what? You'll never know for sure what "made" a difference.

Again, I belive it is the good doctor trying to take the moral high road for all to see and not only making unwarranted assumptions about pet owner motives but judging them as well. Who is she to set herself up as the Grand Arbitrator.

Great comment. I hope any "ethical" veterinarians who read this post will take into consideration what is "morally" the right thing to do for someone's beloved animal companion. The fact is, NO ONE knows which animal will suffer needlessly because they were exposed to radiation and/or chemotherapy. Who are you, as a professional, to take that risk on someone's family member that is not your own???!!!
As I posted below, I had two canine children who developed osteosarcoma post TPLO procedures. My boy, who did NOT have chemo, lived longer than my girl who did. I was terrified when she was diagnosed with osteosarcoma, as I knew it was a death sentence. Being that my boy died four months post amputation, I thought that maybe the specialists knew better.... that the chemo and radiation would enable my female to live 4-6 months, 8 if we were lucky as they QUOTED TO ME!!!!! She did NOT get the time I was told she would.... (yet they did get thousands of dollars out of me). How the hell do you vets live with yourselves when you tell a client that their loved one will live longer if they do chemo and radiation.... and you're wrong??!! Do you not have consciences or souls? I have so many regrets... regrets that are the result of veterinarians.

When I went into my friend's home, she sat on the couch and cried the whole time. Her 5 year old miniature Schnauzer had his head under the couch, trembling. He couldn't be touched for the pain. The apartment was covered in newspapers as the dog was incontinent. Everywhere I looked I saw suffering.

I began to see the principle that if you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

She told me that each time she went to her vet and wanted to quit, he would say something like it needs to be for "X" weeks, "X" doses. And it will get better if she hangs in there. She is not giving the chemo a chance to do its work. And she would end up feeling guilty if she didn't continue.

This was my friend and her dog and the decision was hers to make in partnership with her vet. So I just listened but inside I was horrified. No dog and no owner should have to go through that for even a day. Vet care gone wrong. It has been about three years now and I'm sure my friend will never get another dog. I thought my friend was going to have a breakdown.

So when a couple of years ago my vet suggested I give my cat an abdominal scan to look for a mass, I refused. I told her there was no need to look because if there was one, I was not going to treat it. Then I got the guilt trip. But I told her there would be nothing but pain killers and then euthanasia. Fortunately my cat was normal.

P: Playing on a human like that is "cruelty", at its finest.

Shame on anyone that does that, fraud and $$$, are the only driven motive. To hurt an animal and break a human's spirit?

There are times when "treatment" may be a viable option, but to "make" a decision like that for someone that loves their pet? No one should. And it has NOTHING to do with money.

I am truly sickened reading examples like this, and there are far too many.

P - I'm glad your pet didn't have cancer. That said, if your pet were to have cancer please don't let your friend's terrible experience prevent you from considering treatment for your pet. Instead, be willing to tell the vet to back down if you think things get out of hand, but at least give it a try.

I recently went through a cancer scare with my dog. I trust the vets at the practice we normally go to, but they had to send us to a specialist for the biopsy. The guy who did the biopsy was a first class jerk and tried to bully me into removing the dog's leg - without compelling evidence of cancer. I was rather nasty to him when he was refused to answer simple questions and tried to bully me.

I got a second opinion from another specialist at a different practice. The second vet was much more reasonable and didn't push for treatments that weren't justified by the results. I never felt bullied or pressured by the second specialist.

The reason I'm relaying this story is two-fold: first, not all vets are going to guilt-trip you into a horrible situation. Second, don't be afraid to stand up to someone who is. There are jerks in all professions, but there are also really awesome people, too.

Good for you, Posey!

A second opinion is an excellent idea when you're unsure of how things are being handled. Humans do it all the time.

Yes, there are jerks in every profession. Ever dealt with a cardiac surgeon? Egads! I've yet to meet one that has a pleasing personality. But then again, it must take a tremendous ego to be able to cut into someone's chest and feel confident. If I ever need heart surgery, I hope I'll worry less about personality and worry more about skill.

That being said, I wouldn't allow one to bully me into surgery unless I truly thought it was warranted. Actually, I'd probably ask so many questions that they'd get tired of me and refer me somewhere else. :-)

People do that too. You watch "Breaking Bad?" Have you got insurance? I don't, and if the Republicans have their way, I may never. I too am a cancer survivor, now denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition. So my next bout with whatever will have to address that as well, no different from your patients.

Many thanks for the advice you offer in this post!

We've provided links to it for Tripawds members questioning chemotherapy for their dogs with cancer.

Whether or not treatment will give a critter additional quality of life depends, too, on the type of cancer.

My Winston Alexander got two very good years (see first comment in this thread).

My first experience with kitty cancer was adenocarcinoma. My vet gently explained that, with this type of cancer, neither chemo nor surgery would benefit the kitty. Hospice care was the best advice he could offer.

It was extremely aggressive and grew so very quickly.

The vet thought she might have two good weeks. Sadly, I only got 10 more days with her.

That's an excellent point: different cancer, different prognosis.

Additionally, two years is a long time in the life of a dog or cat, especially if it's good quality time.

Agreed:

Going on 3 years post-low grade adenomacarcinoma mammary tumor--
no treatments, surgical excision--still alive

Over a year, another surgical excision, mammary tumor--still alive

Two dogs deceased-2 years post melanomas --surgically removed, no treatments

18 mos.-osteosarcoma front leg, no treatment

Two years post diagnosis, Transitional Cell carcinoma, piroxicam only, took 9 mos. to diagnose= nearly 3 years total.

14 yr. old w/ mammary ulcerated tumor for 18 mos. NO treatment

young dog, 3 years with removed fibrosarcoma, no treatment--death due to metastisis to lungs

I agreed with most of what you said, but I take exception to:

>>18 mos.-osteosarcoma front leg, no treatment

Sorry, that's a painful tumor, and I think "no treatment" is cruel. Those dogs are candidates for euthanasia if the owner rejects amputation of the affected limb.

>>14 yr. old w/ mammary ulcerated tumor for 18 mos. NO treatment

An ulcerated tumor is also painful, or at the very least, very uncomfortable. It's not a quality of life I'd accept for myself or one of my loved ones. When a tumor ulcerates, those pets are also candidates for euthanasia.

So, what if the client disagrees and doesn't want to euthanize? I don't badger. I do terminate the relationship and refer the client to another veterinarian, most likely the local veterinary school. I am not obligated to watch my clients allow their animals to die slow, lingering deaths - just as my clients aren't obligated to pursue surgery or chemotherapy. Choice goes both ways.

