| Author |
Message |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/15/2009 10:47:23
|
JefTS1077333
S. cerevisiae
Joined: May/08/2009 15:43:00
Messages: 86
Offline
|
When tragedy strikes a family, it's often hard to "look on the bright side." But when it comes to having your pet pooch -- your best friend and loyal watchdog -- diagnosed with cancer, learning what we can about the disease from the unfortunate circumstances may be of some comfort.
A recently launched cooperative effort -- the National Cancer Institute’s Comparative Oncology Trials Consortium -- aims to do just that. By providing the infrastructure and resources needed to gather information from naturally occurring cancers, such as in dogs and other animals (as opposed to the more removed mouse models of cancer), the project hopes to inform the study of human cancer and aid the development of new drugs, devices, and imaging techniques.
I don't at all mean to imply that these potential benefits can even begin to outweigh the heartbreak that comes along with a loved pet succumbing to this terrible illness, but perhaps it's something to keep in mind if that tragic news should ever come. Would you be willing to enroll your pet in an experimental cancer treatment that holds hope for both your pet's health and the future of human oncology?
--Jef Akst, Associate Editor, The Scientist
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/16/2009 12:59:47
|
christineTS1040402
E. coli
Joined: Mar/26/2009 13:16:26
Messages: 1
Offline
|
I recently lost my dog to cancer (transitional cell carcinoma). He was a member of my family and we did everything we could for him. I don't know if I would have enrolled him in a drug trial, especially if it meant being separated from him. I would want his remaining time to be spent with his family being as comfortable and happy as possible. The benefits would have to outweigh the risks, it would be a very difficult decision to make.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/16/2009 13:01:09
|
JaredTS1012040
E. coli
Joined: Jun/09/2008 13:38:22
Messages: 1
Offline
|
Yes, because not only would it possibly prolong the life of my pet, but it would benefit cancer research.
|
|
|
 |
|
Advertisement
|
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/16/2009 18:09:18
|
PatriciaICN000322770
E. coli
Joined: Aug/29/2009 16:07:22
Messages: 1
Offline
|
On the surface, I would say yes because of the possible benefits of advancing cancer treatments in the future. However, as with any treatment offered by my veterinarian, I would want to know that my pet would not suffer additionally from the research, and as previously mentioned by Christine, I would not want my pet separated from me for any long period--I have a dog now that cannot stand to be away from my side for even a minute. I have chosen euthanasia over chemotherapy regimens that seemed to increase their suffering but not offer much in the way of prolonging their lives.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/16/2009 19:02:43
|
ChristineICN000322895
E. coli
Joined: Sep/29/2009 14:44:42
Messages: 1
Offline
|
I would never consent to any treatment, experimental or otherwise, that would cause distress or discomfort to my dog unless the discomfort were very limited and the benefit was clear. In fact, I doubt I would consent to cancer treatment at all for my animals, unless it was relatively benign in terms of side effects. I believe that people, being cognizant of the risks and benefits, and able to rationalize the discomforts involved, can make that choice for themselves, but animals don't have the benefit of understanding. I would choose euthanasia as soon as my animal began to experience suffering that could not be alleviated.
|
|
|
 |
![[Post New]](/community/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif) Oct/18/2009 17:03:06
|
JacquelineICN000323366
E. coli
Joined: Sep/21/2009 14:21:33
Messages: 1
Offline
|
I wouldn't. The veterinary industry is moving towards encouraging people to treat their pets as if they were human. Especially in areas where there is a relative over-population of vets to animals , in the richer neighborhoods of large cities. And the same problem occurs as occurred with humans in an unregulated environment. There is no limit to the expense of treatments, most treatments are futile and the practitioner has no obligation to be truthful about probable outcome. My dog showed Cushings at twelve years old and I spent about $3500 on her in six months, on tests to diagnose the disease and then the medication to treat it. Cushings, in dogs, is usually a brain tumor, they won't live more than two years, even when diagnosed and treated when young. I looked at the money I was spending and I looked at the advertisements for cleft palate children who's lives could be changed at the cost of about $250 per child and thought that I was being a fool to waste my money. But it was all $100 here and $500 there and very quickly spent. My dog spent her last last six months being locked in a box at night (so that she wouldn't pee on the bed or floors) and her days sleeping on a pillow, blind and incapacitated. The only pleasure she showed was when her ears were being rubbed or I was feeding her whipped cream (a way to bribe her to take pills). Her eyes were becoming ulcerated even with meds, she no longer blinked. Finally, I had her put down. Six months I would not put myself or a dog through again. There are worthwhile things to spend your money on. But in most cases of cancers that will kill, human or animal, one's lifespan is only a few months past diagnosis.
|
|
|
 |
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|