Rolf - channel 5 ..NOW!

dizzydancer said:
I too felt the dog having treatment was for the owner not the dog.
If it was a cure then i too would do the same, but to put the dog under anesthetic every week for only 6 months at most seemed unnecessary to me.
A bit like putting overweight animals under for a scan to say they are fat- surely the risks out way benefit- a tape measure is accurate enough i feel!
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. I felt sorry for the poor little dog and as for scanning the cats to see how much fat they were carrying, couldn't they see they were fat by just looking at them?
 
I missed the bit about the little dog but by the sounds of it, I agree that to put an animal through a lot of treatment only to extend its life by a short period isn't right. We have a duty to our animals. I always think a big point of if it is we can't say to our animals "this is what is wrong with you and this is what we're doing to make you better"

I'm not denying it's a hard decision to make but then you have to think of the long term and how things can deteriorate.

I worked for a small animal insurance company as a claims assessor and used to find it so sad the state some pets were in. You would get big German Shepherds that had hind limb paralysis. Not only were they receiving treatment for that but they'd also have chronic urinary infection, skin treatments due to pressure sores and ongoing intestinal problems. I understand people love they're pets dearly but it gets to a point when you have to look at the big picture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top