A Dog’s Worth: treatment for lymphoma

[cassiesmom]

Found this on the Chicago NBC affiliate's Web site. I put it in the Dog House because I was not sure of what anyone's opinion might be. The hard part about it, to me, is that unlike a human, the dog can't say how he feels as the treatment is underway. And I wonder how hard total body radiation would be on the dog's coat and skin. Don't know what I would do and hope I never have to find out.


A Dog’s Worth

‘There is no price tag’ says dog’s owner
By MATT BARTOSIK

Updated 9:00 AM CST, Tue, Feb 17, 2009


A Naperville couple has spared no expense in making sure their beloved pet receives the medical treatment he needs.

How far would you be willing to for your beloved pet? Would you travel hundreds of miles? Or spend thousands of dollars?

The McGraths loved their 7-year-old golden retriever, Cody. So they were devastated when a golf-ball-size growth was discovered in his neck last July.

A biopsy revealed that poor Cody had lymphoma. His doctor gave him a less than 2 percent chance of surviving.

Susan McGrath of Naperville refused to give up hope though. She scoured the Internet, looking for a way to save her pet.

"He's my baby," McGrath told the Naperville Sun. "I told him, ‘Hang in there, and we'll find a cure for you.'"

After numerous searches, McGrath came upon an article about Dr. Steven Suter at the North Carolina State University School of Veterinary Medicine. He uses leukophoresis machines to collect healthy cancer-free stem cells from the pet's blood, which are then reintroduced after complete body radiation therapy.

The treatment has been available to humans for years but has only been offered to dogs since September.

"NCSU is doing one dog a month, so I knew there were going to be at least 12 people as crazy as I was, willing to do anything for their pet," said McGrath.

So Susan and her husband Joe drove more than 600 miles Saturday to get Cody the treatment he needed. His procedure is scheduled to take place today.

The McGraths have spent a small fortune, including travel expenses, $10,000 in chemotherapy, and $15,000 for the bone marrow treatment.

"It's incredibly expensive," said Susan. "But at the same time, I never had a second thought. Short of cloning my dog, there is no price tag. After all the love Cody has given our family, I want to give him this."

[K9karen]

I have to say, I have mixed emotions.

I spent a small fortune fixing RB Cody's 2 ACL's, but it was worth it, I never hesitated, and I knew he'd be OK. When he suddenly got ill years later, and the diagnosis was grim within a week, although I begged the docs to do something (hysterical), I knew, in my heart, letting him go in peace was the best thing to do.

In regards to this Cody, if I had the reassurance that he'd survive, and not suffer through the therapy, I probably would say yes. BUT I'd have to really, really weigh it. I know some people whose dogs didn't suffer and did suffer through chemo. Just like people, I guess. Maybe, I'd have to live the experience to make a decision. Anyway, I wish this Cody all the best.

[caseysmom]

A friend of mine spent 15,000 on her dog, I sat by and watched her go into debt and wondered how the vet could look at themselves in the mirror.

There are so many unwanted pets it seems insane to spend that amount on one dog. You could help so many dogs.

[Twisterdog]

Tough call.

As far as spending a fixed amount of money, I think it depends on how much money one has. If one is a multi-millionaire, spending $25k on a dog is nothing. However, if one has to forgo their own retirement savings, or drain their child's college fund, that is a completely different argument.

I love my dogs. I love my dogs more than I love most people, honestly. And I might say, "I would do anything for my dogs!" But, realistically, I would not do anything for them. I would not lose my home, I would not tell my son he could no longer go to college next year.

I also think the physical effect on the animal must be considered. A human can make the choice himself, rationally and logically. One might say, "I know chemo is going to bankrupt me, and I have only been given a year to live at best. I know I'm going to feel terrible, but I choose to do it anyway, because I want to see my son graduate from medical school in six months, and I want to see my first grandchild born."

However, an animal cannot decide that. They don't know what is making them feel bad, they don't understand disease or treatment. They just feel bad. I think sometimes it's a bit selfish of the owner's to put the animal through that, just for a bit more time with them.

I also agree with Caseysmom ... how many healthy dogs would $25,000 save? One has to think of that as well, if one truly loves animals.

[Medusa]

I also agree with Caseysmom ... how many healthy dogs would $25,000 save? One has to think of that as well, if one truly loves animals.

