The Price Of Non-human Life

31 Mar

How can you say no to this face?

This story was brought to my attention today. A man takes his six month old puppy  to the vet, afraid something is seriously wrong with her. The puppy is assessed, and the man was told he had to pay a $1600 deposit in order for procedures to take place. He said he did not have the money upfront, but would pay when the procedure was completed.

The vet refused his offer, and the puppy subsequently died.

On one hand, the situation is devastating. I couldn’t imagine how a dog owner could feel not being able to save his/her puppy’s life. There should definitely be better payment systems in place to support those who can’t afford to pay up front.

On the other hand, when a person buys a dog, they have to keep in mind all of the costs that come along with being a pet owner, whether it be check ups, food, board, or emergencies. Not having this money aside is a shortfall and could be seen as irresponsible.

Holding this opinion, however, isn’t completely fair. Who am I to say that people of certain economic backgrounds should simply not have a dog?

A weird segue, but doesn’t this sound a lot like another health-related issue our friends down south are dealing with? What happens when money runs dry, but health problems still prevail?

If one breaks a bone in the U.S., it could cost a person without a healthcare plan thousands of dollars. I wonder how many people are living with health conditions but have chosen to resist treatment in order to save their families from horrific amounts of debt.

Scary thought. All the more reason why the healthcare bill needs to be set in motion ASAP.

3 Responses to “The Price Of Non-human Life”

  1. Greg at 11:50 am #

    Unfortunately, having a pet is a luxury and not a right. You’re right in the fact that people need to understand the full costs of owning a pet, and if you can’t afford it, you’re putting that pets life in jeopardy if something goes wrong.
    It is a little cold hearted the way that Vet’s run their “business”, but you can’t just go to the grocery store and expect to get a cart full of free groceries just because you’re hungry.

  2. She.Is.Just.A.Rat at 12:44 pm #

    I’m a little on the fence with this one I think. I certainly agree that a responsible pet owner should have the money to take care of the animals that they own. However, I am one of those “irresponsible” pet owners, as I am myself, living paycheque to paycheque. However, all three of my cats are now living a better life because I took them in. The first adopted us and showed up on our doorstep from living on the streets. The second two would have been on the streets had it not been for us sheltering their mother and finding her a home (only to discover that she was pregnant and there were now five cats to find a home for). Regardless, Greg is correct in saying that having a pet is not a right…furthermore, it’s a responsibility.

    The parallels to the current situation of the health care bill in the US are strong however. For a developed nation, basic health care should be a right. I am willing to be the one to pay higher taxes in order to receive this health care. I’m also willing to wait for the care if I have to, but know if I want it sooner, I can also pay. Most people are fine with this type of system and survive nicely with it. I’m happy to see that the bill has taken effect, and hope it is not repealed regardless of the outcome of November’s elections.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: