[woward]

I'm facing the difficult decision of making treatment choices for my Rottie recently diagnosed with lymphoma. He's a gorgeous two year old who we love dearly. I’m trying to decide what level of treatment to commit to knowing that lymphoma is not curable but that with certain treatments we might buy some extra time for him, albeit at some cost to his quality of life.

As background, I faced a similar situation earlier this year when my 9 year old female Rottie had lymphoma. In her case we spent several thousand $ on diagnostics, surgery and other treatments before we realized what we were getting into because her situation started as an emergency case at a major vet school hospital. In my girl’s case we elected a moderate chemo regimen which she did not tolerate so had to stop after a few weeks and another $1,500. We stopped all treatment after that. After about 6 weeks (we think when the poisons cleared out of her system) she returned to her old self and now appears to be a happy, playful, high-energy Rottie again. We concluded that she did NOT maintain her normal quality of life while being treated, although being a stoic Rottie bitch she never complained about a thing. She has since turned 10 and shows no signs of recurrence although we know it is just a matter of time. In her case, we have concluded that she is living a better life untreated. We are willing to lose her sooner if she has a higher quality life while she lives.

My dilemma is partly caused by the current state of veterinary medicine. There are many chemotherapy options that have reasonable history of extending a dog’s life for some period of time. With lymphoma, vets tell us that the median survival time is 11-12 months during which time the dog undergoes about 6 months of intense treatment. Where we live the estimated cost of such treatment (for a Rottie size dog) is $9-15 thousand when all the cost are added up (veterinarian, drugs, lab work, etc.). Vets claim that “dogs tolerate chemo very well” but our experience earlier this year is that our dog’s quality of life was materially compromised while undergoing chemo.

Like doctors, veterinarians are trained to treat their patients in virtually all circumstances. It is what they do and I understand that. When we discuss this issue with our vets (we are talking to both our local vet and the vets at the vet school) there is an automatic presumption that we will elect to treat the dog with little consideration of cost or other impacts on the dog or the owner. This attitude puts intense pressure on us as owners who question the propriety of taking extreme measures to buy a small amount of time for a terminally ill dog. I’m normally a pretty tough, decisive guy, but am feeling more anxiety over these decisions than I ever would have predicted.

And, it’s not just about what to do for my puppy. There seems to me to be an ethical dilemma regarding how appropriate it is to spend a large sum of money to possibly buy a little extra time for a terminally ill dog. Given all the other needs of our society should we consider using those resources somewhere else? Sending a child to college, helping with Katrina aid, etc. It is not my intent to be critical of anyone who decides to spend whatever they choose for medical care for their pets. I am simply wrestling with how appropriate it is in my case and am curious if others have considered this issue.

Any thoughts?