Vision Correction

[libertytyranny]

If I had the money, and it wasn't a hardship, i would do the surgery. Why? Because I could. And no one could make me feel bad about it either. I wouldn't break the bank to do it..but if the money was there, I would. :shrug:

 

[LadyWolf]

Sure, it'll give the owner the warm fuzzies that they really really really love Fido, but Fido isn't going to care. For Fido, nothing really changes. He's a companion animal. He can be blind as a bat and it won't matter. He's going to be happy as long as his owner spends time with him, plays with him, pets him. There are fine, happy, great dogs out there missing limbs, eyes, ears, blind, deaf, dumb as a box of rocks... When are we going to stop humanizing animals and realize that although noble, such an expense is misguided and a huge waste of money?

He can't read, he's a dog. He doesn't need to hunt, etc he's a companion animal. His sense of smell and hearing along with whiskers, etc more than make up for lack of vision from a human perspective. This is nothing but a vet making $$, IMHO.

Well, it's so easy to sit back and say that because you're human, and you're not a dog. If you were a dog, you might be singing a different tune. People justify it by making excuses, which makes them feel better and rids them of guilt... "Oh well, they are just dogs, they won't care." Really? To say that as a fact is ignorant. You have no idea if that dog would notice or care. I'm making a point that because it has 4 legs instead of two, it's needs should be cast aside because it's an expense? If you put up an animal against a human w/some ailment and you have to choose, then yes. But if you have the money and it can be done, trust me, I think the dog would notice a difference between being blind and seeing.

 

[TurboK9]

Well, it's so easy to sit back and say that because you're human, and you're not a dog. If you were a dog, you might be singing a different tune. People justify it by making excuses, which makes them feel better and rids them of guilt... "Oh well, they are just dogs, they won't care." Really? To say that as a fact is ignorant. You have no idea if that dog would notice or care. I'm making a point that because it has 4 legs instead of two, it's needs should be cast aside because it's an expense? If you put up an animal against a human w/some ailment and you have to choose, then yes. But if you have the money and it can be done, trust me, I think the dog would notice a difference between being blind and seeing.

Well, the fact it has four legs, a brain a fraction of the size (most of which is alloted to olfactory sense, as opposed to ours which has the bulk alloted to vision), the fact that they adapt to limb / sensory loss more readily than we do, the fact that they don't experience self identity at the same level, the fact they don't experience emotion or pain the same way we do, the fact that they don't 'care' the way we do.... Dogs see the world completely differently than we do, and to try to apply human standards to them is an injustice. For instance, for a dog, vision is as secondary as smell is to us. Just because they are different does not make them inferior, or 'just' dogs, but to try to humanize them implies they are inferior.

As far as ignorance, I am quite fluent in dog behavior, the way and why they think and learn how they do, why they react to different stimuli the way they do, and it is by no means as complicated as many would like to think. I've studied their behavior, physiology, and learning capacity for many years. How about you? They are far simpler, and as such, far more adaptable than most give them credit for. Complexity is not always a good thing.

As far as 'guilt', I would feel far guiltier putting a dog through something like the say, the strain of chemo or radiation therapy to treat cancer than I would if I euthanized him humanely. Why? Because the dog doesn't know why he's suddenly sick, wracked with pain, and hairless and itchy. He just knows he is. Yet people will spend thousands doing this to a dog. I simply believe, better to let it take it's course, and when the dog is obviously no longer enjoying life, take him to the vet and release him from it.

To force an animal to linger or deal with the pain of unnecessary surgery and recovery (note: Unecessary) is not doing anything for the dog... it is assuaging your guilt, and protecting you as the human from having to make an even more difficult, if more humane, choice. We put our animals through pain and extended suffering claiming we care and our being humane, when often times it is far more humane to end the pain all together... To believe we are doing the right thing by extending the misery and pain of an animal or putting it 'under the knife' for serious non-life saving surgery because we are somehow helping it, is where the ignorance lies IMHO.

It's 'needs' are quite different from yours.