Sorry Equine DVM:

You have made an "incorrect" assumption that:

1. amputation/chemo/radiation was recommended and I refused

2. Surgery was recommended for the elderly mammary gland dog (with other underlying health issues) and I refused

3. Immediate euthanasia was recommended for both and I refused.

___ Both had continued care often & in entirety to the end. When euthanasia was recommended because of advancement, he was the very next morning ---after we said goodbyes, fed favorites, walked him around his spots (yes, he could eat, eliminate, BARK, and climbed up/down stairs unaided to the last)

However, I'd be most obliging to share what WAS the most abhorrent, CRUEL, and painful "treatment" advised for one of my beloved dogs---but then the post would probably be censored or disappear.

>>you have made an "incorrect" assumption that:

1. amputation/chemo/radiation was recommended and I refused>>

2. Surgery was recommended for the elderly mammary gland dog (with other underlying health issues) and I refused

3. Immediate euthanasia was recommended for both and I refused.>>

You stated "no treatment". (I don't doubt your veterinarian was reluctant to recommend immediate euthanasia to you, though.)

>>Both had continued care often & in entirety to the end.

What is "continued care"? At the very least, continued care is not "no treatment". It may have been inadequate treatment - especially by 2011 standards of care - but it's not "no treatment".

>>When euthanasia was recommended because of advancement, he was the very next morning ---after we said goodbyes, fed favorites, walked him around his spots (yes, he could eat, eliminate, BARK, and climbed up/down stairs unaided to the last)>>

That doesn't mean your animal wasn't suffering well before you made the decision it was time to euthanize.

>>I'd be most obliging to share what WAS the most abhorrent, CRUEL, and painful "treatment" advised for one of my beloved dogs---but then the post would probably be censored or disappear.>>

We've been over this before, and it's tiresome. Given that you presented your chronically ill dog to the veterinarian in poor condition yet initially requested treatment, I would have referred you, immediately, to the local veterinary school. Your goals were unclear while your expectations were unreasonable, and those are excellent reasons for referral.

You are a little bit too argumentative & assuming that "all" vets hold the same beliefs as you do.

Please don't turn my quote around and say "When I decided" it was best to euthanize. Because if fact, euthanasia for the dog with the osteosarcoma was "recommended" at a specific time and I immediately "AGREED".

I brought in the dog with TCC that developed groin lymph nodes as big as lemons and rock solid, when I became concerned of suffering. The Vet on duty asked me if he was a bit of a "baby" upon squeaking (in pain) setting him down. I was aghast at the suggestion, said nothing, and fortunately the regular vet called later and told me his "time was limited" , and surely it was.

You need to examine the motives, beliefs, and advice of some your colleagues before you make assumptions that the pet-owner calls all the shots---because obviously as cited above, they rely HEAVILY on what they are told.

...."We've been over this before, and it's tiresome. Given that you presented your chronically ill dog to the veterinarian in poor condition yet initially requested treatment, I would have referred you, immediately, to the local veterinary school. Your goals were unclear while your expectations were unreasonable, and those are excellent reasons for referral."

I also don't know what YOU are quoting, misquoting, or remember.

BUT I have NEVER requested a referral for an elderly SICK OR DYING dog, EVER! Got it?

>>BUT I have NEVER requested a referral for an elderly SICK OR DYING dog, EVER! Got it?>>

Ah, but you certainly did accept a referral, and refuse to accept that you had free choice to refuse. I don't blame your veterinarian at all for referring you, though I'd have sent you to a university, not a private referral hospital. Universities employ a platoon of attorneys for the purpose of dealing with unreasonable clients.

Now your assumption has become "laughable", that is if it weren't so sad, fraudulent, and cruel at the time. A time of severe stress and grief for the owner and trying to do the best in a bad and non-understandable situation.

And of course it was non- comprehensible, why wouldn't it be? After all, how many Vets advertise and disclose "NO DEA license and NO narcotics on the premises available"?

Only in my state, I guess. Where they allow licensing of professionals without DEA (for subsequent years), and no oversight by the Pharmacy Board or state drug licensing, as in most or "some" states. And they "change" the Veterinary Practice Act (2008) after "some one creates a big uproar", to include felonies and misdemeanors in a Veterinarian history as "good moral character" (if decided ok by the board)

Read for yourself: New Hampshire Veterinary Practice Act

Read the recent (2009) changes to: NH Controlled Substance Act , if you have time.

OK, no more from me. Can't beat a dead horse.

>>I brought in the dog with TCC that developed groin lymph nodes as big as lemons and rock solid, when I became concerned of suffering.>>

When YOU became concerned?

Too bad the dog couldn't tell you when he began to suffer.

Missed the part, I guess---the attending VET thought HE WAS JUST ACTING like a baby--who's the professional? ME OR THE VET?

I'm beginning to think you are a weirdo.

I have no trouble understanding why your former veterinarians hired attorneys to deal with you.

Now I am flattered. The only way you would know that is reading my blog. Thanks.

And I do not have "former vets" with attorneys. My former long-time Vet relocated to another state. However, it was one & the same clinic with a "newbie" (perhaps under the thumb of the former partner-current owner)

The others? NEVER met them in my whole life. Odd, since I am a lifelong resident and they have been in business for years. Quite a long distance away from me though, with many a top-notch clinic a lot CLOSER!

BTW, nobody would ever accuse me (EXCEPT Maybe YOU) of keeping any suffering pet alive too long. No one would accuse me of not providing the best that I can within my means.

Obviously a pet does not live to suffer daily for a period of YEARS or months and months.Just as humans, it is tolerable and then goes over the "line" of tolerance.

The elderly dog coped well with a mammary tumor. However, her later glaucoma was intolerable, and we were grateful for a quick treatment (by a board cert ophthalmologist) that relieved that pain---otherwise euthanasia was the only remaining and anticipated option.

You need to know the facts & circumstances before judgments is made. I am not immune to that as well.

>>Now I am flattered. The only way you would know that is reading my blog. Thanks.>>

I watch trashy reality television, too. Just can't resist.

>>BTW, nobody would ever accuse me (EXCEPT Maybe YOU) of keeping any suffering pet alive too long. No one would accuse me of not providing the best that I can within my means.>>

Veterinarians don't generally say these things to clients, even when they believe it to be true, because they don't want to alienate their clients, for a variety of reasons.

"I watch trashy reality television, too. Just can't resist."

well, I am sorry. You have described yourself & needs in your own words.

And you have the last one, at that...word that is.

>>You have described yourself & needs in your own words.>>

As have you. Your blog doesn't show you in the best light.

I agree with you: my Grandmother got breast cancer at age 62. she had a mastectomy followed by chemo. she stayed cancer-free for 20 years until she discovered a lump in her other breast at age 85. she had another mastectomy followed by chemo. She died of natural causes at the age of 96.

Chemo bought my ex-husband 11 extra years that he would not have had - yes, he passed away this last Saturday but he got those extra 11 years to see his son married and meet his grandchildren.

So yes, I believe in chemo and I think the prior poster needs to do better research..........

