This is a bit of a fluff one...
A girl in work bought a hamster about a week ago and she found out it's leg was broken. She brought it to the vet who in the end had to amputate.... our colleague starting saying to her things like 'Why don't you just have it put to sleep and buy a new one?!'.... 'It would cost you a lot less to just get a new one!' Another colleague got really mad and started comparing the hamster to a child. 'If your child broke his leg, would you have him put to sleep?' etc etc.
So, I just wondered what you all thought? Is it right to compare the two? Does an animal have less rights than a human being?
Me - Kristi, 29
DD - Leia, July 5 2008
I luurrrrrve to lurk!
I love my pets dearly... but I do not ever put them in the same category as my children.
My aunt, on the other hand, has no children and treats her pets as if they were her children... so I could see her doing the same as your coworker before I would.
I think it would depend on the difference in price-- are we talking $50 or $300?
My pets are *SO* not my kids. IMO the only people who assert that are people who haven't had kids yet or never will. You can''t even compare the two in my world.
Personally, I don't think I'd do much to save a $3 hamster that I just got. They don't have long life spans, aren't particularly intelligent or able to form really close bonds with humans.....so I likely would euthanize and get a new one. Frankly, I think that is more humane, as a hamster isn't going to understand why it is in so much pain from an amputation (I feel the same way about people who put their dogs through chemo, you can't explain to your mutt that their misery is "worth it"-- kwim?)
DD 8.03, DD 6.05, DS 3.07, DD 5.09, and DS arrived 6.17.12
Animals are not humans! I have a pet peeve (no pun intended) when it comes to people who compare animals to humans. As much as you love your pet, it's not a child.
As for a hamster, I would weigh the costs. When it comes to amputating the leg or putting the hamster down, whichever cost less is what I would do.
I adore my dogs and I would do what I could to help save their lives or pay for any health condition. But I don't ever compare them to my child, totally different level.
I too love my doggy (see "furbaby"). Of course I use "furbaby" in a term of endearment type of way - not that I consider her an actualy baby!
I would do what is financially responsible to help our dog. I love her and I will miss her when she is gone one day but I could never ever put her on the same plane as my children.
My sister was totally over the top with her dog. Speant thousands of dollars on this dog. Well when she finally had children she also realized that the dog takes a back seat. She has a different dog now after the other one passed but she refers to him as her DH's dog. Funny how someone who is nutty about their pet changes once children are introduced.
Christina + Rory = a grand total of:
Amelia, Anthony, Andon, Noah, Mason, & Trinity-woof
I like to eat animals.
When our (much loved) dog got cancer, we chose not to do surgery or chemo even though they were offered as options that would extend her life for another year or so. It was expensive, which was part of our decision, but more than that, I couldn't see putting her through that ordeal. It would have been for us, not being ready to let go of her. So we chose to go the route of keeping her comfortable while she still had a fairly good quality of life, and then putting her down once things started to go downhill. It was really sad, and I still miss her 3 years later, but I completely believe that we made the kindest and most loving decision for her.
In the end, first of all, no, pets are not people, and they are not our children. I can't imagine anyone who actually has childen would compare the two. We love them, they are part of the family, but they are not people. In making medical decisions about my pets, I would consider what is financially responsible for our family (I am not going to put my family thousands of dollars into debt for a pet - IMO that is irresponsible.) I would consider what is kindest for the pet (again, I'm not putting my dog through chemo no matter how much we love her and want to keep her with us.) And honestly, I would consider the life span of the animal. If the animal only usually lives to be 10, and the animal is 9, I'm probably not going to go to heroic measures to save it.
-Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)
Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.