I have to take this a few pieces at a time.  I wish you'd not posted
anonymously; it concerns me greatly that you seem to think that people
who can't pay for proper care for their pets still deserve to have them...
 
When you are poor, unless you know your veterinarian, unless you know
s/he has a policy of accepting payments, what else can you do but trust
in the resilience of your animals to respond to home care or get better
on their own?
 
This may earn me some flames, but I'm sorry: if you cannot afford to get
your pet proper vet care whenever they are sick, you do not have the right
to bring a pet into your family.  When your child is ill, do you trust in
his/her natural resliance to get well?  Animals do not necessarily have a
"natural resiliance" any more than you necesarily do, particularly in a
low-income household where they not be receiving the best diet on top of
being ill.  If an individual is too cash-strapped to properly care for an
animal, they should not bring one into their family.  Sorry oif that seems
harsh, but most shelters make sure they only adopt to people who can prove
that they have the means to get medical care for the animals.  Taking
"proper" care of a pet includes affording vererinary care for them.  If
you cannot pay for vet care, and you simply rely on your pets to "tough it
out" and magically get better on their own, I'm sorry, but that is NOT a
responsible pet owner!  Many people feel that the love they give their
pets makes up for this (i.e. "I can't take him to the vet, but I give him
lots of love!".  As a ferret dies a slow and agonizing death as a tumor
insode his pancreas or liver grows and grows, love is not enough.
Frankly, it is selfish to keep an animal you cannot provide proper medical
care for.
 
>It doesn't work for me, to say my savings account at the bank is for my
>ferret's future medical needs.  The money is too accessible and it goes
>to other family obligations over and over again.
 
Well, many people consider that a pet IS a family obligation, at least it
ought to be if it's considered a family member.  What exactly are you
saying here?
 
>If I could prepay my veterinarian for the medical emergency that might
>happen, there wouldn't be this terrible uncertainty about seeking care.
>If I could pay into a veterinary account, 5,10 or 20 a month, my vet would
>have some money from me, s/he would know I am good for it, s/he would see
>my history of payments, so even if there wasn't enough money in the fund
>to cover the emergency, I would have a good payment history...This is
>achievable by a person of any income.
 
Perhaps some vets would be willing to do this, but a veterinarian is not
in business to also be your personal accountant and keep a pseudo "bank
account" for you.  If you can pay into a vet account, why can't you put
it into an "untouchable" savings account and just make a firm decision
to leave it alone?  It sounds like your problem is not so much not having
the money, but not having the self-control to put it away and leave it
alone, and it's not the vet's responsibility to manage an account for you
just because you can't keep a savings account on your own without dipping
into it.
 
When your pet is healthy, when you keep your pet healthy through
self-education, how do you establish a good relationship with a
veterinarian?  A good working relationship is based on repeated contact -
what am I supposed to do?  My healthy animals don't make trade, they don't
keep my vet in business; how will s/he know me when the medical emergency
finally happens?
 
You don't have to have intimate relations with a vet to establish a
contact and know how to reach them in an emergency!  Good Lord.  You're
seeing the vet at least twice a year for vaccinations (I hope!) because
rabies and distemper are supposed to be given seperately.  A good vet
will give you the number of the local "emergency" hospital or tell you
what to do in an emergency.  You don't have to be on close personal
status with your vet in order to have a plan in place for emergency care!
Self-education is fine but your pet needs vaccs and a yearly exam, so you
must have established at least a once-a year relationship, right?
 
(on a vet):
>He thought poor people did deserve to have pets, even when they couldn't
>pay for them.
 
Well, enabling people to have pets when they can't pay for their care is
not necessarily a noble deed.  Suppose this vet goes out of business,
moves, or dies?  Few vets offer "free" care to those who can't pay or
offer generous time payments.  What happens to those pets then??
 
I know I'll get flames for this post, so I may as well bite the bullet.
Although "poor people do not deserve to have pets" is a very harsh
statement, can you honestly say that "pets deserve to be owned by people
who can't pay for proper care for them?" If you love animals, why would
you want them to be in the care of someone who can't help them if they
are injured or sick??  I think you'd have to rephrase it if you want it
to suit your philosophy, i.e. "Poor people deserve pets as long as the
pets don't plan on ever getting sick, needing vaccinations, getting
injured accidentally, or developing any kind of medical problem."
 
You concern me in your defense that you can't save money because it goes
to other family obligations.  In our house cats and ferrets are family
members and we don't take the money for their vet care no matter what.  I
hate to think of your pets who have to rely on their "natural resiliance"
that you seem to think they inherantly have, if they become ill or need
care.  I hope at some point you develop a better sense of priorities.
Maybe you need to visit a few shelters and ask them what percentage of
their animals come in needing vet care or surgery from people who tell
them, "Well, I can't afford it."
 
-Heather W.
 "Sometimes you eat mac and cheese so a ferret can get surgery!"
[Posted in FML issue 3711]