Catholic weekly newspaper The Southern Cross columnist Sarah-Leah Pimentel (“Lesson in humanity from a cat", 20-26 November 2019) writes it's an untenable moral problem to spend money on expensive medical care for animals, as recommended for her friends' ill cat Sparky (an MRI) she cared for while they were away, when many people don't have access to basic medical care.
I appreciate she loves Sparky and would do what’s “financially and morally” feasible for him, and I acknowledge that from her writing she’s a compassionate person.
But her argument which she couches as a moral dilemma of “how can we justify cutting-edge medical care for animals while thousands of people do not have access to basic care” is specious because it lacks equivalence. As she wonders, “it is not right I have access to the best medical care but the majority battle in the hope they will receive the help they require”.
In South Africa 17% of the population with access to private health accounts for 50% of total health expenditure. As she would deny a pet, which animal lovers consider part of the family, expensive medical care because of the “moral issue”, is she suggesting people with access to private healthcare deny themselves that if they wish to consider themselves “moral”? I hope not.
The fact is we do what we can, guided by our principles and capacity. If one has the money and it’s medically recommended, it’s incumbent and responsible to weigh alternatives after considering risks and benefits and their impact on quality of life. It does not make us less moral and caring as she suggests. This personal decision impacts nobody else except one’s insurance company if applicable. Unless Pimentel is suggesting one reduces medical cover and donate the excess saved to a universal medical fund or non-profit.
Last year I was in a similar position as her when my cat Larry was terminally ill with cancer. I enquired from specialists about chemotherapy, radiation and alternative medicines, each undoubtedly expensive (radiation for animals is the same price as human patients - R50 000 - 110 000 for four to six weeks once a week). Unfortunately the cancer had progressed too far but I would have done what was necessary within my capacity. Ironically, I use the public health service because decent medical insurance is out of my reach.
A late friend, also religious like Pimentel, spuriously said care for animals - medical and other - beyond basic care is problematic and cause "conflict" (sic) in families and communities. However, he dined out almost every week entertaining friends, thinking nothing of spending R1 000 a time. Except the odd occasion, I declined the invitations because I found the ongoing cost concerning, but accepted it was his money to do with as he wished.
He also went abroad every year. Due to age-related infirmity he was frequently at the doctors and specialists and in hospital for which his medical insurance paid most. During the last three months of his life (he died a few months ago) he was in private hospital including intensive care and went home to die, three weeks later, with a private nurse in attendance. His medical expenses including monthly premiums and clinic and specialist costs that wasn't covered by insurance was hundreds of thousands of rand. I did not begrudge him that.
While we loved him, his disapproval of the kind of good, but not exorbitant, care we and others provided our pet children (we have 11 - nine cats and two recent additions, rescue puppies) was hypocritical as Pimentel's is.
Pimentel dangerously and sanctimoniously conflates and denies a personal and medical decision under the admonition of moral and religious tenets that don’t exist.
I appreciate she loves Sparky and would do what’s “financially and morally” feasible for him, and I acknowledge that from her writing she’s a compassionate person.
But her argument which she couches as a moral dilemma of “how can we justify cutting-edge medical care for animals while thousands of people do not have access to basic care” is specious because it lacks equivalence. As she wonders, “it is not right I have access to the best medical care but the majority battle in the hope they will receive the help they require”.
In South Africa 17% of the population with access to private health accounts for 50% of total health expenditure. As she would deny a pet, which animal lovers consider part of the family, expensive medical care because of the “moral issue”, is she suggesting people with access to private healthcare deny themselves that if they wish to consider themselves “moral”? I hope not.
The fact is we do what we can, guided by our principles and capacity. If one has the money and it’s medically recommended, it’s incumbent and responsible to weigh alternatives after considering risks and benefits and their impact on quality of life. It does not make us less moral and caring as she suggests. This personal decision impacts nobody else except one’s insurance company if applicable. Unless Pimentel is suggesting one reduces medical cover and donate the excess saved to a universal medical fund or non-profit.
Last year I was in a similar position as her when my cat Larry was terminally ill with cancer. I enquired from specialists about chemotherapy, radiation and alternative medicines, each undoubtedly expensive (radiation for animals is the same price as human patients - R50 000 - 110 000 for four to six weeks once a week). Unfortunately the cancer had progressed too far but I would have done what was necessary within my capacity. Ironically, I use the public health service because decent medical insurance is out of my reach.
A late friend, also religious like Pimentel, spuriously said care for animals - medical and other - beyond basic care is problematic and cause "conflict" (sic) in families and communities. However, he dined out almost every week entertaining friends, thinking nothing of spending R1 000 a time. Except the odd occasion, I declined the invitations because I found the ongoing cost concerning, but accepted it was his money to do with as he wished.
He also went abroad every year. Due to age-related infirmity he was frequently at the doctors and specialists and in hospital for which his medical insurance paid most. During the last three months of his life (he died a few months ago) he was in private hospital including intensive care and went home to die, three weeks later, with a private nurse in attendance. His medical expenses including monthly premiums and clinic and specialist costs that wasn't covered by insurance was hundreds of thousands of rand. I did not begrudge him that.
While we loved him, his disapproval of the kind of good, but not exorbitant, care we and others provided our pet children (we have 11 - nine cats and two recent additions, rescue puppies) was hypocritical as Pimentel's is.
Pimentel dangerously and sanctimoniously conflates and denies a personal and medical decision under the admonition of moral and religious tenets that don’t exist.
Comments
Post a Comment