MANY vet practices are better equipped than doctors' surgeries. A blood test result that takes days for a human will take within 15 minutes if the patient is a dog or a cat.
If, like me, you are an animal lover and owner, that is neither surprising nor shocking. There is no lumbering, bureaucratic, cash-strapped NHS for pets. With the exception of some fine charities, their care is private, funded either by deep pockets
or insurance policies taken out by owners who often can't afford health cover for themselves.
Thirty years ago, hardly anyone had pet insurance. If a pet couldn't be cured by veterinary expertise and ingenuity, a relatively modest drugs cabinet, and at reasonable cost, it was "Goodnight Tiddles". Smaller pets such as goldfish, white mice and rabbits rarely saw a vet. They just lived until they died and were reverently dug into a shrubby border.
Medical advances in pet care, just as in humans, mean that previously fatal conditions can be treated or cured, providing you can pay. Hence the once outrageous idea of pet policies have become a pretty major plank in the insurance industry. So it's hardly surprising that Scotland's first cancer centre for animals has opened at the Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies in Roslin, at a cost of £3 million.
One in three dogs and one in five cats will develop some kind of cancer so there will, regrettably, be no shortage of patients, even though the cost of treatment runs into thousands.
The dilemma for owners is less about financing the treatment and more about whether it's fair and right to impose it.
Humans will usually endure anything for a cure. We can weigh up the effects of drastic surgery, chemotherapy, painful treatments, not to mention frequent and stressful hospital visits, and understand that if it gives us a complete cure, a decade or even a few more years or months of life, however uncomfortable, it's worth it. It's tougher to make that call for a pet who has no idea what's happening and why.
If it's a young animal with potentially many years ahead, we feel obliged to go for it. Then again, if it's an older and much beloved pet, a member of the family who has shared our lives, we also feel we owe it the best treatment available.
I faced that dilemma 18 months ago with my 15-year-old cat, who developed lymphoma of the kidneys. I trust my vet to put my animals' welfare first – way before his profits or my selfish longing to keep a pet going. He's never failed me.
The chemo was as "gentle" as it could be, designed to bring about remission and relief rather an aggressive regime aimed at a cure. There was no point in a treatment that caused unnecessary suffering. So we embarked on chemo weekly, then fortnightly, then every three weeks. It can't have been pleasant but the cat responded well and improved, gaining another six months and another contented sunny summer before the cancer spread and reached his spine. When he suddenly lost the use of his back legs and gazed at me in abject confusion, the game was up and he was put down.
In all, I suffered more than he did. It was every bit as challenging and stressful as looking after a sick human: encouraging him to eat, forgiving the odd "accident", spending hours stroking him as he liked, watching for any sign that he was feeling worse or better. And howling like a banshee when he went. Eventually we had him cremated to scatter his ashes in his favourite spots.
I loved that cat with a vengeance. I know that if we hadn't tried, I would have been haunted by "what if". I'm glad we gave it a go; no regrets. But it was agonising and if the same circumstances arose with my next cat, would I do it again? No.
The new animal cancer centre is a wonderful institution. It will be able to treat and cure many animals as well as contributing to our knowledge of cancer and treatment of humans. Vets are right to pursue and offer life-saving or extending treatment when it's appropriate.
But after receiving the best advice from the professionals, it comes down to a personal decision, and for most, money will be the least of their concerns. Loving owners should rest assured that they are no less loving if they decide, in the face of a debilitating, probably fatal illness that has no guarantee or high probability of a cure, on a quick and painless exit.
It is just as valid and caring a choice. In fact it's an option many humans are campaigning for today.