 

[ICit]

Well, the fact it has four legs, a brain a fraction of the size (most of which is alloted to olfactory sense, as opposed to ours which has the bulk alloted to vision), the fact that they adapt to limb / sensory loss more readily than we do, the fact that they don't experience self identity at the same level, the fact they don't experience emotion or pain the same way we do, the fact that they don't 'care' the way we do.... Dogs see the world completely differently than we do, and to try to apply human standards to them is an injustice. For instance, for a dog, vision is as secondary as smell is to us. Just because they are different does not make them inferior, or 'just' dogs, but to try to humanize them implies they are inferior.

As far as ignorance, I am quite fluent in dog behavior, the way and why they think and learn how they do, why they react to different stimuli the way they do, and it is by no means as complicated as many would like to think. I've studied their behavior, physiology, and learning capacity for many years. How about you? They are far simpler, and as such, far more adaptable than most give them credit for. Complexity is not always a good thing.

As far as 'guilt', I would feel far guiltier putting a dog through something like the say, the strain of chemo or radiation therapy to treat cancer than I would if I euthanized him humanely. Why? Because the dog doesn't know why he's suddenly sick, wracked with pain, and hairless and itchy. He just knows he is. Yet people will spend thousands doing this to a dog. I simply believe, better to let it take it's course, and when the dog is obviously no longer enjoying life, take him to the vet and release him from it.

To force an animal to linger or deal with the pain of unnecessary surgery and recovery (note: Unecessary) is not doing anything for the dog... it is assuaging your guilt, and protecting you as the human from having to make an even more difficult, if more humane, choice. We put our animals through pain and extended suffering claiming we care and our being humane, when often times it is far more humane to end the pain all together... To believe we are doing the right thing by extending the misery and pain of an animal or putting it 'under the knife' for serious non-life saving surgery because we are somehow helping it, is where the ignorance lies IMHO.

It's 'needs' are quite different from yours.

now Im 50/50 on cancer treatment.... to take in what type of cancer, how old the dog is, other health issues and you are seeing an internal medicine DVM for this. There Chemo is not the same as ours.... the reaction is not like us... and on some cancers you have a good success out come with it... even better if caught early!

but to put a 9-10yr old thru this ... thats in horrible health...


AND DONT get me started on heartworm disease!!! That treatment is worse than cancer treatment...nothing better then injecting arsenic into your pet to kill something you could have been taken care of each month!

 

[LadyWolf]

Well, the fact it has four legs, a brain a fraction of the size (most of which is alloted to olfactory sense, as opposed to ours which has the bulk alloted to vision), the fact that they adapt to limb / sensory loss more readily than we do, the fact that they don't experience self identity at the same level, the fact they don't experience emotion or pain the same way we do, the fact that they don't 'care' the way we do.... Dogs see the world completely differently than we do, and to try to apply human standards to them is an injustice. For instance, for a dog, vision is as secondary as smell is to us. Just because they are different does not make them inferior, or 'just' dogs, but to try to humanize them implies they are inferior.

As far as ignorance, I am quite fluent in dog behavior, the way and why they think and learn how they do, why they react to different stimuli the way they do, and it is by no means as complicated as many would like to think. I've studied their behavior, physiology, and learning capacity for many years. How about you? They are far simpler, and as such, far more adaptable than most give them credit for. Complexity is not always a good thing.

As far as 'guilt', I would feel far guiltier putting a dog through something like the say, the strain of chemo or radiation therapy to treat cancer than I would if I euthanized him humanely. Why? Because the dog doesn't know why he's suddenly sick, wracked with pain, and hairless and itchy. He just knows he is. Yet people will spend thousands doing this to a dog. I simply believe, better to let it take it's course, and when the dog is obviously no longer enjoying life, take him to the vet and release him from it.

To force an animal to linger or deal with the pain of unnecessary surgery and recovery (note: Unecessary) is not doing anything for the dog... it is assuaging your guilt, and protecting you as the human from having to make an even more difficult, if more humane, choice. We put our animals through pain and extended suffering claiming we care and our being humane, when often times it is far more humane to end the pain all together... To believe we are doing the right thing by extending the misery and pain of an animal or putting it 'under the knife' for serious non-life saving surgery because we are somehow helping it, is where the ignorance lies IMHO.

It's 'needs' are quite different from yours.

