Putting a cat to sleep rather than expensive treatment

[outofofficeagain]

This is a hypothetical question really, but my cat is getting on in years and was discussing with DH.

A friend of ours is paying over a hundred pounds a month for her cat's treatment. Their cat is too old to be covered on insurance (or insurance was too expensive).

The cat is 13. I said to DH that if that was our cat, I'd let her go rather than prolong her life with expensive treatment, especially if her quality of life was impacted or she was in pain.

DH said we'd probably pay too.

As long as the cat was comfortable, I’d pay it. I can’t imagine putting an animal to sleep just because they need what sounds like a basic medication. You either pay insurance or pay for stuff directly imo. Don’t have pets otherwise.

13 is not an old cat. Cats can live until 21-22 years old. £100 per month is not a lot to pay for a cat that's brought lots of love and joy to you for 13 years. I'd pay more than that for my cats for medication provided they were not in pain and happy. I think up until a cat is 18 it's worth giving them medication. My DS's cat cost him £56 per month for preventative medication to stop his joints getting arthritis. He adores his cat and would willingly go without a few treats to keep his cat arthritis free. Prior to the meds his cat had the beginning of arthritis in his back legs. His cat is a 14 year old Bengal.

❤️

Just to add, my cat doesn’t mind going to the vet too much for his injections. He’s a dog in a cat’s body and loves everyone, including the vet, and gets into his carrier willingly.

I would try my very best to pay for my cat's treatment - provided it maintained/improved his quality of life.

He is 13 now and although he can be a wee arsehole sometimes he is happy and content.

I'd also have to think about the impact of trying to give him medicine on a daily basis - he finds being given pills extremely distressing and will fight me till he draws blood. I wouldn't continue to put him through that every day long term either, no matter how well the medicine managed his pain/condition.

I agree with most people you have to be sure that you are keeping your cat alive for the cat not just for yourself. If they are suffering and a vet could keep them going for a few months getting worse and worse and having to endure treatments I couldn't do that to them. However if they are well and comfortable I would do my best to cover the cost - though I will admit that money would have to be considered.

Of course. My point about handing over my card and paying thousands was only that it was at total odds with what we'd always agreed prior to him becoming ill. We had always said we wouldn't spend that much (and I appreciate not everyone could anyway) but when we did have to say goodbye to him I just know at that moment if there'd been another option I'd have done anything to keep him here. Logically that's not right, and we didn't, but suddenly being faced with him dying I was devastated.

Some pets don’t want to go to the Vets or take medication and pills or another treatment, or to be operated on. Some pets would get very distressed by any of that.

There is an ethical question about pushing human standards, needs and desires onto animals.

13 is not that old. My cat is 18 and we pay about £65 in insurance plus £50 for Solensia every four weeks and a small amount for daily steroid tablets. It's fine, it's affordable for us and benefits him. I wouldn't go for a big surgery or cancer treatment now, he's definitely slowing down and it wouldn't be fair. But to keep him ticking over, yes.

That said, we had a cat with very unstable diabetes aged 15 which we tried to treat for a year, and I wouldn't do that again. It was very expensive and cats very rarely recover, so she just went downhill slowly. Not fun.

The problem is we don't always know how cats feel. It can even be difficult to be sure if they're suffering or not as they hide their pain.
My cat's undergoing health tests at the moment. I know for a fact he hates going to the vets but does that mean he'd rather die than face another vets trip? Of course, he probably has no understanding of his own death.
What I can assume is that he'd want to stop feeling ill and would be happier if he got better. I know he'd have a better quality of life if he felt well. This is why I'm putting him through the ordeal of medical tests. He's young and it doesn't feel right to put him down yet before we even know what's wrong.

We've just got to the stage with Tobias that as his only external symptom is very sloppy poo, plus the ultrasound results showing inflammatory reaction, there's currently no point in investigating further unless I notice any changes. Otherwise he's in perfect health if a little overweight. He's only coming up for 6 later this year.

Of the 3 other options a repeat scan & biopsy is unlikely to give any clearer results, a trip away for a full blown colonoscopy would distress him so much that I would only put him through that if it were life & death - and maybe think twice about it then, and the steroids which could help the symptoms are seriously contraindicated for a cat with FIV.

If it were my much more relaxed 11 year old girl I'd be more likely to investigate further.

If I had £100 a month to pay on medical insurance, I'd take out private insurance for myself, not our cat.
We have a lovely little cat, about 12 years old. But he's a cat. And if/when he needs expensive treatment, we won't be paying for it.

Well then you shouldn’t have pets. We have the NHS. We don’t HAVE to have private healthcare. Our animals don’t have that choice. It should be about quality of life. Not cost to your purse.

There are so many cats pts every year just because there aren't enough homes. I'd much rather a cat have a nice home while it's healthy, and pts later due to cost, rather than it never getting that chance. I think it's also better to pts rather than ignore a medical condition because people can't afford to treat it.

Not everyone can afford pet insurance. It's expensive and doesn't pay out well. Spending that much money can mean that people go without heating / quality food / other basic needs.

Then they can’t afford pets. They’re not a right. You take them on then you take on the bills.

So you would rather the cats were just pts in the shelter instead?

So only rich people should have pets?

I'm not talking about basic worming or pain medication. I just don't think people should bankrupt themselves for a cat.

Depends whether you consider your pet disposable , personally I think people should think about what they can afford before they get any animal.

I think "affording" a pet is being able to pay for food, basic healthcare and medication, and euthanasia if necessary. I don't think people should be denied giving a pet a home just because they can't pay for the latest fancy drugs or surgeries.

13 isn’t old! Our youngest death was at 19, after a traffic accident.
I don’t think £100 per month is expensive either 🤷‍♀️
Depends how much they mean to you I suppose.

I don’t think many rescues will pts a healthy cat. I follow several on TikTok (who I know may not be typical) who actually keep “sanctuary cats” with long term medical needs that can’t be rehomed.

Our cat was insured before he even entered our home. When my DP was made redundant a few years back and our income was temporarily very tight, insurance for our previous cat was an absolute non-negotiable in terms of what could and couldn’t be cut back on. She actually needed criminally expensive dental work that wasn’t covered by the policy (of course!) and I stuck it on my credit card then paid it off over a few months. No way we would have considered not treating her or euthanasia for financial reasons.

I know someone whose cat was prescribed expensive medication to take every month and they decided they couldn’t afford it so didn’t give it. Their cat got better and lived on for years medication free. I think the vet just wanted a handy bit of money every month!!!

Mine had a problem with weeing, not stones or blockage. A steroid jab was fixing it temporarily
One day I took him to the vet and she said "one time this won't work so just be ready and he is quite frail"

My worst nightmare was him being unwell at 3am and having to rush to the OOH vets with him in pain. I really looked at him and he was tired despite eating well and happy

Decided it was time because he wasn't going to improve, he was quite elderly and I wanted him to go before he was suffering. It was possibly too early but I would rather even a year early than 1hr too late

My last lovely cat passed away peacefully at home, it was suspected cancer and he was having seizures and unable to keep food down. The vet gave pain medicine and he went to sleep and didn't wake up about a week after the seizures. It was very distressing and I kind of think maybe I should've pts before the seizures as they were obviously horrible for him. But it was a difference of days. Whatever you decide know that you are having your cats best interests at heart and don't want them to suffer.
There is no right way really. It's always difficult and sad but everyone has to die sometime.

It's hard to get data in the UK, but in comparable countries, about 90% of cats entering shelters are euthanised, mostly because there is just nowhere to send them.

As yes, of course they won't show you that on tiktok.

oops just quoted wrong post
sorry
i agree