BOTH actions are horrific.

Euthanasia is absolutely appropriate, at the appropriate times. And not ALL euthanasia situations are "horrific". I wholeheartedly support euthanizing animals when they are ill. I even support euthanizing animals that pee inappropriately WHEN OTHER MEASURES HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED FIRST TO HELP THEM.

What I do not support is people who have a cat that pees outside the box a few times, and then say "Oh, guess that's it. Gonna euthanize my cat now since the vet says it's not a medical problem," without attempting ANY other measures first. THAT, in my opinion, is as horrific as dumping an animal along the side of the road.

Does my position make sense now? You may not agree with it. That's fine.

Starting a new thread to single out the opinion of one single person is kind of rude, IMO. If you wanted to ask me to clarify my opinion, you could have either asked in that other thread, or emailed me.

I decided to start another thread since it was stated "there isn't much difference". I said I disagree and do see a difference. One is humane death, sad but at least humane, one can be a horrible demise. I also said I hoped the statement was made in the heat of debate.

When stating "there isn't much difference", I meant in the level of horrificness (if that's a word).

And I do not believe that killing an animal because it is inconvenient to you can be classified as a "humane" death.

humane, adjective: characterized by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, esp. for the suffering or distressed

Yes, the animal is dying without suffering -- but is dying needlessly. That is not "humane". I could go out and find a way to kill plenty of people in such a way that they wouldn't suffer -- would that be humane?

Let me add that by starting a new thread, you have made this thread completely about me and my opinions. You don't see why this might make me uncomfortable? To have MY opinions singled out for their own thread?

If this were another forum, starting another thread to ask someone a question is no big deal. For example, in the Buying A Homes forum, saying something like "Hey, rivkadr, I heard you were trying to sell your house a couple of months ago. How's that going?" is no big deal.

But starting a thread for the sole purpose to single out my opinions, and then to disagree with them is attacking me. Now you, and everyone else get to have a single thread to pile on me, which I'm sure will be fun :) I'm a big girl, and I can handle it, but it is rude (and uncomfortable), and probably not something that should be done in this forum.

Well rivkadr, now you know how it feels to have someone single you out for your opinions and take you to task. Isn't that the same thing you did to me using a few select negative adjectives to describe me, or someone who sees euthanization as an option.

I'll say it again, it is not a forum for only those who agree with your take on things, different people do things differently. I certainly wouldn't offend you if you chose to try and medicate a peeing a cat.

I just don't get why you are so insistent that euthanizing an animal is inhumane. Many people must do it for different reasons. Should a petowner be required to show sufficient proof before their pet can be euthanized. If a petowner's dog is diagnosed with advanced cancer, is it inhumane not to give the dog chemotherapy and other experimental medications when there is no indication that same will even be effective. Or, would it be more kind to put your pet to sleep while it is still feeling well and having somewhat of a life? Why would you put an animal through all of that extra sickness with no positive outcome even remotely likely. I just don't get it. What is YOUR benchmark for when it is okay to euthanize. I would love to hear what you have to say.

Do you really think that any petowner, especially someone here on this forum, would not give any thought whatsoever before euthanizing one of their pets? You imply that we are sub-humans if we euthanize rather than try SSRI and similar meds to "cure" a peeing cat. Perhaps you shouldn't be so judgmental, and maybe, just maybe you could see someone else's point of view or circumstance.

Do you really believe that a cat who needs psychiatric meds is a happy cat and enjoying it's life? Once you rule out any medical indications, IMO, if the litterbox is kept clean and there is no abuse either human or by another pet in the house, then the cat has issues. End of story.

Well rivkadr, now you know how it feels to have someone single you out for your opinions and take you to task.

There's a huge difference to participating in a thread and sharing opinions and debating back and forth within a thread, versus having one single opinion pulled out into a thread of its own. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to say to you. I'm fully willing to have my own opinions debated and argued against. I don't think it's fair, though, to have them singled out in their own thread.

I just don't get why you are so insistent that euthanizing an animal is inhumane.

And I don't get why you are attributing an opinion to me that I have not made. I am not saying that euthanizing an animal is inhumane. I'm saying that euthanizing an animal when it is not necessary is inhumane. If you can't see that distinction, then again, I don't know what to say to you.

Why would you put an animal through all of that extra sickness with no positive outcome even remotely likely.

You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up. No facts to back this up with, other than your own negative opinion, and because you want to believe that psychiatric meds don't work. They do. They've worked on my cat. They've worked on other people's cats who have posted on these forums. Vets all over the country and world recommend these drugs as a cure for this condition -- why would they do that if it didn't work in most cases?

Why do you continue to persist in believing that these drugs do not work? Because you just don't want to? This makes no sense to me.

Do you really believe that a cat who needs psychiatric meds is a happy cat and enjoying it's life?

As the owner of a pet who is on psychiatriatic meds, I can say with some certainty that he is happy and enjoying his life just fine. He sleeps a little more than when he's not on them, but otherwise he's his normal, sweet self.

Here is my cents for what it is worth. I read the responses above and I don't think people are really reading what the other person is saying. I think rivkadr has sufficiently explained his/her position:

BOTH actions are horrific.
Euthanasia is absolutely appropriate, at the appropriate times. And not ALL euthanasia situations are "horrific". I wholeheartedly support euthanizing animals when they are ill. I even support euthanizing animals that pee inappropriately WHEN OTHER MEASURES HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED FIRST TO HELP THEM.

I see others alluding to something that is not within rivkadr's response. You may not agree with that opinion, but it seems to be clear to me. Just like you may not agree with labmomma's position. But that is OK either way.

I do think it is wrong to so specifically quote someone and use their quotes in another thread. I think the question can be asked without doing that. I.e. Do any of you actually think dumping an animal is OK? When do you think euthanizing is OK? Personally, I agree with rivkadr's position as I have copied it above. But I think I can also agree with labmomma - each has to decide on their own when sufficient measures have been taken to address a situation. I may be curious why labmomma is against the pill route in the specific situation, but I think I remember from another post that one of labmomma's cats needs daily meds, so apparently isn't against meds in all cases - so there is obviously something about this specific one. And it is her decision to make. I'm not going to judge her for it.

That's great for you if the meds are working. Did you solve the problem, and by problem, I mean the real problem, the cat has some non-medical issue, not the problem of the inappropriate litterbox use. No, you mask the problem with a medication that puts the cat in a different state of mind.

"Why would you put an animal through all of that extra sickness with no positive outcome even remotely likely."

You have absolutely NOTHING to back this up. No facts to back this up with, other than your own negative opinion, and because you want to believe that psychiatric meds don't work. They do. They've worked on my cat. They've worked on other people's cats who have posted on these forums. Vets all over the country and world recommend these drugs as a cure for this condition -- why would they do that if it didn't work in most cases?

Rivkadr - I was referring to cancer treatment drugs, not SSRI drugs for cats with emotional problems. Please don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about regarding cancer treatment in dogs, because I do, and the statistics of curing cancer in dogs is much lower than curing it in humans.

I am just not going to give a cat meds for a psychiatric problem. End of story.

Did you solve the problem, and by problem, I mean the real problem, the cat has some non-medical issue, not the problem of the inappropriate litterbox use.

The problem with MY cat is that he has aggression issues with my other cat, and that when he sees or smells other cats outside the window, he pees inappropriately in response. This is a terrority issue with him. He's not "unhappy" -- he's responding in this manner because he thinks other cats are invading his territory.

How exactly would you suggest I "resolve" these issues? I could get rid of my other cat, but that's not a resolution I'm interested in taking. I've tried to find ways to keep other cats from wandering into my yard -- but until people start being responsible pet owners and keeping their cat's inside, I don't have a real way to stop that.

I am just not going to give a cat meds for a psychiatric problem. End of story.

And I still have yet to hear of an actual reason why, other than "they don't work" which is simply not true. I'm about ready to give up. I CAN be open-minded and non-judgemental about other people's opinions and decisions -- when they are based on actual fact. That's not the case here, and I'm sorry, but I just can't accept that position. It would be like someone stating that flea medication doesn't work, and rather than using it on their pet, the animal should just be put down. Anyone stating that here in this forum would be lambasted for that position -- I do not see why the situation with inappropriate peeing is any different.

Hi labmomma. I'm only curious - and you do not need to answer if you prefer not to - do you have the same opinion about these drugs for humans? Do you believe that humans should take psychiatric meds? In the case of cancer, do you believe in chemotherapy and other experimental medications for humans? I'm wondering if your opinion is based on an overall objection for these types of meds regardless of who takes them, or is it just for pets? And if just for pets, what is the difference?

I'm not asking to make a judgement or make you angry - I'm truly curious as to your thoughts on this. Thanks!

Labmomma - I am also curious if you only believe in not treating animals with SSRI's or does this extend to humans too?

I think it would be enlightening for the debate to learn this info.

The use of medications is not a problem for me.

I have one old animal that takes 16 pills per day, not including once a month heartworm and flea and tick prevention. It has been very costly the past few years as some of the meds are very expensive and I do not have pet insurance on the old gal. That said, her quality of life is good. She's a great dog who just happens to have seizures, a leaky bladder, advanced hip dysplasia, etc. I give her the medications because they are helping her medical problems.

I think if that cat is psycho for some reason, then I am not going to pill it with meds.

Do I believe in SSRI meds for humans? Yes, in conjunction with actual therapy. The meds are not a cure. They help a person adjust to handling their life with the help of one on one therapy with a licensed therapist or qualified M.D. Said therapy, one on one with a professional, should be insisted upon by anyone prescribing those types of medications. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.

I will say I think our society as a whole has become too dependent on the make me feel good medications. I disagree with the Tom Cruise-type criticisms of post-partum moms. They are off chemically and do need medication and therapy. I am not saying that those medications are never needed, but I think on a whole, that type medication as well as most medications are over-prescribed.

Antibiotic use is another issue for me. I changed pediatricians when my daughter was 2 because I would take her in for a cold, and they would write a prescription for an antibiotic. Since changing physicians, she has had less than 7 antibiotic courses in 14 years. Most illnesses are viral and take time. As a society we don't want to wait it out, we want a "pill" to make it all better. I just don't subscribe to that theory. My daughter is so much healthier than her cousins and peers who are constantly sick and constantly put on antibiotic treatment. Do you see where all this overuse of antibiotics is taking us?

I really don't have a lot of confidence in cancer treatments in animals. I have seen too many pets go through all the treatments. I have witnessed friends and family hold on for way too long whilst their pet suffers longer and ends up in the same situation (deceased). I think a lot of money is made off the backs of very many desperate petowners who want their pets to get better and, would pay or do anything to make them so. I know that feeling. There are some times in life when you just have to accept things and not keeping giving this medication or that medication. Just my own opinion and how I would handle this situation in my pet family.

Yes, I do give one of my cats a pill daily. It is a pill that prevents the blockage he has had twice now. I am giving in the hope that it prevents a third occurrence or he will need some sort of surgery which changes his sex? At least that is how it was explained at the last visit. Sex change for a cat, I am willing to pay for that. I know, you all disagree with my decisions and that is your prerogative as it is mine to do what I feel best for my family and my pets.

As for humans, cancer treatments are improving all the time. It is an individual decision between a patient, family and oncologist as to what the course of treatment for that patient should be. I am not making any statements as to what I would do, as it doesn't matter. Each person has to make decisions for themselves and no one should interfere, ever.

I guess I just believe some matters (especially health matters) should be decided on a case by case basis and by the person or petowner. I don't find it productive to critcize others for their decisions.

I do not believe in psychiatric meds for animals, whether they be cats or goldfish. You can disagree with me, but a cat that stressed should be rehomed, have a change to his/her environment to help, or be euthanized.

Those of you who support the use of SSRIs, would you send you cat to a pet psychiatrist? I really don't like chemically altering the brain - and to some extent, believe this applies to humans as well, who are often less-well treated than pets. My husband was on SSRIs and had a very damaging reaction to them (period of mania ending in a near-psychotic episode). Once off these drugs, he was, and remains, fine.

Just my opinion, I don't mind if you want to drug your own pets. Honestly!

Those of you who support the use of SSRIs, would you send you cat to a pet psychiatrist?

Of course not. My cat is not depressed or "psycho". The brain of a cat can't be correlated to that of a human. Cats don't have emotions like humans, or even think like we do. I think that some of you are confusing the issue by thinking that SSRIs in cats work the same as they do for humans -- cats can't go psychotic (and if they do, so what? It's not like they can grab a knife and go postal on the neighborhood.)

What I do know is that for my cat, and for many others, giving them psychiatric drugs has resolved an inappropriate peeing situation. My cat is not unhappy. He has not had any strange reactions. I have had many more happy years with him that I might not otherwise have had.

If a cat has a problem -- and the situation can be resolved with a drug, and it has no lasting harm to the cat, and the cat is happy and healthy, why in the world would you NOT choose that solution? Why would you choose instead to kill the animal? I'm simply unable to understand where you're coming from. Sorry.

A "Pyschiatrist" is a MD/PhD who deals with medicating mental disorders.

A "Psychologist" is the Phd that gives the therapy.

So, would I take my pet to a Psychiatrist? Perhaps to treat their stress with medications that have been proven to work? Especially if I could prevent the euthanization of my pet?

ABSOLUTLY!

With that said, it is important that before a pet is placed on an SSRI all other *physical* possibilities are looked at.

If all else is ruled out, the use of SSRI's is becoming widely excepted in the veterinary profession. In fact, it is widely known and excepted that, like humans, some animals may have genetically-inborn emotional neuroses. In addition, most veterinarians who persribe SSRIs are aware of the importance of using a combination of meds and (again like humans) a behavior-modification program.

It is common for dogs to actually be weined off their SSRI(s). The med perscribed helps lessen their stress and anxiety so that new behavior(s) can be learned.

And lets not forgot that SSRIs are also used to treat Dermatological conditions with CONSIDERABLY less side effects then the typical medications.

SSRIs are used to treat a large range of conditions including:

Any obsessive-compulsive, stereotypic-repetitive behavioral disorder
Acral lick dermatitis - ALD lick granulomas)
Tail and other mutilation disorders
Separation anxiety
Psychogenic pruritus and atopy cases that are resistant to conventional therapy
Atopic dermatitis (unresponsive to appropriate care)
Attention seeking
Training enhancement/facilitation
Performance enhancement
Obesity
Eating disorders
Iatrogenic Cushing's
Bipolar disorders
Narcolepsy
Coprophagy, pica
Aggressive disorders
Inappropriate urination, including some territorial marking
Flank sucking
Spinners

And in Cats you can add:

Psychogenic dermatitis
Psychogenic alopecia
Neurodermatitis
Symmetric hypotrichosis
Behavioral problems, such as inappropriate aggression, howling, inappropriate urination, marking

I for one strongly believe in medical science. My husband would not be alive today if it was not for medical break throughs.

In addition, a large portion of my family suffers from Bipolar disorder. It is hard to understand the need of SSRIs in humans unless you have seen first hand the full mood swings of a person afflicited with Bipolar Disorder. It is unimaginable how extremly difficult/painful this is for the persons family members. I have watched my father go from a "high", to bankruptcy, (typical Bipolar behavior is spending and giving away items), to attempting suicide and of course full circle back to a high.

His meds keep him stable.

It seems that generations preceding mine are more opposed to change in the medical field, especially when it comes to psychiatric care. It is no surprise to me that this would bleed over into the care of their pets.

