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

[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.

[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.