Sorry - I don't know what is going on with my post. This was supposed to be a reply to TheOldBroad's reply to Lindanedd2001 down below.

Rant on all you want Dr. Khuly, but I would NEVER give chemo to a pet, nor would I ever take it myself. How old are you? Too young from the looks of it to understand any of the REAL science behind chemo. You have been taught to use it in a medical vet school situation that little different if any different from human medical schools because it is all they know and a lot of money is made off of it.

It is a poison that shrinks tumors for a while (most of the time only weeks) precisely because it poisons the tumors as it also poisons every other cell your body, (including the immune cells). In the human cancers it is essentially useless. Only 2% of all humans getting chemo for cancer make it to five year mark but the suffering can be unbearable.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630849?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

After that the cancers come back eventually anyway. Chemo causes more cancer. I have spent years researching chemo. If the cat was not suffering I would leave her alone. If she was, it would be a pain killer or whatever up to a point, and then put her down.

Both the human doctors and the vets need to start looking at other options.

I have several friends that are cancer survivors.

One friend had colon cancer. The chemo (more than would EVER be given to a pet) made her so sick that she could only lay in bed and stare at the ceiling for an entire summer.

That was 10 years ago and she is still cancer free. Had she not taken chemo, she wouldn't still be with us.

I have several other friends that are breast cancer survivors. Two had it come back, but it was treated with chemo and they, too, are now cancer free.

You said "Only 2% of all humans getting chemo for cancer make it to five year mark". I tend to disbelieve that statistic. Perhaps the statistics need to be broken down to types of cancers and at what stage they begin treatment.

First off, what Dr. Khuly is explaining in her post is that "people chemo" and the chemotherapy given to animals are different, well, animals. Human chemotherapy is designed with the general hope that it will cure the cancer, while the chemotherapy used in animals is more of palliative treatment using a much lower dosage of the medicine. Using the lower dosage of similar substances cause a great deal fewer side-effects like we would see in human medicine.

Second of all, my mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1992 and after undergoing a lumpectomy, radiation, and chemotherapy (that was very tough, but very worth it) she has been cancer free since. In fact (and maybe Im lucky here) all but about 2 people Ive ever known who have been diagnosed with cancer and consequently treated with options such as chemotherapy have had it reoccur, much less come back in mere weeks; so I tend to disbelieve the "2%" statement as well.

Kudos to you! You speak the truth!

We just lost our 14 year old cat to primary brain cancer. Over two years ago the pupil on her left eye blew, but everything else checked out perfectly fine. A year ago she started itching at a spot in front of her ear hard enough to draw blood. Again, thousands in repeated scrapes, swabs, and biopsies turned up nothing. Then she had a bout of muscle spasms in her neck. Trip to the emergency vet, ultrasound, x-rays- nothing.

We made the mistake of looking at each symptom as unconnected from the others, and didn't put the pieces together until the pupil of her right eye blew as well. Within a few days she was staggering and walking in circles. MRI showed multiple masses in the brain and sinus cavity and bleeding in the brain stem.

The oncologist offered chemo, but didn't push it at all. Part of the problem was we really didn't know what we were treating. The cancer was no where else in the body. It looked like lympho, but the fact that she had survived two years with it suggested it wasn't. The only way to be sure would have been a biopsy, which the vet agreed would not be a good option for her.

We would have gladly done chemo if it would have given her even a few more quality months, but the vet felt that even with chemo we were looking at MAYBE a few weeks. We opted in the end to treat her pain as best we could. She only made it two weeks, and the last week was not a good one.

Terrible as it is, I had another reason for not opting for chemo. While I took financial responsibility for this cat, her actual owner is my mother. She's elderly, has some pretty severe illnesses, and has memory problems. The stress of seeing her baby sick was making HER sick. I couldn't see extending the cat's life span for a few more months when it would have meant more bad days for the cat and an emotionally wrecked pet owner who spent every day sobbing and trying to figure out if it was "time". It was really devastating for her and the depression was profound to the point she spent all day in bed holding the cat.

In another situation, I would consider chemo, even if the goal was not to cure. But sometimes there is another factor, which is how much the pet owner can cope with. And maybe it isn't right or fair that this plays a role, but in some cases the human suffers as much or more than the pet.

My mom is starting to recover from the loss. She knows we did the right thing in letting our girl go, as hard as it was. One thing that really helped was looking at past photos compared to the more recent ones. We didn't realize it until we went back and really looked, but there is a huge difference...you can truly see how ill and tired she looked in the later photos.

I do, however, understand your frustration. Mom was quick to refuse chemo because her first husband died from cancer and suffered terribly from the cancer. I know that is not the case with animals, and I would not base a decision on that alone. In our clinic, we had a picture book we made of a real patient who did well with chemo and whose owner was willing to talk about the experience if people had questions. That helped a great deal and might be something to consider.

I absolutely believed that I'd never do chemo with a pet.

Until I started working in a practice that does chemo. Seeing our chemo pets (mostly lymphoma, dogs and cats both) week after week, speaking with their owners regularly, seeing some of these dogs go for literally years with *good* quality of life- it's completely reversed my opinion. If one of my dogs showed up with a cancer that is generally responsive to chemo, I wouldn't hesitate.

These pets are not sick from their treatments, they are not in pain. One of our clients said it best- he doesn't know he has cancer, and I'm not telling him. He's just out there being a dog. There's a flyball dog running in our region who is two years out from a lymphoma diagnosis, still running flyball, still playing agility, still happy happy bouncy bouncy. That can be the reality of chemo in dogs. Months, potentially years of living the good life.

I'd have to at least try.

There's always the option to stop if it's not going well.

Agreed. I didn't understand what chemo (or radiation therapy, which for animals often requires general anesthesia 5 days a week for several weeks) meant for pets until I had my oncology rotation. The chemo animals looked like they were at doggy daycare, except for the half hour that they had to lay down to get their drugs. They played with their buddies, hung out with the doctors and oncology techs, and looked a whole lot happier and healthier than the pets in the ICU or the wards. A lot of people (including in this thread) are so focused on QUANTITY of life (but you only get a few MONTHS of survival!) rather than the improved QUALITY of life for these pets. A dog with lymphoma doesn't know that prednisone will only get him 6 months of survival, but he knows he doesn't hurt anymore and feels like eating again and feels playful again.

It is really hard to get around the emotional connotations around the words "cancer" and "chemo", since most people have a personal connection to cancer somehow. I try to describe drug protocols and talk about "medications" used to treat cancer rather than "chemo" for as long as possible to avoid that visceral emotional response. While I completely support owners who opt not to pursue treatment, I also don't want them to decide chemo is wrong for their pet based on scary images of hospitalized people vomiting, losing their hair, feeling miserable, etc.

