I do agree with Keith on the matter of euthanasia. I think the big question is quality of life, and only the person/people who know the animal best can make that determination. My husband and I have a cat who has been in renal failure for almost 11 years. (That is VERY atypical…my vet stopped telling newly-diagnosed renal cat people about us years ago. He doesn't want to get their hopes up to an unrealistic level.) In addition to the benign tumors he has in his kidneys, he also is prone to developing stones in his bladder. About 10 years ago we spent an utter ton of money on surgery to clean out his bladder; we did not cross the line of torturing him in order to keep him with us, but we did skate right up to that bastard. He recovered and has done very well in the decade since. The surgery was very hard on him, but he recovered well. If there's a reasonable chance of a good quality of life after treatment, that's a huge consideration. In the case of something like cancer, where surgery and painful treatments aren't going to "cure" anything and might likely make the animal's last few weeks truly hellish…no. I can't get on board with that.

The matter of giving our renal cat sub-cutaneous fluids twice a day is a great example of the "quality of life" issue: He tolerates it beautifully. (It acts as an extremely low-tech version of kidney dialysis, basically.) He is perfectly calm when I stick him with huge needles twice a day, and frankly doesn't seem to even mind it. We have another cat who is in renal failure who Will. Not. Tolerate. It. So, fine. We don't make her do it. She's going to die way, WAY faster because of it, but…her remaining months will be happy and content.

It's a call that only the people who know the animal best can make, but yes…I am huge proponent of euthanasia. It's wrong to let an animal suffer.

Ed – Right on with your karma post. I really tire quickly with the 'don't spend money on animals and instead donate to charity bitchez' moral argument. It's a well that dries up very quickly because its never executed as such in practice. Afterall, those of us who were against the Iraq War from the get-go have a very strong argument for about a trillion dollars that could have gone to Operation Smile and the like. But the majority of the general public and our dearly serious foreign policy community and President Chimpy all decided killing brown people was more worthwile. (not that the trillion would have gone to anythin good without the war, but again, i'm just saying.)

Keith – Are you sure? Because if you are wrong, the animal is dead and there is no CTRL+Z for dead. I tend to err on the side of "my animal probably would want to live, if he/she could understand the consequences and was given the choice." It might be easier to not have to deal with chronic illness, both emotionally and financially. And it can be good comfort to yourself if you keep telling yourself you "did the right thing," but there is no way to know what the animal would want because they lack the capacity for truly understanding the situation, which is why we act on their behalf as their health advocates in the first place. And I will always err on the side of life, because death is absolutely permanent.

And I pay my vet's electric bill every month. It's a win/win.

Carry on with your furry friends. There are way worse ways to spend your money, and you're clearly a person of conscience. I find it hard to believe that the people in your sphere are worse off because of your presence, so don't beat yourself up.

As to the cutoff line — of course there is one. I sure hope you have one, too; you don't mean to say you'd beg, borrow or steal to heal your pet rat, no matter the cost. As to its being 'arbitrary,' we need better care with words here. It's not a cutoff line discoverable by some computer algorithm or other automated decision procedure. But then nothing is, in the sphere of human affairs. That being said, not all cutoff lines are equally justified by good arguments. 400 dollars on your present salary and family situation is quite justifiable. 14,000 bucks from an assistant professor with a wife and two kids is irresponsible; and to say that 400 is 'arbitrary' is no justification for spending 14 grand on an animal.

If any of you expect me to believe that if the vet told you your pet needed a $500 operation, you'd go home and give the $500 to Operation Smile instead, you are unequivocally full of shit. Assuming you declined to pay for the procedure, that $500 would be spent on yourself in one form or another.

Ed, you get to keep your rat, but at Christmas, instead of lavish presents for all and sundry, you should consider a charity or two. Besides, Hollows, there's also Operation Smile.

No meaningful scoring here folks, keep moving along.

Anyway, in a civilized world, we don't have to make many of these hard choices because a healthy percent of our income is expropriated from us automatically by a government that solves the worst of the problems, leaving us to guilt free enjoy the rest (with extra charitable giving if we like for good causes we want to support). You're only facing this dilemma because other entities are failing their basic duties to our fellow people.

Not that this makes anyone feel any better.