Thank you all for your responses. I can see value in all of them. I do agree with labmomma that humans are overly medicated in many cases. I doubt that all children that are medicated for ADD truly have that disorder and in some cases - of course not all - it is a cop out. You just need to listen to the news to be aware that antibiotics are overprescribed - but also know from personal experience that they do have a valid purpose (I was plaged for years by sinus infections with EVERY cold - I moved and they went away). I can certainly understand the opinion as well on cancer treatment for animals - I think that would be a very difficult decision to make and hopefully the needs of the animal outway the needs of the family that doesn't want to let go.

Regarding SSRI meds - I can't say for sure what I would do if I was in that position. I think I would probably at least try it although I would want to take all things into consideration. For example, how is the animal besides this one issue? Are there any other symptoms? Does the animal seem stressed, unhappy? For rivkadr, it sounds like the peeing issue was resolved and there were no other issues and the cats appear happy - so sounds like a good decision for you and your cat.

I think the adams has made some good points too. Meds are frequently used for illnesses and disorders that they were not initially created for. I actually take what used to be presribed years ago for depression in a very low dosage to help me sleep at night (not used for depression anymore because it put people to sleep). I have a family member that also suffers from bipolar - so I can relate there. Your response as a whole is thought provoking.

Thanks to everyone for their thoughtful responses. Although I do have to pill one of my cats daily for IBD, I have not been where you all have in making some of these more major decisions. I realize it can be a difficult decision and most things are black and white but shades in between.

the adams writes:

A "Pyschiatrist" is a MD/PhD who deals with medicating mental disorders.
A "Psychologist" is the Phd that gives the therapy.

Wrong on all counts. Any psychiatrist, psychologist or for that matter, nurse practioner can write for SSRI meds. Also, a psychiatrist can give therapy as can a psychologist or nurse practioner. I know a NP who is part owner with an MD of a family therapy practice, and she can and does write for meds, and does the actual therapy with the patients. She feels the same as I do about the combination of one on one therapy in combination with the medication.

Of all of the maladies that you claim are helped by SSRI medications, the one that affects more than the animal in an unsanitary way is the inappropriate peeing. I have used similar meds years ago on a cat that had OCD. Used several different meds over the course of a year. She kept going into hiding during the day and licking her hair off. She was euthanized eventually at the advice of the vet. I have also used an anti-anxiety med. on a senior dog years ago who suffered from separation anxiety when I went back to work after being a SAHM for years. He couldn't adjust and would hide in my husband's closet. The med worked thankfully. The point is, in both instances, the pet's behavior wasn't unsanitary. That's the difference for me.

I don't want my house to stink and cat urine stinks no ifs ands or buts.

As for humans and SSRI's, I think many people who suffer from serious emotional maladies are helped greatly by medication, but I stand by the combination of therapy along with medication.

Please explain about the generation before ours that is opposed to change in the medical field. In what way? I think the older generations are more likely to do exactly what the doctor says. The see the doctor's opinion as written in stone, and not to ever be questioned. That's been my experience with that generation, so I am curious what you are referring to exactly.

Hi labmomma - what is the distinction between giving these meds to a cat with OCD, a dog with separation anxiety - and a cat that is peeing on things? Is it just that it is dealing with something that is unsanitary? rivadka mentions that their cat went on medication stopped peeing - so no stink to deal with. If the cat seems happy, has no other issues, I don't understand your distinction between this issue and the others?

I never said that a NP could not persribe medications. Most of my family members work within the medical field. This includes MD, Phd, DO, NP, RN, and PharmD.

Generally speaking psychologists can not perscribe medications, they are NOT physicians.

There are some states that have begun to allow psychologists perscribing rights with limitations. (Louisiana, New Mexico) In 2002 Mexico was the first state to pass a law of this kind in the United States.

Apparently you must live in a state that allows their Psychologists perscribing rights.

To clarify for you:

The definition of a Psychiatrist is:
A licensed physician (MD or DO) who specializes in the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of mental disorders. Their medical and psychiatric training prepares them to treat adults and children either individually, as part of and involving the family unit, and/or in a group setting. Psychiatrists can prescribe medications, if needed.

The definition of a Psychologist:
A specialist in the study of the structure and function of the brain and related behaviors or mental processes. A psychologist may provide psychological evaluation, assessment, testing, and treatment, but may not prescribe medications.

When treating a mentally ill patient there is generally a team of doctors which includes their MD, Pyshciatrist and Psychologist. Yes, psychiatrists can and do offer therapy, this is usually followed by therapy with a psychologist.

To explain my last comment, it is just what I have personally experienced. Especially with elderly peoople, they seem astoinshed by how young doctors are and tend to place less trust in them. I have also seen very little trust placed in psychiatric care.

Again, that is just what I have experienced. I am sure that you and I live in two different states and therefore may be surronded with people of different menatlities.

I just caught my Typo above:

In 2002 NEW MEXICO was the first state...

Sorry :-)

Motion to euthanize this topic.
We've been through enough pain and suffering already.

well I don't know about pet meds, but I sure do know about the people meds.
my son was diagnosed with ADHD with OCD when he was 5 (yes FIVE) by a psycologist, and no that DR. was not allowed to prescribe his meds. we went 3 years changing prescriptions and doctors.. until the day he started freaking out and saying he was in cobwebs, and when he could not zip his coat up he scratched his face until it bled. I had had enough. I homeschooled him for 2 years totally off any medication, he went back to school when he was 10. guess what? he 'outgrew' that habit of not wanting to stay in his seat and wanting to talk all the time and being rowdy, hmm... seems he might of been being a CHILD. And by the way his schools were down my throat constantly saying he needed to be medicated. If I had the info I have now on those meds. (and the laws) things would be different. When he went off the drugs he was 55 lbs. he balloned up in size, and he mentally regressed. He is still somewhat immature at age 11, but he has a higher then average I.Q.
Sorry for getting on my soap box, my point was that I do agree that people are to quick to medicate. My lands they had him on a drug to calm himself during the day (that never worked) and then he had a drug so he could sleep at night. I just wish I would of woke up sooner to what was going on. Oh and I just found out the lovely news that children place on the ADD drugs are having strokes as teenagers, something more to worry about.
(sorry for hijacking your thread)

I'll agree that people are too quick to medicate. But that's a completely separate issue, in my opinion.

If your pet has a medical issue, and there's a drug that will help it, I fail to see why in the world you wouldn't give it to him.

euthanasia vs dumping a pet by roadside
In my opinion if someone is not able to care for an animal for whatever reason and cannot find a suitable home or shelter for that animal,it is much more humane to euthanize it than to dump it on the side of the road.Call me heartless,cruel,horrific,whatever but that is just my opinion.

I would much rather see an animal euthanized. Atleast then there's no suffering. You dump a domestic animal, you've basically resigned that animal to either starve to death, or come to a violent end as someone's meal. My sister's exhusband used to do that (dumping animals off). They'd go out every year or two, spend 5-600.00 on a puppy mill puppy from Doktor Pets, and because they both ran businesses and worked 11-12 hours a day, the dogs would act up because of lack of attention, and once they'd go just a little too far, my ex brother in law would take them for a "terminal ride" up into the woods where he'd drop them off on the side of the road and take off. After he did this three times, I took the fourth dog, and for the last time in my life (hopefully) I got confrontational and told him if he did it again he'd have to deal with me.

To me there's no one lower than someone who just decides that they don't want a pet anymore, but doesn't have the guts to bring it to a place where it could possibly be placed with a loving owner, or be put to rest peacefully.

Personally, I would try an SSRI before putting my cats down. I have a friend whose cat has done quite well on an SSRI for a peeing problem. I am very grateful that my two cats are not that territorial, as we have many, many interloping neighborhood felines in our yard. Also, I agree with rivka...why make a new thread to disagree with her opinon, rather than just pm or e-mail her? Oh, and dumping a pet by the roadside is always cruel.

rivkadr..Totally agree with you on all counts. Labmomma..you'd pill a cat for OCD which is a mental disorder but not for peeing inappropiately which is also a mental disorder? . And if the cat is pilled and it's working, there IS no cat urine to smell..which is the point of the pill..duh!

emma12 - please read. I pill a cat daily because he has been obstructed (medically). He doesn't pee inappropriately. He isn't pilled for mental disorder.

The animal I pilled for OCD was many years ago and I would never do it again. IT DID NOT WORK. After a year of trying different courses of different meds., the cat was euthanized. During the trying of the meds, the cat continued her destructive behavior and was unhappy the whole time. Note, she didn't pee inappropriately. She was not leaving an offending odor in my house, she was licking her hair off. The only way it affected me adversely was that I felt badly for the cat, I didn't smell pee every time I walked into my home.

My pilling of my pet(s) had nothing to do with peeing. I don't want a cat that pees inappropriately. It is the peeing,i.e.; smell of cat urine that is the problem. I don't intend to post again, since I think I have made my opinion on this particular issue (inappropriate peeing and meds for same) very clear, ad nasueum.

The animal I pilled for OCD was many years ago and I would never do it again. IT DID NOT WORK.

That was one animal. Just because psychiatric meds didn't work on your one cat, it doesn't follow that they don't work on most cats. If you had a cat that peed inappropriately, the meds probably would work for him.

It is the peeing,i.e.; smell of cat urine that is the problem.

The whole point is that if you give the cat the meds, THEY DON'T PEE. Ergo, you don't you have a house that smells like pee.

Labmomma, it was many years ago that you medicated a cat for OCD and the medications did not work?

"Many Years Ago?"

Medical Sceince is in a perpetual state of learning and changing. To assume that medications are exactly the same as they were many years ago is inaccurate.

I too do not understand why you would prefer to euthanize your cat instead of using SSRI(s). I understand that you have a problem with the smell of cat urine. Really, who doesn't? It is not that those of us who choose not euthanize a cat for peeing inappropriatly enjoy the smell of cat urine. Personally, it is that I can not find a single moral justification for euthanizing my cat for urinating outside the box (assuming it is not in pain and/or the quality of life is not diminished). Especially when it is probable that the condition could be treated with SSRIs. The use of SSRIs in cats that have inappropriate urinating habits is VERY succesful.

The only explanation I have seen you offer as to why you would not use SSRIs on a pet again is because they did not work on a cat you had many years ago. Is this truly the reason that you will not use these medications? It seems to me you are skirting giving a direct answer to why you would euthanize instead of using SSRIs. Yes, it is your final decision and it is a free country, but WHY is that your decision?

