Should the cat die?

Here's the conundrum.....  You're terminally ill.  The doctors tell you that there is a possible cure, but it involves finding a cat with a particular gene sequence and the cat will die in the course of developing the treatment.  There is a 50% chance of success.  After an extensive search your beloved pet cat Tiddles is discovered to have the correct gene sequence.  So...

Should Tiddles die?

Let's make it a dog instead!

Most people are dog-persons anyways :D

In all honesty, I enjoy my life too much to spare Tiddles. So sorry. But I solemnly vow to organize a nice funeral..

I`m actually curious what this scenario is a metaphor for. :)

yup...it dies....

On the priority of what lives, I rank higher than animals ... :P

Original Post by ily51:

In all honesty, I enjoy my life too much to spare Tiddles. So sorry. But I solemnly vow to organize a nice funeral..

Ditto - plus I have two little ones who are counting on me being around for while, so if there's a way to make that more likely, I'll take it - I would first want to make sure that my kitty's departure was as painless as possible, though.  My tabby would be missed, and she would be long remembered and honored.

I'm wondering about the metaphor as well.  I mean, the question is structured about a clear, controlled event, but in an immediate situation it's a bit more clear.  IE:  Risk your life in an engulfed burning house to rescue the cat, or get out with your family?

yes. and im a HUGE cat lover.

but human life is more precious that Tiddles'

what's the reason behind this question?

are you dying? lol

No conundrum, no matter how much I love my cats. Tiddles dies, I live.

I have a personal policy of not eating animals I've been on a first name basis with (yes, it has come up) but saving my life is a whole 'nother matter. I am not that given to anthropormophizing that I would put the kitty before the mother of my sons.

Original Post by desert_rose:

Let's make it a dog instead!

Most people are dog-persons anyways :D

Nah...  Kill the dog; save the cat!  :-)

Honestly, for myself, I'd probably save Tiddles (unless she was really old and going to die soon anyway).  For someone I love, Tiddles would go.

an odd but very interesting Q.

but O what would the answer be? *thinks*

You know this is a bit of a dilemma because if i didn't and i died then who would look after my dog (it wouldn't be a cat for me)?

But I would still have to say no i couldn't kill an animal that has lived with me as a family member for ?? unless as susiecue said that they were ill and going to die soon anyway.

I'd rather die.

I believe with the amount of people who love me, count on me, and would be absolutely heart broken if I died to save a cat's life, rather than kill the cat in an effort to save my own...

it would be selfish not to kill Tiddles...no matter how much I love him/her.

I have to say yes. It would break my heart, and it would SUCK if it didn't work after all that...but I can't rightly say I wouldn't take the chance.

I have too many things left to do in life, and too many people who count on me for tons of things to leave now/early.

Hypothetically speaking there could be another cat that is not mine that could die to replace what ever has to be taken out of tiddles.

Might work?

that's one dumb question, jane.

It's not a metaphor, merely a hypothetical situation.  It was prompted by a discussion I was having with an anti-vivisectionist.   Her view being that no animal should be harmed or die in the pursuit of human health..... ever.  My view being that, with appropriate safeguards in place against unnecessary cruelty, the life of an animal always takes second place to that of a human being.

My father has Parkinsons Disease and, whilst I'd count myself as an animal lover, my point was that I'd be willing to sacrifice even my own pet if I thought that it would help his quality of life.    And it seems that most other people (with one exception) would do the same on the strength of these responses.  The anti-vivisectionist still claimed that she was prepared to see her whole family go to hell in a hand-cart rather than harm a hair of little 'Ratty' in the lab...  and that she would not take any medications prescribed if they had been tested on animals.   Death would be preferable.   I happen to think that's 'dumb'.

the cat will die, ooh sorry toni, but my reason is the cat will die in ten years time where as I hve at least another 50 to go

I`m deeply sorry to hear about your father, gi-jane.