Hello Dr. Khuly,

Have you never been in a situation where the cost of your pet’s medical welfare was even a minor factor in its ultimate treatment? If you have not, God bless you. If you have, please extrapolate your financial concerns and feelings upward a few score notches to our pet ownership world’s most economically needful. If the inevitability to afford cancer treatment were a requisite for pet ownership, how many of us would be excluded from the get go?

Unfortunately, vet bills and costs have to be a consideration in an owner’s choice of hh pet’s end-life medical treatment. Whether this consideration comes first, second or third, cost is part of the equation, and that shouldn’t evoke frustration in a vet — you, Dr. Khuly, included. And please don’t throw out that old saw about McMeals.

Shouldn’t the vet, at least, help set up some reasonable treatment/outcome/cost parameters? For example, if we treat your dog’s cancer with chemo, she will probably live another year, relatively pain and discomfort free, and toward the end, we can shift her medication regimen completely toward pain relief. This course of treatment will probably cost between $4-6K. Where is the frustration for you in this approach?

When will you ever get it? For the average pet owner, cost is a huge, if not the factor, in this kind of end-life treatment. Are you suggesting that none but the most affluent should be allowed to own pets?

Cost is not just a consideration in end-life treatment for pets. Forgetting about the “almighty cure,” (and why the cavalier usage?) how many human patients do not receive the “best available” or even adequate treatment to palliate their end-lives. You should know our country’s health care limitations much better than most. Do you deny this?

In the most perfect world, our beloved and precious pets wouldn’t get sick, and we wouldn’t need judgmental vets.

I agree with your comment 100%. Another thought to ponder...we, as caregivers, know our pets better than the vets do. Keeping them comfortable without poisoning their healthy cells (as chemo does)may buy them just as much time. If you ask a vet to guarantee or put in writing that chemo will extend their life comfortably, they won't do it. They can't.... and they know this.

Excellent posts, thank you.

I am learning from this thread that chemo in animals is very different than chemo in people, and as an animal lover AND a social worker in an oncology unit, I am happy you shared your experiences.

I think the issue here is two-fold. (1) Helping pet owners understand the difference so that they can make an informed and rational decision and (2) respecting the answer "no thank you" from pet owners who cannot do it -- for whatever reason (and finances are a very valid reason, IMHO).

But then, that begs the obvious question, and unless I have missed it, this has not been addressed or answered. Just HOW MUCH is a typical chemo regime? HOW MUCH money are we talking here? Hundreds? Thousands? More?

I, for one, would really appreciate it if Dr. Khuly could answer that question, with at least some "ball-park" figures.

Thank you.

@Tiskers

I don't think there's really an answer for a "typical" regime of chemo. It all depends on the type of cancer, what the critter will tolerate, how long they stay in remission and probably the part of the country you're in.

The only thing I can offer is in reference to my Winston Alexander. He had lymphocytic lymphoma. The chemo he took for that disease was Leukeran. He got 1/2 pill 3 days a week and each pill was $3. (He couldn't tolerate the full dosage so *I think* this was about 1/2 the usual regime.) He was also on Prednisolone which was very inexpensive.

He was in complete remission for about a year. When it was obvious the cancer had reared its ugly head again, the Leukeran was discontinued and the Prenisolone increased.

Of course, he had other meds for concurrent problems which drove the cost up.

He had two very good years after diagnosis.

How interesting, thank you for sharing that info. So at $3 per pill, and 1 1/2 pills per week, that's $4.50 a week, or $17/month. I would venture to guess that that would be considered "affordable" for many pet owners.

But honestly, that may NOT be do-able for a large family coping with job loss, or an elderly person on a very small fixed income, or any number of other possible scenarios. And as tragic and heartbreaking as it may be to imagine, I don't think these pet owners should be harshly judged for saying "no".

PS, I do realize that this was just one pet owner's experience with the cost of chemo and that the drug prices may vary considerably based on many factors.

Does anyone else have specific prices they know of or are willing to share?

Thank you!

I'd like to read some personal experiences and prices also. $3 a pill sounds like less than the typical charge for Baytril.

Also , quite sometime ago was an article in DVM 360 regarding treating mammary cancer with Piroxicam. I almost considered it for my two post-surgery/biopsy, but didn't.

Has anyone had experience either treating with it or prescribing for a patient? If so, how did it turn out?

The $3 per pill was for the chemo, Leukeran.

Cancer in this country is a multi-billion dollar business with humans. I don't know the profit margin for our animal companions, but I know it's a lot. My precious TPLO canine companions developed osteosarcoma....bone cancer... the specialists referred to it as "plate related cancer". I lost both of them within 12 months of each other. For their cancer care alone, the cost was over $10,000. Thank God for charge cards as this is how I was able to pay for it (and will continue for the next 20 years if I am able to continue to make the minimum payments.)
My canine children had TPLO surgeries for torn ACLs, as I was 'sold' on this procedure, being told it was the best procedure and would alleviate arthritis. What a crock!!! My dogs DID develop arthritis post TPLO.... I have their x-rays if you'd like to see them.
When my boy developed his "plate related cancer" from the non medical grade metal that was implanted in his tibia, I found out that these metal related cancers are highly aggressive. I had done much research, as I was devastated knowing he was going to die. I had found that there were alternative treatments that did not involve chemo. So after my boy had to have his leg amputated, we did a holistic treatment to give him "quality of life." Sadly to say, this freaking cancer had metastasized to the vertebrae in his spine. At this point, we had no choice but to let him go. He lived four months with this treatment for this aggressive cancer.
When my beatiful girl (who also had the same non-medical grade metal implants in her tibia for her TPLO) exhibited symptoms that Trouble had, I knew all too well that she had developed osteosarcoma as she had that same cancer causing metal in her. Of course, the vets/specialists/er doctors kept insisting that my dog did NOT have cancer.... only arthritis. Finally, doctor number 5 told me he could see the tumor on the original x-ray.... the same x-ray the other vets/specialists had viewed.... the freaking CANCER was already in her vertebrae.... just like my precious boy!!!!!
Because I knew this was a death sentence, I did what the Western Veterinary establishment had recommended. My girl had raditation and chemo. The specialists told me that chemo and radiation would enable my girl to live 4-6 months.... 8 if we were lucky. I didn't think twice about handing my charge card to them. What they NEGLECTED TO TELL ME was that half of her vertebrae was already destroyed! (I found this out the day before she had to be euthanized from a different oncologist at that university.... he looked at the ultrasound while he was on the phone with me.... no one told me the condition of her spine and that nothing at this point would help her. My girl did NOT get the four to six months of life as I was told she would get with the chemo and radition. The fact is, SHE DIED 35 DAYS INTO TREATMENT!
I have seen the suffering of my two dogs with the same highly aggressive cancers... the one without chemo lived longer.
By the way, for three TPLOs and two implant removals, I charged another $7,000.00. Veterinarians have no right to judge their clients if they can't afford to pay for treatments.

