@Strokethefurrywall
^@Harmonypuss are you seriously equating an animal to a partner, child or parent?
To you maybe, but my animals are my pets. Not my flesh and blood, and not humans that I chose to build a life with or create other humans with.
Such a stupid fucking argument.^
Yes, I am equating a loved pet too a family member!!
Judging by the fact that a great many posters on here have as good as agreed with what I'm saying, for many, pets ARE family.
My own best friend has spent £1,000s every year (for well over 20yrs) on insurance and excesses for pets with heart conditions because "they are her family'.
I take it that the people who've made comments encouraging the OP to have this poor cat euthanised would have advised my friend not to bother spending all that money on giving her gorgeous, loving dogs a good life and to have them destroyed.
As said, her dogs, despite their health concerns, have been able to lead good, long, loving/loved lives.
There is also a new law being discussed at present which will mean that pets will be given increased status in law (currently only the same as your purse or phone). This wouldn't be happening if people didn't consider their pets to be worth more to them (not just financially but emotionally) than their mobile phones.
So going back to my question about whether people would look at euthanising a family member if they were distressed (as was implied about the OP's cat), I'll change 'distressed' for 'heart condition' in my theoretical question ... would you consider having a loved one euthanised because they have a heart condition?
There's nothing stupid about my argument because the majority of pet owners actually DO consider their pets to be family!