• Timecircleline@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    8 months ago

    My understanding is the goal of chemo for animals is to keep the drugs at a low enough level that any symptoms they have from them are less impactful than the symptoms they have from the cancer. I understand it’s also less effective, for this reason- but it wouldn’t be fair to make them sick because they don’t understand.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      I feel like the chemo would only be to prolong their life for the benefit of the owners and not of the animal.

        • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          8 months ago

          I too only value people, animals, and things, for the monetary returns they bring in.

          No wait, that’s not true, because I’m not a fucking psychopath.

            • Bo7a@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              8 months ago

              You sound like a slave stockpiling brownie points with your master instead of realizing the yoke around your neck.

              Enjoy that. I guess.

              • 😈MedicPig🐷BabySaver😈@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                8 months ago

                Nope. Just don’t waste my $$. For less, people can adopt a new pet. There are tons waiting in shelters.

                I’ve seen plenty of dogs and cats that were long past their quality of life. Selfish prick owners.

                • Ajen@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I’ve seen plenty of dogs and cats that were long past their quality of life.

                  OK, but that’s not what people are arguing with you about. I don’t think people would disagree with you if you were only talking about spending money on pets to extend their lives without making them happy/comfortable. But there are a lot of instances where you can increase your pets lifespan without losing any quality of life. Sometimes that’s expensive, and it can be a really hard choice to make (especially if you have trouble affording it), but it sounds like you’re arguing that people shouldn’t spend a lot of money on their pets no matter what. That’s absurd.

        • iamericandre@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          8 months ago

          The absurdity here is you feel the need to express an unwanted opinion about the way someone else spends their money.

        • Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          …it’s just a pet. Give them some love, food, housing and that’s all we need, as it’s always been since we tamed the first pet animal. No need for fancy stuff

          • True and there is a boatload of other animals stuck in shelters waiting for a nice home. No need to prolong things when it’s impossible to know how the pet is actually feeling about the extended treatments.