(BTW, to place psychiatry in a class of its own and to assume it is not a medical condition shows the opposition people have to psychiatry in general)

the adams - why don't you tell me about how much psychiatry has actually been done on animals? Did I miss something and now the animals can talk? I am not opposed to psychiatry, polar opposite. I think psychiatry is great. There is no psychiatry component to pilling a cat for peeing out of the littebox beside the psychiatric med prescribed. The meds I used many years ago are the same meds being dispensed today for the same issues I faced years ago. I think there have been a few added but they are not meds that would be given to a cat that is not using its litterbox. Its a moot point to argue. I won't do it, no matter the circumstance.

Yes, rivk apparently you have all had success with the meds and there is the cat urine smell that remains from the peeing episodes that lead you to give the pills in the first place.

The direct answer to everyone's question **I will never give a pill to a cat everyday for peeing inappropriately BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO. I really don't know how else to phrase it. I don't care how far medicine has come. That is my prerogative to not experiment with medications in that particular instance**. Its really getting old. I don't know whether you all think I am going to change my mind, but I assure you I won't.

I don't think you are going to change your mind.

And I don't think you will ever give a reason behind your choice not to. (Of course, other then you "don't want to")

Perhaps because you don't have a valid/moral reason?

BTW, Labmomma, a psychiatrist is an MD who specializes in mental disorders. You do not always need to have the ability to "speak" to be diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Also, medications are compounded. Do you really think a paticular medication is never "tweaked?" Even if it is going under the same name?

You also don't need to be so darn sarcastic all the time! It IS rude!

I really was interested in labmomma's reason - not to be judgemental, but to see if I could apply it to my thought. Maybe change my mind. But, I really haven't seen any reason except maybe "I'm afraid to try them again because they didn't work once, and both the cat and I have something to gain - and the fact that I have something to gain by the pilling makes them morally wrong". Well, in this case the cat gains because it isn't getting needlessly killed and you would gain because your house doesn't smell.

Regarding the meds, just because they didn't work for one pet, doesn't mean they won't work for another. And there seems to be a special distinction that in this case the pills are for peeing? So, what? You mention that the house must still smell because the cat is still being pilled - but that is just the point. Yes, the cat may still be pilled, but the house DOESN"T smell. And, the cat is doing just fine - not unhappy, and certainly not dead.

Yes, you are free to have your opinion and believe me I'm not judging for you. But I tend to be very analytical person by nature, and I'm really missing something on this. I'm not asking questions to judge you, but because I tend to think there must be a logical reason for your way of thought.

Silvergold-

You said that there must be a "logical reason".

Wow! You put far more faith in mankind then I do!! LOL!

LOL - can't help it! Too analytical about things!

Yes, you are free to have your opinion and believe me I'm not judging for you. But I tend to be very analytical person by nature, and I'm really missing something on this. I'm not asking questions to judge you, but because I tend to think there must be a logical reason for your way of thought.

Sounds like judging to me. I don't think I was rude, I think that my opinion is not what the majority would like it to be regarding this issue. Logic - definition "expected based on what has gone on before" New Websters Dictonary & Thesaurus. I guess my answer was logical to me.

You mention that the house must still smell because the cat is still being pilled - but that is just the point. Yes, the cat may still be pilled, but the house DOESN"T smell. And, the cat is doing just fine - not unhappy, and certainly not dead.

I wrote that the smell remained from the inappropriate behavior before the medication that worked. Not while the meds were working, but I do think there must be some sort of period of time before that type of medication will be fully effective. (only from what I have read).

I just don't get why you feel I am not entiled to my opinion and that I need to explain and make you all understand. It is unnecessary. I have told you what I would do. That's not going to change despite "tweaking medications". I never said I was afraid to try them again. I wrote that I would not use them again. It has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with experience, mine and that I have seen of others with this same problem.

As I have said all along, to each his own. I don't judge the petowners who want to treat their animals with SSRI's for this problem. I just don't feel the need to justify the reason "because I don't want to". What else is there to say? Moral or not, it isn't for anyone else here to judge my actions, no matter what your opinion. I don't doubt you disagree, however, I was honest about what I would do. I think many of you who think you would go along with the treatment program of a peeing cat would perhaps get frustrated if the first or second or maybe third medication didn't work. I may be wrong, but somehow, I don't think you can judge a person until you have been in his/her situation.

As for the comment regarding psychiatry not needing a speaking animal to diagnose. I disagree. Diagnosing a non-speaking animal (human or animal) for psychiatric illness is at best a lucky guess. JMO.

Labmommma - Down Syndrome is a Psychiatric Disorder that is diagnosed at birth. No speaking needed.

You said that you don't understand why you should need to explain your opinion to all of us. Um, this is a debate forum. People will press and pry to get answers. People who debate an issue they feel strongly about tend not to skirt questions by giving genralized answers and therefore expect the same from their fellow debators.

Just to be clear, their ARE psychiatric conditions that do not require speaking for diagnosis. For example, Developmental Disorders are Pyschiatric Disorders. One such Developmental Disorder is Autism and Autistic Savant. Neither which require the child to speak for diagnosis. Rather, diagnosis is made by observing the child and looking for a series of sympthoms.