Oh, I almost forgot.... my husband reminded me....the University we took our girl to replied to our question: "Why is it so expensive and why do you take our money before you see our dog?" The reply was: "It's our bread and butter". Oops.... slip of the tongue?

I work for a veterinary specialty hospital...and we do TPLO's literally on a daily basis, and I have never seen a dog we did a TPLO (or other plated repair) come back with an osteosarcoma. I have also never heard an osteosarc referred to as "plate-related cancer".

On another note, the finances have always been an issue in our hospital (when we had an internist we did chemotherapy as well as a variety of non-surgical procedures). When people are referred to a different hospital, particularly a school run hospital, they need to remember that the new vet has no history with the client, which is a lot of why deposits are required up front for procedures. Also, many people complain after They Elect to have the procedure done...almost every hospital will give you an estimate before they do anything (be that chemo or surgery), so to complain after the fact is a little silly. Are there terrible complications that can occur? Of course. Can the vet know anymore than you do that your dog will be in the 2% that has an issue? Decidedly not.

Whoops...it cut me off!

Also, what Dr. Khuly is saying is if you genuinely can't afford to pay that is fine. In the same sense though, if you agree to have a procedure (like a TPLO) you are agreeing to pay for that procedure. If you can't pay for it...or if cost is an issue...why are you doing the procedure at that clinic or at all?

On another side note, if you were so very unhappy with the first dog's surgery (which IMHO seems legitimate), why would you go back with your second dog?

I have paid for any and all treatment for my dogs....however, if my dogs, or all the other ones, develop cancer, etc, from those we trust their lives to, shouldn't those people/facilities be responsible for the bills?


You wrote:
"On another side note, if you were so very unhappy with the first dog's surgery (which IMHO seems legitimate), why would you go back with your second dog?"

My gosh, you assume a lot without knowing all the facts. You know what they say about assumption.
The facts are:
My female had the TPLO in Feb. 2003 (as I stated before, we were sold on this procedure. She previously had the traditional repair for her torn ACL but the nylon filament had stretched and her meniscus had torn. So the specialist said she needed the TPLO.) I had read about some dogs developing cancer from this procedure and I asked the surgeon about this. He said it was so rare that it happened....he told me not to worry about it. So I trusted him.

She appeared to do well for a few years post TPLO. So when my boy tore his ACL in 2004, the specialist said he needed the TPLO. So we had it done. A few months later, my boy favored his other leg. The specialist said he tore his ACL and needed another TPLO. So we had it done. This time, he had developed an infection that wouldn't heal from the implant, so the specialist said it needed to come out. The implant was surgically removed in his right leg....not his left.

In 2007, three years post TPLO, he went lame. Correct diagnosis: osteosarcoma in his left leg.

The reason they both had TPLOs was because none of them had been diagnosed with osteosarcoma yet, as the metal implants hadn't corroded yet. So there was no way to know my dogs were going to develop cancer.

My boy, who had his TPLOs in 2004, was diagnosed with osteosarcoma in 2007. My girl, who had her TPLO in 2003, was correctly diagnosed with osteosarcoma in 2009.

Hopefully, you can understand why the second dog had TPLOs....I believed the specialist when he said it's the best procedure.... because my female hadn't shown signs of cancer, I had no reason to believe these procedures would be harmful to them.

By the way, the surgeon who did my girl's traditional ACL repaired told my husband and me about the risks of cancer...not only form the metal implants but from traumatizing the bone by cutting it, screwing screws into it, etc.
Guess what he's doing now? He jumped on the bandwagon. So much for his concerns about cancer.

Please read the Nov. 15, 2005 issue of JAVMA to learn more about the osteosarcoma forming at the implant sites from the metal implants used in TPLOs a few years ago that were NOT medical grade metal and corroded quicker than medical grade metal. I hope to God none of the dogs you regularly do TPLOs on do not develop osteosarcoma. My dogs had follow up exams for their TPLO procedures, according to the protocol, which was up to six months post TPLO. They were diagnosed as being fine. HOWEVER, IT TAKES MORE THAN SIX MONTHS FOR THE METAL TO CORRODE.... IT HAPPENS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. DURING THIS TIME, THE PROTOCOL FOR TPLO FOLLOW UPS DOES NOT INCLUDE POST SIX MONTH EXAMS. Maybe if it did, you would see the long term negative effects from this procedure.
And yes..... the specialists where I had my dogs' TPLOs done referred to it as "plate related cancer". Dig deep enough and you'll find the truth.


I, along with other responsible dog owners whose dogs developed osteosarcoma post TPLO, had taken my dogs to the vets when they became lame. My dogs were misdiagnosed, as were the others. I'm not sure if it's because the vets were trying to cover their asses or if they truly did NOT KNOW HOW TO READ X-RAYS. Had I believed the vets when they said my dogs' pain was due to arthritis, my dogs would have suffered extremely. I'm not a vet, but I KNEW my dogs pains were not the result of arthritis, especially since I knew they had the implants in them that were associated with osteosarcoma. As per my intuition, both of my dogs finally had been correctly diagnosed with osteosarcoma. I wonder how many others are out there who have been told "Your dog doesn't have cancer....it's only arthritis." We'll probably never know.


When you stated that it's "...to complain after the fact is a little silly" concerning payments....
What I was stating is the fact that when my dog was diagosed with a large tumor in her vertebrae, the treatments would not, and DID NOT help her! If this facility would have been honest and said, with the size of this tumor and the fact that half of her vertebrae is already destroyed and will continue to become destroyed or fracture, the best thing you can do is to keep her comfortable. They were more concerned about taking over $3300.00 from me because they knew I would do anything for her. And as I said before, my dog who had holistic treatments lived longer than my girl who had chemo and radiation.
They gave us the estimate.....what they didn't give us was the truth (except when the oncology student told us that their fees are their bread and butter.) They said doing chemo and radiation would give her 4-6 months...8 if we were lucky. They were wrong! She died 35 days into treatment.


And yes.... the vet Should know that any dog who has a metal implant in them that corrodes IS AT RISK!!!!
The specialist who did my dogs' TPLOs assured me that they stopped using those implants when they found out they were related to osteosarcoma.

Great responses! Way to stand up to 'em. Good for you NoJustice. I'm sorry for all of the unnecessary grief that you've had to suffer. There seem to be quite a few assumers floating around this blog.

Thank you. Yes.... anyone who loves their dogs as family members knows that the grief we suffer is horrible pain. Losing three dogs within 12 months of each other...well, words can't describe that kind of pain. I find comfort knowing that my dog I lost in between my 2 TPLO dogs lived a nice long life for a large dog. He died 2 weeks shy of his 15th birthday. But my shep/husky and my shep/malamute, they were robbed of their lives too soon.

I believe Martina McBride use to sing a song "Wrong Again". I could have written that song about my dogs' veterinarian experiences.

