PDA

View Full Version : Cancer treatments - Dogs


Helvete
29th-January-2014, 01:33 AM
So you have a few options; Radiotherapy, chemotherapy, have it surgically removed and vaccinations.

What if money is an issue, what then?

What about natural cures, diets? Do they work?

Thoughts on this - http://dog.rescueme.org/cancer

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-January-2014, 02:01 AM
How horrible of a human being am I if I'd prefer to put the dog down, or simply let it live out its last days?

Would I be more horrible if I offered to sell you some surefire pseudoscience cure that made you feel better but did nothing for the dog?

Jennywocky
29th-January-2014, 02:07 AM
I have a friend whose dog got cancer. Actually, both of her dogs got cancer.

She couldn't afford to treat them at the vet, the price would have been astronomical and they were both old.

One lasted a few months, then over the space of a week lost functionality day by day, keeled over, and died.

The other is still alive. Two years later. And aside from being 18 years old, is doing well despite any cancer.

I did feel pretty bad for the first dog, because even when he was not having a good time, she didn't want to let go and kind of ran out his clock. I figure he should have been put to sleep at a certain point. But... oh well.

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 02:12 AM
How horrible of a human being am I if I'd prefer to put the dog down, or simply let it live out its last days?

Would I be more horrible if I offered to sell you some surefire pseudoscience cure that made you feel better but did nothing for the dog?

Did you read all the article, it offers recipes to help treat it free of charge. Doesn't seem like the best moneymaking scheme if ever I'v seen one.

Are you confusing horrible with objective? Or pretending to be a cunt whilst offering the advice you would follow?:confused:

Feed a dog a placebo that'll actually trick the owner into a false sense of security. Interesting.

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-January-2014, 02:15 AM
Did you read all the article, it offers recipes to help treat it free of charge. Doesn't seem like the best moneymaking scheme if ever I'v seen one.

Are you confusing horrible with objective? Or pretending to be a cunt whilst offering the advice you would follow?:confused:

Feed a dog a placebo that'll actually trick the owner into a false sense of security. Interesting.
He doesn't have to make money in order to sell you something. The claims are on par with those that claim, for example, that the alkaloids found in a vegan diet aren't detrimental to one's health in their own right.

I'm admittedly biased because I don't have a humanistic or moralistic perspective on animals.

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 02:17 AM
I have a friend whose dog got cancer. Actually, both of her dogs got cancer.

She couldn't afford to treat them at the vet, the price would have been astronomical and they were both old.

One lasted a few months, then over the space of a week lost functionality day by day, keeled over, and died.

The other is still alive. Two years later. And aside from being 18 years old, is doing well despite any cancer.

I did feel pretty bad for the first dog, because even when he was not having a good time, she didn't want to let go and kind of ran out his clock. I figure he should have been put to sleep at a certain point. But... oh well.

Hmmm, so one outlived the prognosis without treatment of any sorts?
Or have you any idea if it was subjected to any other forms of treatment?
Homoeopathic for example, acupuncture.

I'm seeing someone thursday about homoeopathic treatments so maybe something will come of it.

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-January-2014, 02:24 AM
Our chocolate lab died of undiagnosed cancer when he was 10 or 11. My diagnosis was based on the tumorous lumps that began protruding underneath his flesh. Always was a happy dog; fetched a *insert anything that's remotely a projectile here* until the day before he died. Never even would have known without that physical degree of metastasis. Sad? Sort of. He had a good life. What was there to be sad about, other than selfishness? Sure was a deep hole to dig in the middle of frozen February though.

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 02:28 AM
He doesn't have to make money in order to sell you something. The claims are on par with those that claim, for example, that the alkaloids found in a vegan diet aren't detrimental to one's health in their own right.

I'm admittedly biased because I don't have a humanistic or moralistic perspective on animals.

So are you suggesting an egotistical gain? Or something similar.

What are morals anyway? Aren't humans still animals? Is this a fašade instead of noting the possibility that a natural cure may work?

-------------------------------------------------------
Some more info emailed earlier from the vet
I wanted to pass on some info for you regarding oral melanoma.

Kerry would be considered stage 3, as she has evidence of metastasis to the local lymph node at this time (stage 4 is if there is spread to the lungs).
The melanoma vaccine is also called Oncept, particularly in the US

Jennywocky
29th-January-2014, 02:30 AM
Hmmm, so one outlived the prognosis without treatment of any sorts?
Or have you any idea if it was subjected to any other forms of treatment?
Homoeopathic for example, acupuncture.

I'm seeing someone thursday about homoeopathic treatments so maybe something will come of it.

No, neither was treated.

however, as a weird thought, the survivor has always seemed to be a dog with a far more positive outlook on life. The other one was kind of low-spirited much of the time before cancer.

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 02:36 AM
Our chocolate lab died of undiagnosed cancer when he was 10 or 11. My diagnosis was based on the tumorous lumps that began protruding underneath his flesh. Always was a happy dog; fetched a *insert anything that's remotely a projectile here* until the day before he died. Never even would have known without that physical degree of metastasis. Sad? Sort of. He had a good life. What was there to be sad about, other than selfishness? Sure was a deep hole to dig in the middle of frozen February though.

Sorry to hear about that.
I'm trying to come from an objective standpoint here in figuring out whether or not there are actually any other viable options.

I recently came back from Australia to find only a few weeks later that our cat started wandering aimlessly around, seemed dazed/confused.
Vet's said brain tumour, and he was put down.
I pretty much feel the same way as you do about our unfortunate Manus. That's life.

But it's the size of the tumour/cancer that becomes the problem, so when it can be prevented/reduced, why not?