There are large range of psychiatric disorders. Most of which you have probably never heard of and many of which (as described above) do not require speech.

Also, Labmomma, it is not your opnion I find rude (that I find morally unsound) it is your sarcasm. "Did I miss something and now the animals can talk?"

WTF, let it be! Give it up! Let Labmomma and those of us who don't agree with you have OUR opinions, and you can have YOUR opinion. This is one dead horse.

Labmomma wrote: I just don't get why you feel I am not entiled to my opinion and that I need to explain and make you all understand. It is unnecessary. I have told you what I would do.

Well sunshine this is a debate forum and as such I kind of expect a persuasion(al) response, emotional, opinionated or otherwise.

Yes, I would be frustrated as hell, if the first, second or third treatment didnt work, but at least I tried.

How did this "debate" get to be about pilling and treating animals for mental dissorders? The question was "euthanasia vs dumping a pet by roadside",not whether or not one would euthanize a pet for improper peeing behavior.In fact,I think there is a whole other thread on that subject.Why is it that every debate ends up in a few judging others for the choices they make concerning euthanization? Yes,there are a few here who do that just because the opinions others have on the subject don't go along with their own.Maybe those who judge don't look at it as judging but it is.We are all different and will never all agree on a lot of things but do we have to be rude and judgemental when we debate a subject? We all have the freedom to believe what we believe and to do what we think is right for ourselves,our pets and our families regardless of what others may think about it.
The Adams-A debate is the discussion of a certain subject by people who have different opinions about the subject.However,it is not a rule that those discussing the subject must give an "explaination",(other than their own feelings),for their opinions! As for labmomma's "sarcasm"....
"There are large range of psychiatric disorders. Most of which you have probably never heard of and many of which (as described above) do not require speech."
I think this statement from you is rather sarcastic! Just because you have relatives that are in the medical field doesn't make you any more knowledgable about psychiactric dissorders than labmomma or anyone else here might be.
"Down Syndrome is a Psychiatric Disorder that is diagnosed at birth. No speaking needed."
Down Syndrome is a chromosomal disorder,not a psychiatric disorder!"
I agree with jancarkner.......Lillie

Lillie - I think you missed something here - this thread was created based on comments quoted in the very thread you are referring to. That is how it got onto that subject. I think we ALL agree that dumping an animal is wrong. I would be surprised if anyone said otherwise. I don't think there is much debate there.

My part of this conversation has been above board. Just trying to understand a reason for why someone thinks something. That is what debate is all about. I have made every effort to be respectful. Labmomma, I can honestly say I am not judging you - just trying to understand your viewpoint. I can agree with you that I probably won't, though. That is OK. By the way, I never called you rude. Thank you for explaining what you meant by the smell - I didn't read it that way at first. You are right - it would take some time to leave. I do NOT think you are an evil person or bad pet owner - not at all. Thank you for the discussion - even if it has been difficult! I am really sorry if you think I was judging you! Please don't.

jancarkner, lillie - I think you need to calm down! If you want to debate, fine - but don't insult people.

Lillie, did it occur to you that perhaps one who comes from a line of medical professionals would perhaps also be one? Or studying to become one? I would believe, as a student of psychology one might know a little more on the topic then others.

Yes, Down Syndrome is a chromosomal disorder, but I have been taught that psychological treatment is often sought after for this disorder and doesn't require the patient to speak. I shouldn't have listed DS without further explaining myself, I'M SORRY! I should have just stuck with Autism.

BTW, I never said labmomma HAD to give a reason, just don't be surprised when others might push or pry for a reason. If you don't want to give an explanation then what is the point of joining the debate?

As far as how the topic changed, debates will go off topic, that is the nature of the beast.

Jancarkner - If people want to keep debating why do you have such a problem with this? At least a big enough problem to say "WTF".

Thanks for reading everyone!! :-)

How did this "debate" get to be about pilling and treating animals for mental dissorders? The question was "euthanasia vs dumping a pet by roadside",not whether or not one would euthanize a pet for improper peeing behavior.

Because this thread is actually an extension of the other thread, because someone felt that they should start a new thread to attack a single statement of mine rather than keep it in that thread. Have you actually read this thread? It has nothing at all really to do with euthanasia vs. dumping a pet.

Why is it that every debate ends up in a few judging others for the choices they make concerning euthanization?

A few? I don't see a few. I see several. Questioning the statements of one or two people who refuse to explain their statements beyond "That's what I've decided, and I'm sticking to it.". Who then start crying "Stop judging me!" whenever anyone starts pointing out the illogic or nonfactual parts of their statements.

However,it is not a rule that those discussing the subject must give an "explaination",(other than their own feelings),for their opinions!

Then why are they even debating? Part of the point of debate is to persuade others to your point of view. If you can't convey your point in such a way as to be persuasive, by giving factual, explanatory information, then what's the point? If the whole side of your argument is "That's my view, and that's it," then why even get involved in the discussion? There's nothing even to discuss with these people when all they give is their opinion, with no actual facts to debate!
It makes me sad to think that there are pet owners like this out there in the world -- veterinary medicine has advanced so far, and given us the ability to resolve this problem, and yet some pet owners would rather euthanise a pet completely unnecessarily rather than try to fix the problem.