Let me make this very clear....I am not discounting your experiences at all, I am simply stating mine. I have worked in this office for years now, and personally never seen a dog develop an osteosarcoma post TPLO or other plate related procedure. After speaking with our board-certified surgeon, he could only remember one case in which this did occur and that was during his residency many years ago. The statement relating to complaining after the fact was not directed at you, but simply a general statement, and I never assumed you had not paid your bill or had any money issues at all, that is something that you assumed. Am I sorry that your pets had to undergo this trauma, yes....was I attacking you for your choices or undermining your decisions, decidedly not.

To assume that if a complication occurs, the vet should be responsible for the bill is ridiculous in most situations (Im leaving your personal story out of this, thus the wording). Are the vets aware of the risks, YES (or at least hopefully, but I can only guarantee my clinic) are you made aware of the risks...well a good vet would certainly facilitate that. Is your veterinarian personally responsible should any of these terrible things happen to your pet? Again, in most situations no.

What's ridiculous is the fact that a doctor can cause pain, suffering and death to an animal and NOT be held accountable for it!!!! You ask your board certified surgeon to show you the original protocol for the TPLO procedure. It had called for the removal of the implant once the bone had healed.

So, if surgeons neglect to follow the protocol for a procedure they have to be certified in, is it not THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IF THEY DON'T REMOVE THE IMPLANT, AND THE IMPLANT CORRODES INTO THE TIBIA, CAUSING THE INNOCENT DOG TO DEVELOP OSTEOSARCOMA, SUFFER NEEDLESSLY, AND THEN DIE??? Are you saying it's the owner's responsibility for the surgeon being negligent?

You know what's even MORE ridiculous..... when you ask a veterinarian"Who is responsible if my dog develops fibrosarcoma or any other serious side effect from a rabies vaccination that is required by law?" and he/she replies "You are."

If you are making "general statements", why were they written as a REPLY TO MY COMMENT? It makes sense that a reply to a specific comment is directed to that specific comment.

Ok, now you are just being angry. Again, I have no issue with anything that you have said...I have only been stating my experiences in reference to your own. If you don't want to run the risk of having a complication from a procedure, vaccination, or anything else your vet may offer..then don't do it. Literally everything in our day and age from drinking pop to walking down the street runs the risk of causing some undesired consequence..and if your don't want that risk, then don't walk down the street.

And I meant to clarify this earlier too....when I asked about your second dog, it was not from a hurtful or snarky place, but simply for clarification. I am truly sorry that you took offense.

Can a vet know any more than you do that your pet will be of the small percentage that develops an issue related to vaccination or surgical procedure? Generally speaking, no. Can they, and should they, do everything in their power to decrease these risks and keep your pet from suffering, like blood tests and decent xrays? Of course, but hindsight is always 20/20.

I hate to be the one to educate you on this, but vaccine related "issues" are NOT "small percentages". Wake up and open your eyes. There are even books written on this topic with case stories. Why do you think Dr. Jean Dodds is doing extensive research to prove the duration of immunity with the rabies vaccine? Thank God for people like her! She truly believes in the Hippocratic oath and is doing everything in her power to prevent animals from suffering needlessly due to the effects of needless vaccination.

To my knowledge, there are no tests to without a doubt indicate which pets will be in the percentage who develop vaccine reactions, an osteosarcoma after a correctly done TPLO, or walk after a hemilamenectomy. There are blood tests that can indicate a pre-existing issue that may lead to one of these complications, but not any that can predict the future. After an owner has accurately researched the risks and the benefits, if they feel that the risks out-weigh the benefits then it is there prerogative not to have the vaccine, procedure, or other treatment option.

I beg your pardon?

We were given statistics IN WRITING on the odds of success for spinal herniated disk surgery , after the MRI was read and interpreted, along with the physical exam.

Had we been told of "low odds" either verbally or in writing we would NOT have elected such invasive and possibly further "debilitating" outcome.

We give written statistics as well, however, my comment was in regards to the fact that there is no guarantee which percentage your pet will fall under unless you are given a 100% success rate. Again, if you feel like you can accept those risks after weighing the benefits vs risks, than by all means do so (or not).

I agree with you....if you don't want complications as a result of a veterinarian or facility, just don't do it.

When my 105 pound shepherd tore her ACL after losing all of her packmates, the veterinarian said she needed surgery and would not heal without it.
Over my dead body was she going to have a TPLO. So I educated myself on conservative management. (It's amazing how much you can learn about healing without seeking "professional" help. Thank God for the people at the yahoo group "Conservative Management". Long story short, my shepherd made a complete recovery without surgery! Going against the veterinarian's treatment plan was the best decision I ever made (sadly, through the suffering and deaths of my beloved canine children I was forced to gain this knowledge). It would do good for veterinarians to do the same.
BTW... you forgot to answer my question....is the dog's owner responsible for veterinary negligence?

To me, that depends on what its regarding, and what you deem as negligence. There is a pretty gray area between what negligence means to different people. To me, is a vet who doesn't catch a horrible form of cancer sooner, despite the urgings of an owner, guilty of negligence? Well that would depend on the specifics of the case. Is a vet who turns a blind eye to a staff member blatantly harming a dog guilty of negligence? I think that would get a resounding yes.

My point wasn't about the vet "catching" the cancer late.... it was about the vet "causing" the cancer.

Forgot to mention...I had our protocol for our TPLO out (which uses medical grade plates by the way, but I had to ask on that). Our protocol through a veterinary teaching hospital, states that the plate (if medical grade) should not require removal unless something such as an infection or other unforeseen complication should occur. That is obviously not verbatim, but it was literally a page just explaining that much (I can send you the full text if you really would like to see it).

Do you have the original protocol that involved using Slocum plates? These were NOT medical grade metal.

As I already stated, our protocol involves only the use of medical grade products. As this protocol has been in place since our clinic began, the only way an "old" protocol would be present would be if it were in an employees private archive, but none are in use in our hospital.

No Justice: That is an appropriate user name. Quite simply as you already know, there is no justice with and "dealings" to do with a pet. The double standard works well and only the 2 million + pet-owners in this country can work to change it.

It is ludicrous to suggest that a Veterinarian is not responsible for "negligence, error, or omission" in informed consent---but happens every day. A human surgeon would be held accountable for the non-medical grade plates and certainly have in recent years, when a huge class-action lawsuit was filed for negligence on using sub-standard osteo-prosthesis in : knees, hips, spinal, elbow and the like. Even after recall, some of these were used.

I do remember that AVMA Journal article---not because my "pet" was affected, but quite possibly my BF was with a 2002 surgery.

Too many here suggest that "money" is the factor for turning down "chemo" or radiation. While that may be often the case, it surely is not 100% the case with a LOT of pet owners, and neither should it be suggested as such or guilt an owner into trying it.

What's the harm? Well it just may have the adverse reaction and cut the reasonable quality of life short with suffering as the result. No one can say for sure that palliative treatment does NOT give a better or the same end result.

