Do right by the dog

November 2, 2005 2:37 PM

Old Dog Filter: I have a great old mutt. He's about 12. We don't know for sure as he was adopted full-grown. We've had him for 7 years and my wife and I have "decided" to forego any surgery should he get sick again. But I have mixed feelings.

He's had a history of off-and-on illness and there's unfortunately a stong chance he might need intervention in the next few years.

And while I certainly don't want him to go through the trauma of being cut open again. (About two years ago we caught a bit of cancer early on and while he has recovered well, it seemed to really aged him.) On the other hand, it would kill me if he was ill and I didn't do anything about it.

My question is: has anyone else faced a similar dilema and what did you decide? Would you make the same decision again?

posted by captainscared to pets & animals (14 comments total)

We just went through this a few weeks ago. Our dog, a lab/pit bull mix, was 12 and at that age I think kidney problems are pretty common. So we were treating her for that -- steroids, special food, but nothing invasive necessary -- we probably spent a few hundred bucks a month for tests and meds for about 3 months. Expensive, but we had figured this expensive time would come and we had planned for it.

My husband and I did agree, along with the vet, that at our dog's age she wouldn't be a candidate for invasive surgery or radiation if she got really ill. (She'd had a small cancer removal from her foot a few years ago -- a quick operation and easy recovery.) We figured a young dog would be able to have years of active life afterwards, but an old dog mightn't be able to get beyond the pain of the treatment and the healing tactics might be worse than the few months' extenuation of life they would provide.

Then she started vomiting and being unable to keep anything down. Rapid downhill track, from an active (for an older dog) pup to her curling up on her bed for most of the day and getting thinner by the day. The vet discovered a big abdominal tumor and recommended that we put her down. We gave her a good weekend (chicken and rice dinner, bacon and egg breakfast) and had to let her go on that Monday.

Those words can't even begin to describe how I felt about letting her go, and actually going to the vet and being there for the deed broke my heart. Because you can make the right rational decision and know you've done the right thing to prevent needless suffering. But she was my pal for 12 years, through some extremely difficult times. After a few weeks, I still cry thinking about it, and miss her terribly. But she would have suffered so much had we opened her up and then put her through a difficult healing process.

I'm not sure what your exact dilemma is -- to spend money past a certain point or to spend money at all -- but I think that a big part of pet ownership and caretaking is knowing when to let go. The act of doing so is much harder than you think.

I can say this -- if you do have to have your dog put down, don't go to the vet alone. Go with your wife, or with a friend. God, I'm crying now just thinking about it. Sorry for the long post.
posted by mdiskin at 3:02 PM on November 2, 2005

I think this is something you'd want to discuss with your vet, should the need arise. As old as your boy is, he wouldn't be a great candidate for major surgery anyway, particularly if it would only be needed a year or two down the road. If the surgical risk to the animal is as great, or nearly as great, as the possible benefit, considering healing time and residual disabilities, if any, most reputable vets won't suggest going ahead with it.
posted by paulsc at 3:05 PM on November 2, 2005

Yes, our family dog required a splenectomy, which we decided to go forward with. It was expensive, but gave the dog another year of of good health. When the next year rolled around and the dog's kidneys failed, we had to euthanize him.

I am glad we had the dog for that extra year, but it may have made the final trip to the vet even harder. I don't think I'd prolong a pet's life through major surgery again.

Whatever you decide, I don't envy you the emotional hardship.

Yes, we have another dog.
posted by Crosius at 3:06 PM on November 2, 2005

I don't think any answers here will sway you from whatever you feel when the moment comes, but I faced a similar situation with a cat.

I remember the dilemma - the operation was complicated, and a lot of rehabilitative work was needed on my part and for the cat. Like your dog, he had problems before as well as several operations. Complication arose from the way the previous scars and stuff healed, and he was struggling horriby. It was a joint decision, but on my part I decided to go with the operation in the hope that he could live for at least 6 months or so have one last summer in some sort of peace. This may sound like a Disney movie but after the operation he returned to a quality of life he hadn't enjoyed for a long time. He was so lively and full of energy that it dawned on us that he must have been in some sort of pain for a lot longer than we had thought.

He's still doing fine now and really is a remarkable animal - cats do have nine lives. I can't say what I would do now as each time really is a different gamble. But what seem like very grim situations can end positively.
posted by fire&wings at 3:07 PM on November 2, 2005

I've come close. I have a cat that had cancer on one of her toes, requiring an amputation.

The vet told me there was a good chance she had cancer in her lungs (based on what, I don't know). I agreed to have him test for that, and in the time it took for the results to come in, decided with my wife that if she had cancer, we wouldn't put her through any heroic measures.

The test came back negative. Dodged a bullet there. But she's a very old cat, and something is going to come up positive at some point, and I'll make the same decision then.
posted by adamrice at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2005

My cat is 17, had to undergo gall bladder surgery last year, and I have since decided that there is no more surgery in her future. The reasons are threefold. First of all, she had such a hard time recovering from the gall bladder surgery, and still hasn't entirely bounced back a year later. Second, and probably most significantly, two different vets have told me that she would probably not survive anesthesia, let alone surgery, again, because of her age and fragility. And third, and heartbreaking if it were the only reason, is the expense. All told, the gall bladder ordeal and related complications cost over $7000. I can't afford that again.