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 02:42 AM
No, neither was treated.

however, as a weird thought, the survivor has always seemed to be a dog with a far more positive outlook on life. The other one was kind of low-spirited much of the time before cancer.

Interesting. Have you seen this thread? http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18799

Also, my dog is often very positive, a neutral factor at least.

I made a thread about her before. A different issue, but the cancer may actually explain it. http://intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=18637

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-January-2014, 02:48 AM
So are you suggesting an egotistical gain? Or something similar.

What are morals anyway? Aren't humans still animals? Is this a fašade instead of noting the possibility that a natural cure may work?
I'm suggesting that it's morally complicated to keep something alive for selfish reasons, natural cure or otherwise. The hole that was dug was huge, but it was done so with love.

Moralistic (primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals) and humanistic (primary concern and strong affection for individual animals and equal treatment of humans and animals) are terms used by Stephen Kellert to describe human attitudes toward wildlife.

I'm a wildlife biologist. Animals die every day from things like disembowelment, envenomation, being eaten alive, etc. and it's perfectly natural. Pets live pampered lives. They're also not people.

If it helps understanding, my perspective is generally naturalistic (primary concern for the warm fuzzy feeling I get outside), ecologistic (primary concern for the holistic system), and utilitarian, with a tinge of aesthetic.

Blarraun
29th-January-2014, 02:54 AM
Keeping a pet on therapy would be like keeping a poor soul bound to bed without euthanasia.

There is a basic drive to surrender present in animals and humans that starts working after the battle was lost, it is relieving to have it and to preserve its function.

edit: it's difficult to judge the awarness, however I wouldn't agree to euthanasia when a human being was aware, its suffering is a part of life

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 03:02 AM
I'm suggesting that it's morally complicated to keep something alive for selfish reasons, natural cure or otherwise. The hole that was dug was huge, but it was done so with love.

Moralistic (primary concern for the right and wrong treatment of animals, with strong opposition to exploitation or cruelty towards animals) and humanistic (primary concern and strong affection for individual animals and equal treatment of humans and animals) are terms used by Stephen Kellert to describe human attitudes toward wildlife.

I'm a wildlife biologist. Animals die every day from things like disembowelment, invenomation, being eaten alive, etc. and it's perfectly natural. Pets live pampered lives. They're also not people.

If it helps understanding, my perspective is generally naturalistic (primary concern for the warm fuzzy feeling I get outside), ecologistic (primary concern for the holistic system), and utilitarian, with a tinge of aesthetic.

I got you were digging, just wasn't sure how deep.

So with Stephen Kellert's logic is it moralistically wrong to keep animals as pets?

It seems to be an odd change when the animal you'v looked after has essentially become completely dependant on you, then to turn around when it's sick to watch it die.
It seems unjust to let things naturally play out after they've led a completely unnatural life, which I think is where morals become slightly confusing.

It'd be so much easier if we could communicate with animals

Helvete
29th-January-2014, 03:07 AM
Keeping a pet on therapy would be like keeping a poor soul bound to bed without euthanasia.

There is a basic drive to surrender present in animals and humans that starts working after the battle was lost, it is relieving to have it and to preserve its function.

edit: it's difficult to judge the awarness, however I wouldn't agree to euthanasia when a human being was aware, its suffering is a part of life

I understand there is a certain point where the quality of life isn't worth the work to preserve.
But this a fair way off yet, my dog's still happy/positive.

So until she starts to completely deteriorate is it still wrong to try and fight?

TheHabitatDoctor
29th-January-2014, 03:16 AM
I got you were digging, just wasn't sure how deep.

So with Stephen Kellert's logic is it moralistically wrong to keep animals as pets?

It seems to be an odd change when the animal you'v looked after has essentially become completely dependant on you, then to turn around when it's sick to watch it die.
It seems unjust to let things naturally play out after they've led a completely unnatural life, which I think is where morals become slightly confusing.

It'd be so much easier if we could communicate with animals
Kellert doesn't actually take a stance, he just made the typology. I'd imagine he's at least ecologistic. Do what you want, I'm just stating my perspective, is all.

Pyropyro
27th-March-2014, 10:44 AM
I'll just probably have the dog given to another person here who will probably slaughter and consume it. Cancer isn't contagious.

if that's not possible then I'll just kill the dog and bury it. Regardless of what happens, the dog won't be able to fulfill its primary role of being a guard dog anyways.

Base groove
27th-March-2014, 02:47 PM
I'll just kill the dog and bury it. Regardless of what happens, the dog won't be able to fulfill its primary role of being a guard dog anyways.

Damn straight.

Which ideology makes it morally wrong to prolong the life of a suffering animal for selfish reasons again?

Send your sick dogs my way I guess. $20 buys you my patented* cancer treatment, bonfire, and a gift bag.

*pending

EditorOne
27th-March-2014, 05:08 PM
We just lost a dog to cancer in December. We couldn't afford the treatments, so we marked time until it was clear he was no longer enjoying life, then had him put down. It was only a few weeks; he went from being an 11-year-old puppy with relentless curiosity and energy to complete wreck in about two months. The first clue was a minor behavior change: He'd normally throw himself down on the floor with a thump whenever he felt like lying down. Suddenly he was lowering himself very gingerly.
My takeaway from the discussions with the vet was that monthly treatments would get him another year to 18 months of life.

I cried like a little kid, by the way. Being an INTP means, I am pretty sure, that you just never know when emotions are going to rise up and surprise you.

Pyropyro
27th-March-2014, 11:45 PM
I know you guys are more affectionate to your canine companions and I respect that. However, there are times that you just have to let it go. An animal with a crushed spirit and a broken body is truly a tragic sight and its best to end it quickly to prevent suffering for both parties.