ForOurCompanions.com deals with issues of vet "accountability"

Thank you so much for your support. I am so sorry that you and your animal companions have suffered needlessly. I'm also sorry for your friend who experienced the plate related cancer...so sad.
With all of this, I have gained legal knowledge as well. Basically, the bottom line is: there is no justice for our pets.
When I had taken my girl to the university where she had her treatments for one month, I brought research to show them from an oncology colleague. Instead of welcoming this new knowledge they knew nothing of, they sneered at it and said that if it worked, everyone would be doing it. Well, if what THEY did worked, then why aren't there any cures for osteosarcoma??!! The radiologist went so far as to write on my dog's records that CHEMO WOULD NOT AFFECT THE LIVER!!!!! CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS??? Not only is this NOT true, it can be found in PDRs and other books as well!
For any veterinarians reading this, please, do not feel threatened by what you don't know. If a client brings research that you are not familiar with, then take the time to get familiar with it.... especially when what you have to offer will not cure the client's beloved pet. And please, please be HONEST with them! Don't lie to their faces and don't lie in writing. After all, as the oncology student told me, "It's our bread and butter." Well, you'll have more bread and butter if you keep your clients content with your honesty and your competency with their pets.

I do not understand where some of these posts are coming from.

"Either the owner's conception of chemotherapy is indelibly and irrevocably imprinted as something horrendously stressful (which happens quite a bit, I'm sure), or "I don't want to put her through it" is code for "I can't pay for it."

NOW IF IT'S THIS LATTER RATIONALE, THEN I CAN ABSOLUTELY, UNRESERVEDLY GET BEHIND IT; which is why it's too bad that my patients' treatment options are so inextricably intertwined with their owners' concern with what it'll cost to make them feel better."

Dr. K said it herself - if the owner cannot pay for treatment, then she supports them. And it IS too bad that treatment options are inextricably intertwined with cost - it's obvious from these posts that most pet owners understand this, and it sucks. Believe me, veterinary staff understand this, especially the support staff (my annual salary puts me below the poverty level in my state). But it doesn't mean that we stop offering what's medically best for a pet, first.

I had a kitty diagnosed with lung cancer/lesions 4 years ago from a chest xray. My vet offered me:
--a CAT scan to firmly diagnose, cost $3500
--assume it’s cancer, start chemo and bypass the CAT scan
--consult an oncologist for a second opinion

I consulted with an oncologist, who confirmed my original vet’s opinion that he too thought it was cancer. We started her on chemo, first an injectable followed by 4 weeks of pills; then a second round of chemo pills 6 weeks later. She had absolutely no side effects, no personality changes, no disruption of eating habits. The cost of the chemo was roughly $300 total (plus the xrays).

Several weeks after the second round of chemo, another xray showed the lesions did not increase in size. Again 6 months later and then a year later, xrays showed they had diminished considerably (although still present).

She lived another year and a half symptom free and as healthy as she always was. Unfortunately, she died from the contaminated pet food in ’07 (Nutro).

I would definitely do chemo again for this type of cancer. Sorry, I can’t recall which chemo drug she was given.

I'm a Licensed Veterinary Technician with over 20 yrs.experience working with animals in various Veterinary Hospitals. I spent 5 years working at the Animal Medical Center in NYC. I attend many conferences and workshops,and subscribe to various Veterinary periodicals to continue my education.

With that said, I foremost am and have been a dedicated Animal Guardian to over 40 personal pets. I have lost numerous cats and dogs to cancer's ranging from Mammary, Oral, Intestinal, Bone, Renal, Splenic and Lymphatic. I personally have spent collectively over $20,000.00 on treatments post diagnosis. These costs range from Surgeries, Bloodwork, X-rays, Chemoterapy and Medications.

Every pet was treated as an individual. My 7 yr.old GSD,Argus,developed Osteosarcoma in his Right front leg. Between Amputation, Chemotherapy, and Follow upcare it cost me OVER $5,000 dollars. He died within 6 months, Even after getting a 2 plus year prognosis post-treatment. I treated him "aggressively" because I knew he was strong, happy go lucky, LOVED car rides and wasn't afraid at the Vet's. My 9yr. old GSD, Harkos, developed Lymphoma. He did NOT like new people or car rides, and Certainly Not the vet. I chose to treat him differently,to the best of my ability at home, because I didn't want to Sedate him every week and cause him unneccessary stress. He lived another year and a half.

My point is, it's about QUALITY of Life, Not Quantity. Sometimes we all (Clients, Nursing Staff, Doctors) have to step back and put our Loved ones needs and happiness first before ourselves. And WE as Professional Veterinary Care providers need to step back and put ourselves in the clients and patients "shoes". Sometimes, the client really does know best and it is not our place to judge them or their decisions. It's not always about money, alot of the time it comes from deep in their hearts. I have walked in both worlds and I can vouch for this.

Thank you for your post and sharing personal as well as professional experience.

Your comment is well stated and insightful.

Many pet-owners absolutely DO KNOW best, and think of the patient first and foremost.

Sadly not all in the veterinary profession recognize that and choose to pressure and guilt a vunerable client into something clearly wrong.

Excellent perspective for all readers and embattled positions. Thank you.

It's nice to hear from someone in the profession who can truly see things through the client's eyes and heart. I agree with you.... it should always be a matter of "quality of life" over quantity. There are no guarantees despite ANY treatment concerning cancer...and if the owner is responsible and loving and has the ability to provide 'quality of life' care and to keep their loved ones comfortable, the veterinarians should respect this. They should have the attitude "What if this were MY pet?" It gives me hope that there are some ethical people in this profession.

...not really, as there are far too many rude posts on this thread. Seriously, to attack a vet sharing her experiences & thoughts on a COMPUTER with the rest of us is, well, never mind - just get a life & stop looking for cyber-fights. Geesh.

OK - now I feel better! ;)

I've had 2 calico cats that died from adenocarcinoma originating in the mammary glands. Both times, I was told no chemo - & I was working for this vet at the time. My current vet also doesn't offer feline chemo. But UC Davis does, so that is where I would take any feline with cancer. K9 chemo is offered by almost anyone.

And for all you people who have such negative opinions of cancer patients - Shame On You! EYE have survived cancer with the help of chemo, radiation, & surgery. Chemo does NOT have to make a patient sick any more - that is a lie & one carried by many oncologists. My chemo had 'Aloxi' in it & I was not sick a single day. Would I do it again? YES - because I've got too many people left I need to pi$$ off, so I don't have the time to die yet. Cancer isn't always a Death Sentence. The choice is always personal & if you want to die a horrible death without treatment, go for it. Remember how far Farrah Fawcett got with that opinion...

If it's available (chemo) for another pet with cancer, I would most definitely do it. Even if I had to take out a small loan. My pets are MY responsibility & it's up to ME to do anything & everything I can for their well-being & comfort. For those that don't agree, I pity your pets, for they deserve better.