For me, this issue is totally dead. There's really nothing else to say on it, IMO.

rivkadr - "For me, this issue is totally dead. There's really nothing else to say on it, IMO."

I'll second that......

rivkadr-Yes I have read the thread and understood it to be a debate about euthanizing a pet as opposed to dumping it beside the road.Guess I interpreted it wrong,sorry.
the adams-Yes that did occur to me but did it also occur to you that I or some of the otehr posters might also be in or studying for the medical profession? Not that I am but who knows?
And that's all I have to say on the subject.......Lillie

Lillie, sure it did! In fact, I do believe there is a Veterinary student here. My point is, that I do not believe it is sarcastic for one to assume they might know more then others on a topic, especially if it is their profession or what they are studying. BUT, I was responding to Labmomma, not everyone!

To me it was obvious that Labmomma is not highly educated in the field of Psyhology and/or Psychiatry. I am assuming this because she seemed to think that Psychologists generally are allowed to perscribe medications and this is just not the case. She also assumed that one must speak to have a Psychiatric disorder diagnosed/treated, which I have shown is incorrect.

This is not said to be offensive, there are many things I am not educated in. I was simply attempting to offer educated information on the topic at hand and of course, since this is a debate, my opnion on the topic. I do not think anyone would be upset with the Vet student for assuming she knows more then others about Veterinary Medicine, especially if the other person had posted incorrect information. In fact, since we are all animal lovers, I am sure most would actually be appreciative of her free advice! :-)

I have never said to assume that there is not another medical professional on this forum, I was just offering my input to the board. Those who already were educated on the issues I was presenting read something they already knew. Those who were not learned something new.

To me, PART of debating is being presented with the oppurtunity to see someone elses view point and to perhaps learn something I didn't know. I enjoy learning, that's why I believe the medical field is a great choice.

I have to admit, when I first saw the topic about euthanizing a pet for inappropriate peeing I was mortified. Personally, I could never do it. I would find a way to keep the cat alive and not have my home smell of cat urine. I won't get into my list of solutions. It is long and doubt anyone really wants to hear it.

Now, after much debating on the topic, my opinion (while not changed) has softened. I definetly DO NOT agree with Labmomma's position of refusing to try SSRIs for a urinating problem. BUT, I do see when EVERY option has been exhausted how one might come to the decision to euthanize. I don't agree with it, but I don't feel as judgemental about it.

I do want to say though, that this change of heart was not caused by those who became hostile and/or angry during this debate. Rather, by those who showed emotion during this debate. Explaining how painful and difficult this decision is. These people made themselves humans to me, not just words typed in a forum. I believe this point is important because it shows the signifgance of debating and the (at least to me) true purpose of debate.

In this paticular thread Labmomma has stated that she will not treat inapropriate peeing with an SSRI, yet she will treat other conditions. When asked by multiple people why this is, her response remained, "Because I don't want to". When these same people pushed further for a reason she said she didn't feel it was necassary to give us reason. This makes no sense to me, what is the point of debating if you can not explain your stance? I really, truly do not understand this mentality. It is a DEBATE, why join if you just want to make a statement or can not explain your side?

Some people on this forum seem to really want to end this debate. Fortunatley, it is not their choice. I have learned a lot and would have not had this slight change of heart if the debate had not been allowed to go this far.

Sarah

Some people on this forum seem to really want to end this debate

No, I'm not ending the debate. I've just said all I have to say on it. My position is fairly clear, I think, and there's only so many ways you can say:

I think that pet owners should make every attempt to try to resolve the situation through changed behavior (moving kitty boxes, changed kitty litter, etc.), and/or medication before making the very large and final step of euthanising their cat. I personally believe that pet owners who do not make at least some kind of effort before euthanising their pets for peeing outside the box are failing their animals. Having said that, I do support euthanising cats for inappropriate elimination, IF some sort of effort has been made on the part of the owner to resolve the situation before making that final decision.

That's my position (which has been misinterpreted multiple times as being anti-euthanasia, among many other things), which I've explained over and over through these multiple threads. I've said what I had to say, and I'm tired of arguing the same point over and over with people who have said what they had to say. I don't see much point to this "debate" anymore, so I'm bowing out. Carry on.

Rivkadr - I'm sorry that you thought I was speaking to you and took my post personally. I actually didn't name any names in my last post regarding this issue.

I was thinking of the person who ended the original thread by posting multiple times until 150 posts were reached, the person above who wanted to "euthanize this topic", and the person who said, "WTF, let it be". Not the ones who are just choosing not to debate anymore, that is very obviously not ending the debate.

The debate should go on as long as there are people willing to partake. I do not know why there are those who seem to to so desperatly want to end this debate, if they don't like it or are feed up with it they don't have to click on the thread.

I am not sure if you were explaining your side for my benefit or the rest of the forums. But, I was not responding to you in my last post, so please do not think I was saying the things I did to offend you or say that you are wrong. From what I understand we are the same page? :-)

Sorry, just assumed you meant me, since I was saying that the issue was dead in the post almost right before that ;) I think we are on the same page in this discussion. Have fun!

Yep - and rivkadr has so well explained my thoughts on the subject...and the adams I think yours are pretty close as well.