Basically, I think rather than making a unilateral decision not to get surgery done should your dog need it, use some factors like these to make the decision. Ask your vet if s/he thinks your dog would survive surgery. If not, your decision becomes much easier. Weigh the quality of your dog's life in the time he may have left if he becomes ill against the quality of his life if he has surgery - is the recovery time too tough to make it worth it, or is it worth it in the long run?
posted by amro at 3:13 PM on November 2, 2005

After preview:
PaulSC--My vet refused to give me any guidance as to what the "right" thing to do would be.
fire&wings--this is an important point. Animals can be suffering for a long time before we really are aware of it, and will even go out of their way to camouflage their suffering. My neighbors have a dog who had some kind of parasite; several people commented that the dog was not his usual self (sluggish, not peppy) before they took him to the vet and found this out. It's not that they were inattentive, but not attentive enough either, I guess.
posted by adamrice at 3:14 PM on November 2, 2005

For me, it really depends on what the prognosis is, and what the intervention is, as well as on what the dog is like. If a dog had a benign tumour like a lipoma that needed to be removed because it was causing discomfort, I'd likely go ahead with it on most dogs, unless they were extremely old for their breed and/or didn't tolerate surgery well. If we're talking major abdominal or thoracic surgery on an older dog, I most likely wouldn't do it.

I don't think you need to think of it as "not doing anything about it" if he gets ill again, because I'm sure you'll do something about it when the time comes, even if that "something" is sadly having him put to sleep. You love him, and you will do right by him. There are certainly many reasons why we might not choose to have invasive, serious interventions done, but there's no reason why we'd choose to allow a beloved friend to suffer needlessly. With a dog advanced in years (you don't mention his breed or mix, but if he's a Lab-sized or larger dog, 12 is pretty old, if he's a smaller breed, 12 may not be so old), or with any dog who has a terminal illness, quality of life is so much more important than quantity. I'm sorry you have to think of this, but good for you for thinking about it before the time comes.
posted by biscotti at 3:54 PM on November 2, 2005

I spent thousands of dollars and kept a cat with kidney failure alive for 8 years after his diagnosis. He was very placid with receiving medications and drips, was very infrequently in any pain, and also was a joy and delight to everyone who knew him. He lived to age 16.

I had another cat who had inflammatory bowel syndrome and later small cell carcinoma of the bowel, with all of the messiness that entailed. She hated taking medications, or even being touched on any terms but her own, and if you gave her medications she would go into a fear mode where she would run and hide even if you lifted a little finger around her. Sad to say, she was much less fun to be around than my other cat, but I loved her anyway. The vet and I agreed that her emotional quality of life would be better without much intervention. She died peacefully on her own just after her 17th birthday.

The answer, talk to your vet or find a different vet that can weigh these issues with listening and compassion as well as their education. There is no single answer.
posted by matildaben at 4:12 PM on November 2, 2005

You've inspired my first comment. I have a cat and two horses. One horse is 22, and although he's in good health I've been thinking through a lot of these issues lately. I know I won't let any of them have any prolonged pain, but my biggest worry is not being able to afford a procedure that they might need and that would actually be live-saving. To that end I've invested in insurance that costs me a few dollars a month and that will pay for any major expenses. I used it a couple of years ago when my younger horse fractured a leg: if I'd had to pay for the expensive procedures that followed, he wouldn't be alive today. So if you're so inclined, that's something that can take some of the purely financial aspects out of your decision.
posted by OolooKitty at 4:28 PM on November 2, 2005

that should, of course, be "life-saving".
posted by OolooKitty at 4:29 PM on November 2, 2005

I personally think it's all about that elusive "quality of life" thing. I had a cat live to 20, and another one die at just 8. The twenty y/o got thyroid surgery when she was 17 and she was really very good until about three months before she died. The eight y/o went through two surgeries - the second when we discovered it was more than Christmas ribbon in his tummy, it was cancer (possibly exacerbated by the ribbon-caused trauma). When he could no longer eat or keep anything down, we decided to have him put down.
HOWEVER, we had the vet come to our house to do this - and I will never have it done any other way. There was no trauma of a car ride, the carrier, smells of other animals, noises, etc. Spot died safe and comfy in the sun cradled in my hubby's arms. We felt we owed him that.
Whatever you do, and whenever you do it, it won't be easy, but for me knowing that I was easing the little guy's suffering helped me make the decision.
posted by dbmcd at 5:28 PM on November 2, 2005

When I was in high school my cat, the cat I'd had since I was a very young girl, got stomach cancer. Her condition deteriorated quickly, but there was time for intervention, had we decided to go that way.

Of course, I wasn't the primary decision maker in that circumstance. The vet was realistic (grim) about the potential for recovery, told us we'd have to medicate her with injections daily and she would have to eat special food to accommodate her diminished digestive system. We had her euthanized. It was one of the first highly traumatic experiences of my life, and I knew it was the right thing to do, and I still feel sad thinking about it, although I'm happy to know that we limited her pain as much as we could.

I think you will know what is right if the time comes. If your vet thinks that the hypothetical future procedure will be physically hard on your dog, that'll factor in. You don't want him to suffer and recover slowly. If your vet thinks it may bring significant benefits when compared to the risks, I'm sure you'll think about that, too. You're his guardian as well as his friend, and it's sort of a burden when that trust requires you to make tough choices. You may feel better knowing you're not making selfish ones. The fact that you're asking this question seems to indicate that you'll make the best choice for him in whatever situation may arise. Enjoy all your time together. A good pet is one of the best things I've ever had.
posted by rebirtha at 9:12 PM on November 2, 2005

I agree that you'll know when the time comes, dogs will often "tell" you, especially if you have a close bond as you and your dog do.

You might think about bringing a second, younger dog into the family - not only does it often give the older dog a new lease of life but when the time does come for him to leave, the second dog would be a great comfort to you both.

And as rebirtha said, enjoy your time together, I hope it's for a long time to come.
posted by ceri richard at 3:10 AM on November 3, 2005