Limits to veterinary intervention????

[dinahsmum]

Did you watch Super Vets last night?
What did you think of 'Harry' and the surgery he underwent? (apart from the fact that Harry was just gorgeous?)
Sitting here now, in the happy position of not having a desparately sick young cat, I think I would be very reluctant to have my babe go through anything like that. They said he was the runt of the litter and not terribly well since birth - perhaps it would have been kinder to let (or help) him fade away at the start?

On a wider and much more mercenary tack. There was an article in the paper yesterday about the advances in vet surgery and the fact that operations/procedures costing £10 000 and more are becoming more common. I'm not sure about this. Apart from anything else it will make pet insurance costs rocket, which can't be a good thing if it puts people off taking it.

It would be interesting to hear other opinions and experiences.

[LMC]

I didn't see it, but read about it in the paper.

I thought that the cat should have been given a dignified departure rather than being put through the stress and expense of an operation.

Animals don't fear pain and death like we do - which means that they also can't imagine "beyond pain" to a time of recovery - they live in the present.

Jenny had to have an operation for mast cell tumours (skin cancer) about 2.5 years ago. It's very uncommon in cats and can stay dormant for years with no pain or distress to the cat - or spread to internal organs, which obviously is painful. Obviously large areas of skin had to be removed in the three tumour areas and the cuts "pulled together" and stitched. Which meant that poor Jenny was very sore and terribly bruised - I nearly cried when I picked her up from the vet, she looked like she'd been in an accident. There and then, much as I love her, I swore that if the cancer came back, I wouldn't do that to her again, particularly as there is an option to treat with steroids if it comes back (although the vet didn't recommend initially).

My first question to the vet of course was if Jenny was in pain, and while the cancer is on the skin, there is no pain. So if the cancer comes back, and the steroids give her bad side effects, then I will take her off them and just have regular vetinerary checks to check that it hasn't spread to start causing her pain. I would rather she had a shorter but happy life, than one prolonged by steroid side effects - because she wouldn't understand that it was for her own good as we would... as we all know from trying to give our cats pills!

Just because something can be done, doesn't make it right. Even if that cat survives, he will have a long haul to recovery. Keeping your pet alive "at all costs" - not just financially, but to the pet, is just plain selfish.

True love is letting them be the animals they are.

And giving them the dignity of a pain-free departure if necessary.

[dinahsmum]

"True love is letting them be the animals they are."

How very well put.

[Het]

I did see it and i would probably have thought twice about putting a cat of mine through that. On the other hand....it was the first time the actual op had ever been successful and one would hope that it paves the way to this operation being more widely available, the techniques refined and therefore saving more pets. Veterinary science has to be practised to be developed, although of course the line is very fine between practice and experimentation I suppose. Its a difficult choice and I don't think I know which way I would go until I was actually in that situation

[Kazz]

I didnt see the programme but at the same time I also read it in the paper.

And I would not have put a cat (or animal) of mine through an operation like that. Easy to say as I do not have a poorly ill cat.
But I would rather have let mine have a dignifed end rather than prolonged treatment.

I sometimes wonder if people get caught up in "getting the animal better than the animal themselves" they loose sight of whats the best for the cat and get caught up in the "solution" a lady I know whose cat has CRF like Oscar did keeps her cat going with "drips, fluids etc etc etc" but the cat in my OWN opinion has no life no pleasure is left in his life.

Is the fact she loves him enough to keep him alive? Or should that be the reason she lets him go, because she loves him?

[dinahsmum]

If the only reason for staying alive is not being dead, that is no basis for living.
Human or animal
Does that make sense?
I think it applies particularly to cats.

[Kim]

Originally Posted by dinahsmum

If the only reason for staying alive is not being dead, that is no basis for living.
Human or animal
Does that make sense?
I think it applies particularly to cats.

I think that makes perfect sense.

It is so difficult sometimes to do what is best for the pet, when to decide that they have been through enough and the time has come to let them have a dignified death. As most of you know I went through this situation recently with my dog Ben. He had an operation in July for his spondylitis and I am pleased we went ahead with it as it may have given him a new lease of life. It did make a difference although not significantly. However, when he was so poorly 3 weeks ago the vet thought enough was enough and I agreed. This was not without guilt, but it would have been selfish of me to put him through any more treatment.

[Mags]

Kim, you did the kindest act you could for Ben and put him first......

[Naomi]

I saw it and told hubby about it. We both agreed that it would have been kinder to have had him PTS.

[borderdawn]

"If" harry, lives a normal life for the next X amount of years, being happy and has a good quality of life, dont you think it will of been worth it?
Dawn.