The key element of the discussion, in my opinion, is that this is the ONLY possible solution. If there were any other viable alternatives that didn`t require the death of the kitty, even if they required more effort/time/money invested, it would be a much tougher choice, and people would have a lot of trouble drawing the line.

This is weird. I read the title and thought, immediately, "yeah probably." I don't care for most cats much and think that people tend go batty on medical care for Fluffy.* Then I read the thought experiment and flip flopped! Apparently I'd be willing to let a cat go for slightly more than sniffles but not willing to swap it's life for mine.

What does it mean when you value your own life less than an animal you don't even care about? Haha. I'd skin it myself for my Da though. Best wishes to yours and you, GIJ.

* My first and only cat turned out to be several years older than advertised when she was handed down to me. Just when I started to get attached (and her too -- she had been abused and was slow to warm to me, but we really took to each other after a while) she started behaving oddly. I took her in and found out that my spry "four year old" companion was really a fourteen year old granny cat with lung cancer. The veterinarian, without hardly pausing for breath, started outlining our treatment plan including inpatient stays and kitty chemo... I gently asked about the price of such a course and was told it would be over twenty thousand dollars. That's half of my (then) salary (Oh lord, now it's 105% of my salary...), and she was ready to sign it over for me on a treatment that gives even young humans pause. It was then that I asked her how much she had spent on my behalf already... in hindsight I am sort of glad that she had conducted a thousand dollars of tests without discussing my ability or willingness to pay -- being furious with her was a lot easier than being sad about my cat!

Killer and I played kitty hospice and she was very nicely pampered for another six months, until my bf and I decided she was probably in too much pain to keep going. It was a really hard decision  for heartless old me, and I know that others see their cats as family members or children. It has to be so easy for motivated vets to push expensive treatments on their desperate clients, and it seems much easier to do so than in human medicine, regulation wise. So sad when people are willing to take advantage like that...

In my mind, the cat is already dead.

Jane, the anti-vivisectionist isn't dumb, she is consistent in her beliefs - which just happen to be different than yours. I personally don't agree with her either, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect her opinion. I have known some animal-rights activists who were among the most internally consistent and ethical people I have ever known.

The part where her argument might fall apart is in the actual application: first of all, idealistic beliefs often take the wayside once the situation actually happens to you; and second, all of modern medicine is standing on top of the giant pile of animal carcasses, untold millions of them, that made us have even the basic information permitting us to test drugs (say) on things other than animals. If we don't have to test it on animals, there can be only one reason: we've already tested every component of it on animals in the past, or we have knowledge (based on extensive previous animal testing of similar compounds) that allows us to skip that step. There is simply no way to avail yourself of pretty much any element of modern medicine, be it surgical treatment, medication, or imaging, without participating in and benefiting from a system that has massacred millions and millions of animals, often in horrific ways and sometimes even unnecessarily, in order to save a few human lives. I say this as a med student who feels pretty bad about that, but not so bad as to not want to be a part of it anyway.

Original Post by trustwomen:

Jane, the anti-vivisectionist isn't dumb, she is consistent in her beliefs - which just happen to be different than yours. I personally don't agree with her either, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect her opinion. I have known some animal-rights activists who were among the most internally consistent and ethical people I have ever known.

The part where her argument might fall apart is in the actual application: first of all, idealistic beliefs often take the wayside once the situation actually happens to you; and second, all of modern medicine is standing on top of the giant pile of animal carcasses, untold millions of them, that made us have even the basic information permitting us to test drugs (say) on things other than animals. If we don't have to test it on animals, there can be only one reason: we've already tested every component of it on animals in the past, or we have knowledge (based on extensive previous animal testing of similar compounds) that allows us to skip that step. There is simply no way to avail yourself of pretty much any element of modern medicine, be it surgical treatment, medication, or imaging, without participating in and benefiting from a system that has massacred millions and millions of animals, often in horrific ways and sometimes even unnecessarily, in order to save a few human lives. I say this as a med student who feels pretty bad about that, but not so bad as to not want to be a part of it anyway.

 This is why her friend IS dumb. Or at the least incredibly naive.