How much would you spend?

[Paul Wagland]

I feel Tigerella's point above is the most salient one - how many starving and/or sick children could such a large amount of money benefit?

But you could say that about any money, spent on anything. Do we need holidays, cars, a new greenhouse? If someone wants to spend £1000 on a chicken, good luck to them. I'm more worried that newspapers cover things like this, rather than global warming and the energy crisis.

[Seahorse]

I think the newspaper coverage is another issue altogether (in a bizarre former life, I shared house space with one of the editors of The Sun, so I know of which I speak ).

And I'll give you the greenhouse but cars? holidays?... not for some time! Fair point in general terms though - we're all priviliged here. For me it's about where the grey areas are.

[Tigerella]

But you could say that about any money, spent on anything. Do we need holidays, cars, a new greenhouse? If someone wants to spend £1000 on a chicken, good luck to them. I'm more worried that newspapers cover things like this, rather than global warming and the energy crisis.

Hi

Are you then saying that it would be ok to spend £1,000 saving the life of one animal, above spending £1,000 saving the life of one British soldier?
They need better equipment!

T

[Madasafish]

If I were the owner I would be enjoying roast chicken minus one leg.

[yoanbob]

we spent about £300 pounds on our duck after a fox attack, but that included emergency vets at 11.00 at night, and an overnight stay, but she had the abillity to get better and have a normal life otherwise we would just have had her put down.
that woman is mad, a one legged chook can not have a good life by any stretch of the imajination and the vet should have refused to treat it, it will be so very sick from the cancer treatment its downright cruel.

[bluemoon]

It does make me wonder what the vet in this case is thinking. Surely they entered the profession to make animals' lives better, prevent suffering etc, but as with just about everything else the bottom line these days seems to be to make money - lots and lots of it. Veterinary practices are being taken over by big business and animal welfare is very low on their list of their priorities. In the past the local vet was a one man or two man practice, they were members of the local community and were largely held in respect. Today, at these huge clinics with several different branch surgeries, you are unlikely to see the same vet twice, and all their decisions seem to be made with an eye to the profit margin. We were lucky when our boy fell ill, he was insured and we had a vet who we knew and trusted - even moving to a different practice when he did - and he helped us when it became obvious that we were reaching the point where it would have been unwise to continue with his treatment. But I feel that our experience is becoming the exception, few vets are now available after office hours, and late night or weekend treatment is carried out at some centralized facility by a vet who doesn't even have access to your pet's records.

Pet insurance has a lot to answer for, in the past a vet wouldn't have even suggested some of the treatments available either on distress to the animal or on cost to the owner grounds (and all treatments now begin with £150 worth of 'tests' first). Our own pets are insured, but only because we probably could no longer afford the cost of even basic treatment without it. When I was young our dog fell off a rock at the beach and deeply grazed her leg. Mum cleaned it up and, because the wound was still bleeding, next day we took her to the vet. He cleaned it and popped a bandage on, which remained in place until she grew fed up and chewed it off - end of story. Today there'd be X-rays, stitches, antibiotics, two or three check-ups and even doggy physiotherapy. Back then Mum could afford adequate veterinary care without insurance, these days we simply couldn't because much of what is considered 'adequate' now is, frankly, just plain silly. The vets themselves just assume that all pets are well insured and if they're not well it's just hard lines they do the expensive stuff regardless - if you can afford it fine, if you can't you're a 'bad' owner. I do think that £1000 on a hen is obscene, but I also despair of the culture which has allowed it to happen.

[kirsty b]

Very well said bluemoon. I am very lucky in that we have the kind of vet where it is a tiny 2-3 person practice.
When Boo had difficulty having one of the pups, we were on the phone every 2 minutes and not once did he sound exasperated with us or treat us as though we were stupid. We eventually had to take her in for help (after hours), and when I went down the next day to find out what it cost I was pleasantly surprised to find that it cost £170. I was expecting it to be much more and they didn't insist I paid it in one go as my old vet would have done.

[Paul Wagland]

Are you then saying that it would be ok to spend £1,000 saving the life of one animal, above spending £1,000 saving the life of one British soldier? They need better equipment!

So if this woman had £1000 to spend, she should have given it to the army?! That's a fairly random idea! My point was that people spend money on all sorts of things that you or I might disagree with - but that's their privilege.

Bluemoon's point about what's best for the animal is very valid though. I guess that's up to the vet to decide, and there are bound to be good and bad vets.

[SueA]

Have you still got 'Delicious' Paul?

[Paul Wagland]

Oh yes. And she has grown brave and beautiful.

She jumped up on my lap on Saturday and attacked one end of my sandwich... the other end of which was in my mouth. She has a taste for Quorn and redcurrant jelly, it seems.

Daisy (her chum) is also well, if a little less brash. We are hoping to get two more rescue hens soon.

[Tigerella]

So if this woman had £1000 to spend, she should have given it to the army?! That's a fairly random idea! My point was that people spend money on all sorts of things that you or I might disagree with - but that's their privilege.

Bluemoon's point about what's best for the animal is very valid though. I guess that's up to the vet to decide, and there are bound to be good and bad vets.

Hi

It was just an example, you could spend the money on lots of more beneficial things, in my opinion.
We are just having a discussion, I would not tell anyone what to spend their money on.
But some children in this country and others, I would consider more needy.

FG

[snake the squadie]

my mate had a two year old hampster and he spent £200 on vets bills. thing is hampsters only live between 2 and 2 and a half years. point is, its ok spending money on your pets but there has to be a line drawn at some point and 200 QUID on a hampster is well over the line

[Tigerella]

Hi

The Vatican has just made this update to the 7 deadly sins,

Environmental pollution
Genetic manipulation
Accumulating excessive wealth
Inflicting poverty
Drug trafficking and consumption
Morally debatable experiments
Violation of fundamental rights of human nature

I think spending £2000 on a hens vets bills would come under accumulating excessive wealth.

FG

[Keep It Green]

I was once walking home from a late night out in Leeds (drunk) and I came across a pigeon that I think had been hit by a car. It was still living and walking around so I thought I'd help it out and take it home to help it recover. On my way home (after carrying the bird for over an hour) I came to a large grassed area, in my wisdom I thought I'd see if the bird could fly or at least it would give in an insight into what was wrong. I put it into the air and it started to fly then came back down?? So I thought I'd give it one more go. I put it back into the air and it started to fly again, then came back down, this time as it did a cat came from nowhere and took the bird clean out. I couldn't help but laugh. Someone was probably trying to tell me to just let nature take care of nature. Most animals wouldn't last too long without humans looking after them, worming them, feeding them etc. So when a bird or dog or cat gets really sick then I think it's up to us to make an education choice (not just spend money for the sake of it). The person should have killed the bird straight away and if she felt bad given the moeny to the rspb or something like that (in my opinion).

Matt

[Paul Wagland]

Ok, there are two issues here. The first is animal rights - I think we all agree that when an animal is ill we shouldn't let our emotions get in the way of doing what is best for that animal, be that treating it medically or humanely killing it. I haven't seen anyone arguing against that.

The second issue is whether or not this woman has a right to spend her money how she chooses. In our society, she does. That's all there is to it. At the risk of repeating myself:

My point was that people spend money on all sorts of things that you or I might disagree with - but that's their privilege.

As Jeannine says, this story made the papers because it was an easy, attention-grabbing headline. Poor journalism basically. Why are we less outraged when people spend their wages on cigarettes?