Well, I still disagree with you. I think dogs are quite intelligent, some more so than most people!!! I think people have underestimated a dogs intelligence. If a dogs eyes are so "not needed", I find it interesting how blind people have depended on dogs for THEIR EYESIGHT. Humans think they know it all and play god A LOT!!! Laws have made it illegal for people to be "humane" to other people. Before modern medicine, humans lingered in pain and suffered also and they didn't know why they were sick either. They're just sick and no cure. I also understand our needs are different than theirs. We need our sight, limbs, etc., for survival. I'm just saying that if someone has the money to cure their pet, who are you or anyone else to say they shouldn't because it's just a pet. Society has made us think that we shouldn't. Society tells us right and wrong and then criticizes because of the decisions we make. If a surgery will help an animal see, and they have the money, I say go for it!!! If the dog had a disease that was incurable, I believe in doing the "humane" thing. If there was no insurance for people, I think there would be a lot of unhealthy people running around dying left and right.

BTW, technically, women are also inferior...keep that one in mind also!!!

 

[ICit]

Well, I still disagree with you. I think dogs are quite intelligent, some more so than most people!!! I think people have underestimated a dogs intelligence. If a dogs eyes are so "not needed", I find it interesting how blind people have depended on dogs for THEIR EYESIGHT. Humans think they know it all and play god A LOT!!! Laws have made it illegal for people to be "humane" to other people. Before modern medicine, humans lingered in pain and suffered also and they didn't know why they were sick either. They're just sick and no cure. I also understand our needs are different than theirs. We need our sight, limbs, etc., for survival. I'm just saying that if someone has the money to cure their pet, who are you or anyone else to say they shouldn't because it's just a pet. Society has made us think that we shouldn't. Society tells us right and wrong and then criticizes because of the decisions we make. If a surgery will help an animal see, and they have the money, I say go for it!!! If the dog had a disease that was incurable, I believe in doing the "humane" thing. If there was no insurance for people, I think there would be a lot of unhealthy people running around dying left and right.

BTW, technically, women are also inferior...keep that one in mind also!!!

There is a difference between working dogs and a pet. I have both... I love all of my dogs... but if a working dog and pet got sick and if I HAD to make a choice of which one I would treat.... well it would be the one that does the JOB TO SAVE PEOPLE.

I dont think Turbo is saying dogs are not smart... of all people he would know. He has trained and worked some very intense K-9's out there.

But they are dogs... I do love my guys and cherish each day I have with them...but yep... Im already thinking of the next set of dogs I will have..Looking at breeders, interviewing breeders, looking at their parents history...... my dogs will not last forever... when they are gone.. I will shead a few tears, more with some I have and I will purchase another dog to do the JOB. Its a cycle.... they are lucky they are living inside.... most LE will not allow those dogs to live inside.... THEY ARE A TOOL!!! POINT BLANK... A TOOL TO DO A JOB. Take it to the vet, feed water and work.... yep thats all most of them get!! AND THEY ENJOY THEIR LIFE? Funny how that happens.. they know nothing else

 

[TurboK9]

Well, I still disagree with you. I think dogs are quite intelligent, some more so than most people!!! I think people have underestimated a dogs intelligence. If a dogs eyes are so "not needed", I find it interesting how blind people have depended on dogs for THEIR EYESIGHT. Humans think they know it all and play god A LOT!!! Laws have made it illegal for people to be "humane" to other people. Before modern medicine, humans lingered in pain and suffered also and they didn't know why they were sick either. They're just sick and no cure. I also understand our needs are different than theirs. We need our sight, limbs, etc., for survival. I'm just saying that if someone has the money to cure their pet, who are you or anyone else to say they shouldn't because it's just a pet. Society has made us think that we shouldn't. Society tells us right and wrong and then criticizes because of the decisions we make. If a surgery will help an animal see, and they have the money, I say go for it!!! If the dog had a disease that was incurable, I believe in doing the "humane" thing. If there was no insurance for people, I think there would be a lot of unhealthy people running around dying left and right.

BTW, technically, women are also inferior...keep that one in mind also!!!

What I am saying, is 'check your motivation'. What you are doing 'for your pet' may be nothing more than prolonging pain and misery. You may very well be doing it for yourself.

And where is all this 'inferior' crap coming from?