We've found $50 to be about the limit for young goat kids who've developed pneunomia. We've driven a couple of them to the local "dog and cat" vet clinic, gotten them treated, and had them grow to butchering size. But given the cost of butchering, and of feeding them to get to that size, when you add another $50 you're basically just breaking even on the price of meat. And if the animal doesn't survive, you're out everything.
There's another element, however: we see ourselves as custodians or stewards of these animals, and therefore under an obligation to do what we can to maintain their health. For that reason, we're sometimes willing to spend more than an animal's replacement value, if necessary, and if the treatment promises to yield a good result.
Still, it's quite a different --- more utilitarian --- mentality than the approach many people have to veterinary care for their house pets. For many, a dog or cat is almost literally a member of their family, and they're willing to spend great sums to prolong that pet's life. I confess to a deep attachment to our dogs, and in most cases would spend significantly more on veterinary care than they are "worth". Barn cats are different; we (especially our kids) like them, and we do get them basic veterinary care, but they are expendible when their conditions are too complicated.
This issue has been on my mind the last couple of days, after reading a provocative piece on the NY Times website, which explored the amount people are willing to spend on a sick pet.
Most pet owners (62 percent) said they would likely pay for pet health care even if the cost reached $500, but that means more than a third of pet owners said that might be too much to spend on an animal.The piece says "only 22%" would pay five grand, but I was frankly surprised it was that large. Even more fascinating than the poll results in the piece itself are the comments people have made, detailing the enormous sums of money they have spent (and consider well-spent), sometimes just to prolong an animal's life by a few months.
What if the bill for veterinary care reached $1,000? Fewer than half of pet owners said they were very likely to spend that much at the vet. Only a third said it was very likely they would pay a $2,000 vet bill.
Once the cost of saving a sick pet reached $5,000, most pet owners said they would stop treatment. Only 22 percent said they were very likely to pick up $5,000 in veterinary costs to treat a sick dog or cat.
I do understand that for some people, a dog can be a beloved companion, especially in cases where a person does not have any children of his or her own, and prolonging the pet's life for several more years is worth more to the person than having some extra pieces of green paper in the bank --- particularly when the pet is relatively young and the prognosis for treatment is good. And when a person agrees to become the custodian of an animal, he is also agreeing to make some financial sacrifices on behalf of that animal.
The question I have to ask myself is, when does the amount cross the line from "responsible" to "disordered"? Where each individual draws that line is a matter for his own conscience, but it's something worth giving thought to.
For myself, I think it's a question of competing obligations. There were all kinds of things I was willing to spend money on before I was married or had kids, that now I would never consider spending so much on. Five grand might be an acceptable price for some people to spend saving a dog's life, given their financial and family circumstances. But if a vet quoted me that amount, in anticipation of treating my dog, as much as I love him and as much help as he is with the livestock on our farm, my thought would be: Five grand will cover all of our family's routine out-of-pocket medical and dental and vision care expenses for the next two years. How can I spend that on Scooter, when I have four kids who are depending on me to spend it on them?
Where do you draw that line for yourself?