Is it me?

[RED-DOG]

Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against buying you pets prezzies, talking to them, paying for medical treatment etc. but amputation and chemotherapy for a terminally ill dog?

[M3boy]

Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against buying you pets prezzies, talking to them, paying for medical treatment etc. but amputation and chemotherapy for a terminally ill dog?

And your feelings on treating Humans with the same condition???

[RED-DOG]

Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against buying you pets prezzies, talking to them, paying for medical treatment etc. but amputation and chemotherapy for a terminally ill dog?

And your feelings on treating Humans with the same condition???

Humans can tell you how much it hurts, and refuse treatment if they wish.

[M3boy]

So you think it is ok for the NHS to pay for treatment after treatment to make people "live that little bit longer" just because they want to? Or because our laws say you cant just let somedie die - no matter how ill they are.

But it should be different for a dog?

Please note, debate here, not an argument

[ariston]

I lost one of a pair of cavaliers earlier this year and it killed me. I had to make the decision to put harley out of his misery and I could have maybe prolonged his life by maybe a day or 2 but it really wasn't the thing to do. A few months later Molly came down with a very bad chest infection and I had to take her to the vets prepared to make the same painful decision. Luckily for the family molly reacted to treatment (which cost a fortune- but I would've paid 10 times more) and is still with us. She will be getting christmas preseants the same as everyone else in the family. I personally think amputation and cheamo is too much but it has to be the owners choice. If I had been given the option of extending harleys life by maybe 6 months I think I would asked for whatever treatment neccessary.

[Wardonkey]

So you think it is ok for the NHS to pay for treatment after treatment to make people "live that little bit longer" just because they want to? Or because our laws say you cant just let somedie die - no matter how ill they are.

But it should be different for a dog?

Please note, debate here, not an argument

It is different for a dog, they don't pay national insurance or get NHS treatment...

[ariston]

on a different note you've caught me on my 2 soft spots this week- kids and animals.

can we get back to debating things like "how badly did I play this had", "how old is tikay really?" or " can women play poker?" (ludicrous the last one obviously). If we continue with animals and kids people are gonna be thinking I've gone soft.

[RED-DOG]

So you think it is ok for the NHS to pay for treatment after treatment to make people "live that little bit longer" just because they want to? Or because our laws say you cant just let somedie die - no matter how ill they are.

But it should be different for a dog?

Please note, debate here, not an argument

If we are debating Paul, you can't tell me what I think. The words above are yours, not mine.

[Eck]

on a different note you've caught me on my 2 soft spots this week- kids and animals.

can we get back to debating things like "how badly did I play this had", "how old is tikay really?" or " can women play poker?" (ludicrous the last one obviously). If we continue with animals and kids people are gonna be thinking I've gone soft.

Seeing as you've has a rough week Ariston here's one just for you ....

[suzanne]

AAAWWWWWWWW what a wee cutie :-)

[charmaine]

Don't get me wrong here, I have nothing against buying you pets prezzies, talking to them, paying for medical treatment etc. but amputation and chemotherapy for a terminally ill dog?

And your feelings on treating Humans with the same condition???

Humans can tell you how much it hurts, and refuse treatment if they wish.

Sorry , but i agree with Red 

[M3boy]

I think you have mis understood me.

I actually agree that it is not good to do surgery on a terminally ill dog to preserve its life (in suffering) for a short while.

What I was saying is, that this should also be true for humans as well

[charmaine]

I think you have mis understood me.

I actually agree that it is not good to do surgery on a terminally ill dog to preserve its life (in suffering) for a short while.

What I was saying is, that this should also be true for humans as well

Ahhhhhhh , gotcha , agree with you too  >:?

[Sark79]

Sometimes it is nicer to say goodbye rather than let them go on suffering. I remember the last time I saw my dog who I had lived with for about 15 yrs, he was having lots of trouble with his legs and the vet said it would be better to put him down rather than try any more medicines. It was tough, but I said my goodbyes and tried to remember the good times. For about 6 months after he had been put down, I felt really guilty even though I knew it was the correct decision. I don't even kill insects, so letting a friend be put down is extremely tough, but sometimes it is the correct thing to do. I still miss him and can't shake off the feelings of guilt, but unfortunately animals have such a short life span, it is sad.

[RED-DOG]

I think you have mis understood me.

I actually agree that it is not good to do surgery on a terminally ill dog to preserve its life (in suffering) for a short while.

What I was saying is, that this should also be true for humans as well

The worst part about it was, they seemed to think it was really uplifting, feel good type viewing