Healthy dogs wouldn't need to be saved. I agree w/you, though, that if a person can afford it, $25,000 may seem like small change to them. However, I'd have to seriously consider whether or not the dog would be able to stand the treatment to stay alive for me. When my cat Yoda had an ear polyp, my vet covered all the options w/me, one of which might have been a bulaosteotomy which is essentially opening up the jaw if the polyp had grown down into that area, scraping it out and closing her back up. Risky surgery and the post op is worse than the surgery and very painful. I told him if it came to that, I wouldn't put her through it. It's possible that the polyp could grow back and she'd have to go through all that again. Plus the surgery is very expensive, at that time at least $5000 which I did not have, so that was a factor to consider as well. Do I go into more debt to finance this surgery and perhaps need to do it again later? I can assure you that I wasn't thinking that $5000 could be better spent on my healthy cats. It isn't all about money and we do need to consider whether or not the pet's quality of life will be improved markedly and permanently or if we'd be choosing the option that's easier on us.

[joycenalex]

i've been the treating radiation therapist on patients with this type of cancer 1988-1998. it can be very successful. the immediate first weeks can be very tough, physically, your immune system is, in practical terms, is non existent, and the risk of an infection is very high. i'd be interested in seeing the follow up story on this.
and, for the expense of a well loved pet with a chronic medical condition.... given the money i've spent on alex, i'm not in a place to be critical. i made choices in spending the money for his treatments, and i made the financial sacrifices necessary. if i had skin kids, i couldn't have done what i did. may none of the PT family ever have to make those choices, amen

[Cataholic]

Like Joyceandalex said, may no one ever be faced with this situation.

I would spend nearly anything that I had to take care of my pets. The word, "care" is so open to interpretation, and might mean something different in each situation. I can't really say what I would or wouldn't do, as the intensity of the situation can't be pre-judged. (For me).

[kokopup]

I hope that nothing this severe every happens to Koko. I would have very conflicting feelings about putting her through chemo and radiation. When she was a year old I had to spend $3700 on double ACL surgery. I did not hesitate because the prognosis was good that she would have a complete recover. She had to spend 12 weeks in a crate and then she was completely well.

I had to go through chemo and Radiation myself 4 years ago. I no longer have cancer but the side effect have reduced my quality of life close to nil. Koko is one of my only bright spots. I would have a hard time putting her through this treatment especially knowing what radiation in particular does to normal body cells. If I was given the same option that I received 4 years ago I would probably not do it even for my self, much less putting my precious Koko through it.

It is easy for practitioners to say this is the way to go. If they ever had to deal with treatment or its side effects they may have a different story.

[shepgirl]

I guess if you're rich the money wouldn't matter but for the ordinary person it might not be an option. I really don't know how I would feel about this. I watched human friends and 2 relatives go through chemo and I could barely take the suffering they went through. So to put one of my animals through this suffering would probably mean no, not unless I had a guarantee there would be no suffering. And again, what quality of life would my pet have afterwards? All stuff to consider I think.

[cassiesmom]

I heard a point of view on this on the radio this morning, that I totally agree with.

Some might spend that money on a vacation trip to Europe or Asia. Since I don't take vacations anymore because I have a cat, that would be money that I could spend on her care.

The host had the same question I did, though - wouldn't chemotherapy be awfully hard on an animal? Would they lose their hair coats? They couldn't complain of the side effects, either. I still hope I never have to find out.

[Marigold2]

It's their money, they worked for it and they can spend it anyway they like. It is better then spending it to smoke, drink, buy porn, guns, drugs, or feed and house prisoners.
They love their dog and it is their child, I wish them alll the best. :love:

[Twisterdog]

Healthy dogs wouldn't need to be saved.

I didn't mean saved from a disease or illness. I meant saved from starvation, euthanasia, etc. I was thinking of all the dogs that die on a daily basis, for lack of homes, and lack of funding at shelters all over the country. If our shelter had $25k, we could expand our dog building. With that extra room, we could potentially save hundreds more dogs' lives per year, dogs that are now dying at Animal Control because we don't have room to take them.

[ramanth]

Playing Devil's Advocate, people are saying that they wouldn't feel right spending that kind of money because a dog wouldn't be able to tell you if they are suffering due to treatment.