Thank you, Dr. Khuly, for this article & I apologize on behalf of those too ignorant to understand what you said. They've been too busy "assuming" & not "reading".

@Olivers mama

My vet will offer feline chemo if the type of cancer warrants it. I also have access to a veterinary oncologist.

My Louise had adenocarcinoma in her abdomen and it was caught fairly quickly. It was explained to me that it's usually a very fast growing cancer and chemo wouldn't have been a benefit.

Within one week, it had grown exponentially. In Louise's case, I can see why chemo wouldn't have had time to work.

My Winston had lymphocytic lymphoma and chemo definitely helped him. It took a few weeks to find a dosage he would tolerate, but he was in remission for quite awhile and had a great quality of life for 2 years after diagnosis.

Would I do it again? If it's a cancer where chemo will allow a quality of life... absolutely. If it won't benefit the animal, I'll grit my teeth and provide hospice care.

Dr. Khuly: I put my cat to sleep yesterday because she was dying of cancer. I had her spleen removed, she came home happy after weeks of apparent suffering and God knows how many more weeks of suffering in secret. With chemotherapy I could have prolonged her life by possibly four months, and then she would have died a sickly cat. Instead she had two happy days in a kennel at home, believing herself saved because the spleen that had caused her so much suffering was gone now. Then yesterday she went to sleep, drugged in my arms, after long hours of dozing in the sun and being petted, believing all the while that all was well, believing (and it was true) that the bad part was over. I feel blessed to have been able to free her from having ever to get sick again, from having ever again to leave the house and be handled by people she hates, people with needles, people who function in buildings filled with crying, sickly pets and suffering owners. I’m sharing my story only to drive home to you that most people accessing this page on your web site are looking for information to help their pets – we really don’t give a damn about your personal frustration with those of us you suspect of having hidden financial concerns. When I read that when an owner says, “I don’t want to put my cat through any more pain,” your tendency is to suspect them of “speaking in code”, of putting their pocketbooks before their pets, I want to spit in your face. You need either to continue your train of thought, and acknowledge the hardly-insignificant fact that the money we keep in our pockets is money kept from yours (you are, after all, in business), or you need to rewrite this piece of insensitive crap, perhaps with the help of an intelligent friend, and turn it into something truly worthwhile. You have some worthwhile information to put across, i.e., that it’s a shame that so many pet owners decide against chemotherapy for their cats without understanding that cats handle chemotherapy differently from the way humans do. (A better way to put this might be to say it’s a shame that so many vets are inept at imparting information to their clients.) But here’s a little more worthwhile info that I fully understand: Is a cat doing “fairly well” on chemo a sick cat or a well cat? The answer is she is a sick cat—if things go badly, horribly sick, but, in most cases, not nearly so sick as one might suspect. There might be some diarrhea, vomiting, loss of whiskers, utter misery, but hey, next comes the good part—she gets super better next, assuming all goes well. Does the cat not still die sick, and likely sicker than before the chemo started? Damned right the cat dies sick, but in the meantime you get some happy days together (assuming your cat isn’t masking pain from you) before the next bad days come and finally your cat’s too sick to keep on going any longer for—excuse me, whose sake?—oh, yes, the cat’s sake, for the sake of the cat. What’s worthwhile in your piece is not at all difficult to express, the problem is that it’s expressed here by a vet with a serious lack of sensitivity, and no conception at all of what her work truly involves. It begins and ends with our hearts, and if you can’t grasp that, please find some other line of work. To hell also with whatever editor at this site failed to recognize that your work needed rewriting. I thank God I got the best care possible for my cat. We traveled three hours, I spent nearly $10,000 on her medical care, took off work and checked into a motel for five days so I could be near her—I might have spent my last dime if there was a chance she could be freed from what was killing her no matter what I did. But my cat wasn’t put on this earth so that she could get sick so that a trained professional like yourself could pat herself on the back and say, good for me, I extended the life of a sick animal, and wow, I make a living at that—just a shame about those obstinate owners who can’t get their minds off the money. I have no regrets that I put my cat to sleep, I’m only in pain because I miss her, and in pain because the process of finding out that she was terminally ill caused her so much pain and stress and confusion. I thank God that I didn’t bring her to an idiot like you. Just please feel my spit on your face, imagine it there, it’s not coming off, and thanks for your professional assistance.

First I want to talk about costs. I really understand how much people want to have a pet but more often then not people are taking on pet ownership without the thinking about WHEN (not if) your pet gets sick. They skip vet visits and go to cheap rabies and spay/neuter clinics and generally have no plan for illness/injury. As a teen, we got a dog when to be honest we probably could not afford much if something serious happened. 12 1/2 years later, I am a poor former grad with a sick dog on my own. She has TCC (bladder cancer). The difference here is $60 a month for the last 7 years of my life..

ITS CALLED INSURANCE---GET IT!!!

I knew I was not wealthy and instead of wasting that money on junk (which Im sure is the case in 95% of pet owners w/o insurance) I made sure that WHEN my pup got sick I could always do what right for her. That includes diagnosis which was not cheap either as we thought it was an infection for 3 months and I need to go to a specialist.

As for quality of life, my dog is digging on my bad like shes done since a puppy as I write this sentence. That being said my initial response to her diagnosis was hands down no chance at chemo. I even had a conversation with a Vet who said she would not recommend chemo in anyone, people included (probably had a bad experience in retrospect).

Figure out what you are dealing with first and really research your options. I have a family of people giving me grief for my decision because of plain ignorance to her condition and a natural aversion to anything chemotherapy related.

In my case I have a chance of not only doubling her life but making that extra time worth living. The day she was diagnosed when was in a diaper. One of the 1st drugs she was given was called piroxicam and it can be used with or without chemo but tends to work well in tandem. 48 hrs later she was out of a diaper. After the 1st chemo session she had very brief moments of discomfort but overall she was energetic and had the same old never ending appetite. A couple weeks later she is way more comfortable with her condition (the TCC) and has had positive signs but the key is her quality of life is superb. Yes she suffers daily but much much less with the treatment then at the time of diagnosis. Now I am not saying she is clear but the fact I gave it a shot was in her best interest. I am 100% sure she enjoys her life as is and would want me to keep fighting with her.

I know this because she runs and chases squires. She eats and sleeps and drinks and is still happy, when that changes I will have a tough decision to make but it will be in her best interest.

When you adopt/buy you take a silent oath to care for that pet. That includes making tough decisions but it especially comes with the responsibility of providing a chance to them when they are sick, even if that chance is only brief.

To those who have had bad experiences, I really feel for you and I am sorry that anyone had to go through that. You made the right choice in the situation (assuming your vet is competent) but you were that small % that suffered. If it happens again, stop. Don't make decisions based on feelings here only the best interest of you pal

take care