What about a human baby? They can't articulate how the side affects of chemo feel. And I'm sure many would go bankrupt to save a human child. Though there are many human orphans out there in need of loving homes. Pull the plug on the child with cancer and adopt another?

I am still in debt from Kia, Chipper, and Logan's treatments. Don't like it, but I knew they still had life left to live. I've been scoffed at for spending that kind of money, but they are worth it to me.

It is a tough call and I'd never begrudge anyone their choice if they chose differently.

[Alysser]

Like Joyceandalex said, may no one ever be faced with this situation.

I would spend nearly anything that I had to take care of my pets. The word, "care" is so open to interpretation, and might mean something different in each situation. I can't really say what I would or wouldn't do, as the intensity of the situation can't be pre-judged. (For me).

Agreed 100%! I cannot really judge that situation because I've never been in it, and I know there are some things I would never do to save my pet like loose my house, like TD said. But I've said it before, a pet is for life. I consider ALL pets a member of my family and I would spend thousands(maybe not as high as 25k) to save my pet if the chances of survival were good and they weren't suffering. Pets are worth that to me, they give alot back to us. If they still have life left in them, why the deny them the chance to live?

I think this is a cute story, I wish Cody all the best!

[Medusa]

I didn't mean saved from a disease or illness. I meant saved from starvation, euthanasia, etc. I was thinking of all the dogs that die on a daily basis, for lack of homes, and lack of funding at shelters all over the country. If our shelter had $25k, we could expand our dog building. With that extra room, we could potentially save hundreds more dogs' lives per year, dogs that are now dying at Animal Control because we don't have room to take them.

I wouldn't judge anyone for their choices but I can't imagine that anyone would opt to euthanize a beloved pet in favor of saving other animals from starvation, etc. I spent a fortune on my RB Puddy's vet care and when the time came that I thought I'd have to help her to the Bridge, I did so because I wanted to end her suffering, not because I looked into her eyes and thought "I'm going to have to let you go in order that others might live. I have to save them because I'm a true animal lover". That reasoning makes no sense.

[sparks19]

I don't know about spending that kind of money... i guess if you have it do what you want with it.

but I've always told myself that if it came to really agressive treatment that would really take it's toll on the dog... I told myself I would PTS rather than make them go through a treatment that may make them feel worse.

But that being said... I don't know what I would REALLY do if it were to actually come to that. I can plan plan plan but I don't think Iw ill ever really know until it comes to that time.

[Twisterdog]

I wouldn't judge anyone for their choices but I can't imagine that anyone would opt to euthanize a beloved pet in favor of saving other animals from starvation, etc. I spent a fortune on my RB Puddy's vet care and when the time came that I thought I'd have to help her to the Bridge, I did so because I wanted to end her suffering, not because I looked into her eyes and thought "I'm going to have to let you go in order that others might live. I have to save them because I'm a true animal lover". That reasoning makes no sense.

If you are not going to judge anyone for their choices, then why do you say that someone's reasoning makes no sense? Sounds like judgement to me.

And, you are taking what I said far too literally. I never said someone should "euthanize a beloved pet in favor of saving other animals". Come on.

I do however, think this is something to think about. I will stand by that. If I took my ill dog to the vet, and he said, hypothetically ... "Your dog could live another six to nine months, if he has surgery and aggressive chemo, at a cost of $25k." Now, IF I had that kind of money to spend (which I don't, so it's a moot point in my case), yes, I WOULD think about the fact that I was spending $25K for six to nine more months with my dog, during which time he would probably feel lousy. OR I could choose to humanely let him go to the bridge, and donate that money so that thousands of others animals might live instead of die.

I'm not saying everyone should or would make that choice ... I'M not judging anyone, but it is food for thought.

[Medusa]

If you are not going to judge anyone for their choices, then why do you say that someone's reasoning makes no sense? Sounds like judgement to me.

Because I said that I couldn't imagine it, not that I would judge it. I will not argue just to argue. I made my point. Anything afterwards is not discussion; it's argument.

[Twisterdog]

I made my point. Anything afterwards is not discussion; it's argument.

I always considered it informative discussion and sometimes enlightening conversation, but to each his/her own. :confused: