Mark - when the time comes discussion.

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

I agree with you Hippy.

[Desley (booktigger)]

Good point Hippy - maybe it should be something like the living will, where the docs can't do it to someone who wouldnt agree conscious, they have to have something signed. I personally dont know if I woudl want to be kept alive while in a coma just in case, but we all have our own beliefs, I am just glad that we can have another civilised discussion about this.

[Hippykitty]

Ela, you're overlooking the possibility that if euthanasia became the norm, the point at which someone was considered a candidate for it could be very different to the brain damaged life you picture. Relatives after inheritance, or doctors wanting to free up beds and harvest organs could agree to withholding food or giving lethal injection to someone who, if they were conscious, wouldn't want this; someone who isn't severely brain damaged. Or, in the case of the cancer sufferer, or someone with other chronic conditions it could become the norm to pressure people into euthanasia when it isn't wanted by the patient.
Where do you stop? Mandatory euthanasia of people aged 70? (After all, life itself leads to death, why wait, why not just bump people off when they're uneconomical?)
This horrifying abuse of what may begin in good faith is one of the major reasons I'm against euthanasia.

[Ela]

Lynn, I was shocked that the woman you mentioned's husband got married very shortly after her death. Was he encouraging her to seek assisted suicide so he could have his 'bit on the side' methinks!

I think Lynn may  talking of Diane Pretty here and if so I think her husband adored her, but knew her suffering. Good for him for re-marring I say, he deserves some life after all her went through with Diane So what if he was having an affair before Diane’s passing, it could have been that Diane knew and was happy about it, who knows and who cares.

Also, if I'm ever in a RTA which puts me into a coma, I want the machines kept on. I don't want to be starved to death! I might rally and come out of the coma sometime. People do. But what if they have relatives with ulterior motives?

If you did come round but you were so badly brain damaged and even if you came out of the coma there was no chance of a ‘normal’ life and would be a burden (although they may not call it a burden) to all  who loved you?

You quoted earlier

I think that the best recourse for someone who isn't getting good pain relief is suicide, which is where we differ from animals who have no concept of this.  & I have had cats pts. This is when they have been terminally ill and got to the point where I can feel their pain and see that they are not enjoying life.

Why then would you want to be kept artificially alive when the chance of a normal life is zero therefore, you would not enjoy life (I am talking here real brain damage where absolutely everything needs to be done for you and you really have no concept of what is happening), when you would have a cat PTS for not enjoying life.

[Hippykitty]

Milly's Mum, I don't mean "suicide" in the sense that someone is depressed etc, but in the sense that a person who is obviously PHYSICALLY suffereing has recourse to taking the responsibility for their life or death themselves, rather than leaving it in the hands of relatives who may not have the purest of motives.
Lynn, I was shocked that the woman you mentioned's husband got married very shortly after her death. Was he encouraging her to seek assisted suicide so he could have his 'bit on the side' methinks! I could be totally wrong and his motives could have been entirely altruistic, but how can you tell?
Also, if I'm ever in a RTA which puts me into a coma, I want the machines kept on. I don't want to be starved to death! I might rally and come out of the coma sometime. People do. But what if they have relatives with ulterior motives?

[CurlyCatz]

But wasnt the the whole point of that lady going to court was because she physically wasnt in a position to self medicate or slash her wrists etc ?? she literaly could get no access to anything to kill herslef and also because she was such a thoughtful lady probably didnt want to "top herself" in that sense for the pain it would cause her loved ones after she was gone.

i always said and i know in my heart i mean what i say..god forbid something terrible happen to my children, both of them then i would commit suicide very shortly afterwards. there would be no point to my life and it would be my human right to end it.

[Millys Mum]

I believe suicide is the biggest middle finger you could ever stick up to your loved ones. Being able to take a final drug cocktail with your family around you is a million times better.

[Ela]

I think that the best recourse for someone who isn't getting good pain relief is suicide

Sorry I absolutely disagree with you When you lose someone you love it is hard enough.

I really have not made up my mind about   euthanasia I am not pro or anti so I suppose you can say I am sitting on the fence, although deep down I think pro is the right thing.  I think mum was in a way euthanased as she was input in a induced coma via a morphine drip to combat the excruciating pain (my decision with the help of my husband and her partner) as my sisters and brother did not get to the hospital until later. We knew it  would finally end her suffering quicker than may have been expected. But she was not going to get better and her suffering would increase.I know it was the right thing to do for the right reasons.  However, what worries me is that I know the system can be abused as I am sure there are people who will try to buck the system.

[Hippykitty]

I'm strongly anti euthanasia. There are so many ways this can be abused. Most have already been mentioned. Also, people adapt to disability and enjoy a different type of life. In the case of slow death from cancer, I think that the best recourse for someone who isn't getting good pain relief is suicide, which is where we differ from animals who have no concept of this.

I have had cats pts. This is when they have been terminally ill and got to the point where I can feel their pain and see that they are not enjoying life. In only one case - Max, who had mouth cancer - did I hang on for too long. I should have had him pts sooner, but couldn't bear to let him go, I loved him so much. But there came a point where I could tell he was asking me to let him go.

People have varying degrees of attachment to pets. I spoke to someone earlier who got rid of a dog because it was tearing up the furniture. I got really angry with them. He swore that he found it a good home! But I couldn't understand how someone could so casually hand on a pet. Grrrrh..

In regards to the average life-span of cats I have 2, a 17 and 20yr old. Not all my cats have lived so long. One, Bella, was only 2 when she died from FLV related illness.

[Desley (booktigger)]

I was thinking about this while watching Holby City, as there was a girl on there who felt like a burden and didn't want to go through with an op that would buy her some time - she pulled her wires and stuff out in the end, and I thought what Lynn said that there should be some kind of system where in teh case of an illness that you could live with for years, you have to have a certain length of time first, and there is the issue of family, that is why the receptionist at my vets said she was against it, they see enough people getting rid of pets cos they can, without people being allowed to do it to relatives. I am still for it though, if I had something like terminal cancer, and there was no chance of getting better, i would prefer to go with dignity and while I still had some quality of life.

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

  was looking for shocked one 

[CurlyCatz]

She said she has no symphathy with people who moan about pains if they haven't tried any analgesic etc.

I agree with her    i'd probably get on with her altho she does sound far more extreme than myself.

[Ela]

. the average age for a cat is around 14 according to the text books,

I can understand that as although many cats live to a great age equally many do not make it past 10

[Mark]

I think Kev (the cat) was going downhill pretty fast. He (along with the 2 young cats) took exception to a young dog being on the scene. She is a very practical sort of person. She is the same with people. She said she has no symphathy with people who moan about pains if they haven't tried any analgesic etc. In fact when she got the dg, one of the cats disappeared for a while and she said it was up to the cat to decide if he wanted to come back but the dog wasn't going anywhere!  . Anyway, kissy did come back and her & missy the dog are the best of friends and really "rough house" when they play 

[forever_missing_my_boys(Lisa)]

32 awwwww

ive known a few thats lived till 20
 my snowey only lived till 15 nearly 16 

[CurlyCatz]

that is quite an exception though and the average age for a cat is around 14 according to the text books, altho im sure that should be more like 16 now as most cats are all living longer.

[Ela]

the cat was 14 and had a good innings,

Your friend would be gobsmacked then if she know the oldest cat Cats Protection had taken in was 32.

[CurlyCatz]

  i was in middle of posting when hubby rang and you got there before me 

i do see where your friend is coming from in a type of way. she obviously was a reasonably good owner or she wouldnt have agreed to any treatment    but she sounds like a person that is probably a very practical sort. 

[CurlyCatz]

 just realised the thread for mark hasnt been seen by him yet and we've got a full page  

[Mark]

Sorry - I went out after I posted to have the car serviced.

I have skimmed over the posts - a lot of reading to do there!

I think vets have a duty to say to people what they think the chances of survival are and qualaity of life after recovery. I meant to say that my friend has a slightly different attitude to pets to most of us on here. Her opinion was the cat was 14 and had a good innings, even if he recovered how long before the next episode. She even said something along the lines of "you can always get another one".I really don't know what I will do if/when the time comes - I'm pretty sure I would press for further treatment as long as my cat wasn't going to be chronically ill if it made a recovery. I guess none of us know until it happens.

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

I think that where humans are concerned it's such a grey area and not easy to even distinguish between withholding medical treatment and active euthanasia.  In discussions of euthanasia and assisted suicide impairment and terminall illness are often talked about as one and the same thing but there's a difference between someone in the end stages of a terminal illness and someone who has an impairment or long term illness (which may kill them in the end) but many years left to live and just doesn't want to live the way they are.  Theoretically I think people have the right to choose to end their lives if they feel they're no longer worth living or they are in a lot of pain, but nobody lives in a vacuum and individual decisions do impact on society as a whole.  Which is why I dont' really know where I stand (excuse the pun) regarding these issues.  If we consider that euthanasia is an acceptable way of dealing with pain, illness and impairment then we, as a society, are making a value judgement on what it is to experience them.  A that affects all disabled people who already struggle to convince society that their lives can be useful and worth living.  I also wonder how many people would feel pressurised to accept euthanasia in order to spare their loved ones watching them suffer - noble maybe, but I'm not sure I like the idea of anyone feeling like that.

Lynn - I can understand where your hubby's coming from as I've heard lots of people say things like that but the fact is that nobody knows what it's like to be paralysed until it happens to them, so most people are just guessing how they would feel.  And to a fit, able bodied person the thought of losing the ability to walk is quite alarming.   I dislocated some verterbrae in my back nearly 20 years ago and damaged my spinal cord.  Although I wasn't totally paralysed and was able to walk a short distance very slowly with crutches I used a wheelchair almost exclusively (and always outdoors) for about 12 years.  Because the injury was low down and incomplete I obviously had more mobility than a lot of paraplegics and could look after myself without any assistance, but it changed the way I thought about disablity and walking.  Although I can now walk pretty well with crutches and havent' used my wheelchair for a good few years (it's a cat bed now  ), the whole way in which I view disablity and what it means to walk has changed.  There are plenty of sports you can do from a wheelchair and plenty of ways of getting your kicks - I much more missed walking along a beach and feeling the sand between my toes than running and jumping.  The point I'm trying to make is that it took being deprived of the ability to walk to make me realise that walking was actually no big deal really.  Inconvenient not to be able to when you live in a world where most people can, but at the end of the day it's neither here nor there and it's not the only way of getting around anyway.  Many people who become disabled initially feel angry and that their life is no longer worth living and although some never come to terms with it, many do adapt and realise they can still have a good life.  If they were allowed to end their lives immediately they'd never have the chance to discover that.


To get back to the main point of this thread - we dont have all these grey areas when it comes to our pets.  Whatever we feel about animals having a soul or whatever, most of us accept that they experience life in a different way and that it is different for them to lose physical functions.  We're lucky that we're able to end their lives when they get to that point and we don't feel they'll regain sufficient quality of life. 

[CurlyCatz]

i agree with everything you said gill.

in the case of that woman who went to court to be allowed euthanasia and lost her case, she knew that medical advances would not save her in her time on this earth so i felt heart sorry when they ruled against that poor brave woman.
in cases of paralysis i agree altho in the case of tetraplegia i feel that is different from paraplegia and im sure they could have a x length of time with compulsary counciling etc before final decisions are made etc (like a sex change op, it takes years where you have to convince several medical professionals that its what you want - not that i am in any way very knowledgable about sex changes  but ive watched jeremy kyle  )

but you are right there is nothing to be gained really from bumping off a pet is there, unless its that dog the owner left 80 million too 

[Gill (sneakiefeline)]

I think this is such a difficult subject and agree with Lynns sensible points in her first post.

Also that when ones cat is very sick and you love it to bits , selective hearing becomes very much a problem and also that of hanging on to any chance there maybe to save ones best friend.

I am not really pro-euthanasia for humans but I can see cases where it would seem to be best. The problem in humans is that so many people are willing to take advantage of others for the purposes of greed or hate, it becomes a legal and medical nightmare and of course Doctors are not immune to this!

Another case against, has always been the advances of medical science and that so much research is going on that if a person had a long period to live, something may come up to reverse or improve that persons quality of life.

I certainly do not agree with people taking the easy way out because they have become say paraplegic, that is cop out time and all a matter of coming to terms with a new type of life. It is hard but not impossible and if the right to choose death over life were given in these cases often the wrong choice would be made, if taken too early.

Reckon I would have been a much better basketball player in  wheel chair

However for our little furry friends , hopefully we can all make the right decision when/if the time comes, but it is so very very hard 

[CurlyCatz]

agreed wholeheartedly.

my grandfather was a big man, not overly tall around 5'10 or something but he had a gut on him  loved his food, i swear it was so rock hard i thought he had swallowed a bag of cement powder   Anyway he was reduced to something you saw on tv from the japanese prisoner war camps .. dreadful.  He loved his food but couldnt enjoy anything if at all was able to eat for nearly the last year of his life (i think it pressed or spread to his gullet ?) that was 15 years ago, hard to believe ive lived without him for as long as i had him..he was the man i looked up to in life and he was the one i passed my exams for  He loved animals and would have thumped anyone he saw ill treating one 

I'm unsure about the making the decision for someone else, thats very grey isnt it.  I always think of that little girl whose mother allwed a fag butt to accidentally fall into her cot, the fire men thought it was a burnt dolly till they saw her move..the only area that wasnt quite so severly burnt was her nappy area coz the nappy was wet, she has no feet or hands (not proper anyway) no ears, eyelids, nose, hair.. and she is so severly disfigured she made simon western look like a pin up model and altho shes happy now and very very bright i feel for her something rotten coz im sorry not a human being in this world has the right to keep her alive when she was brought in, even her daddy and grandparents actually prayed she would slip away, she has suffered agonising pain in her life with many more procedures to follow when she goes through puberty growth spurts not to mention the emotional problems she has yet to deal with as a woman.  Had that been my infant i'd have done life to prevent her pain regardless what stage she is at now.
so i guess in severe situations i could make the decision but only in extreme circumstances i think.

[Sue P (Paddysmum)]

Yep.  In theory, I think animals and humans should have the same right to as dignified, or humane a death as possible.   I would rather have the choice available to me I think, but I'm not sure I could make the choice for someone else if called upon to do so.  But then I just don't know.  

When I think back to my parents, my Father had a slow, painful death from cancer.  He was a big man - tall and dignified, and it was a dreadful thing to see him suffer and waste the way he did.

My Mother died suddenly.  Unexpectedly.  From a massive stroke.  And whilst I was shocked that I didn't get a chance to - well, do /say - you know what I mean - I was glad that she didn't suffer.  The Coroner said it was lilely to have been over in seconds.  

That's how I'd want it to be, given a choice.  For people or animals.

[CurlyCatz]

most of the time people understand when they r terminally ill and know why they r i pain etc

I agree but thats what sue was wandering about (i think) that why are humans MADE to suffer when we as a nation obviously are pro euthanasia for our animals the nation in general panics and freaks out about euthanasia in humans.

[CurlyCatz]

Sue altho i dont know how it would be "policed" etc i am PRO euthanasia in humans.  I know i agree with what susanne just said but i also know if that were my husband he'd be begging to be PTS. for him no mobility is no life, not one that he would choose to enjoy...he wouldnt want to appreciate art etc altho he loves music/films etc.  actually he even said if he was only paralyzed from the waist down he'd want to be put out of his misery..for him that would be a misery, i have told him that its quite extreme and im sure if he had no use of his lower limbs he could still be involved in mobility stuff..i do know if he had no use of any limbs for him that would be different.
I said he was selfish coz he should just "make" himself live and be happy for the sake of the kids atleast as a dad that cant move would be better than no dad at all ????

I think animals can be treated kinder than humans are, a person dying from lung cancer, cant physically get air into his body, is in constant acute pain and they are left like that with only the heavy doping on morphine for the last day or so as an option (yes i speak from experience on that disease)  Having seen the body of someone who died like that it was more than obvious he basically suffocated to death.

I agree susanne, animals have not the same thought processes as humans do, they know no difference about whats happening whether its a straight forward ga or a fatal injection, they go down in exactly the same way just with one type they waken up (hopefully LOL) and the other one they dont.  

I totally agree with you sue on that i see no difference altho i recognise many grey areas in the subject but for someone who has 100% only a short time to live ie that motor neurone disease or lung / any type of cancer advanced stages etc then i feel there should be some sort of way they can have the death they want.  I personally cant imagine myself making the decision however as its soooo final, but then i am not the one lying semi concious in acute agony knowing i have days left and waiting for that time to come minute by minute !!

[forever_missing_my_boys(Lisa)]

most of the time people understand when they r terminally ill and know why they r i pain etc
animals dont
when god made animals he made them to be bright happy bouncy and full of life
and when they get to the stage they are in pain all the time or very weak and can hardly walk then its defo time to let them go and rest in peace ,
ive seen an animal that was left to carry on right to the end and its heart breaking
he couldnt even walk properly was always breathless and in the end he was making terrible choking noses everyday like he couldnt breathe
yet my idiot neighbour carried on like nothing had happened still made him go out for 2hr walks etc
and when he was questioned about it he said the walks were helping the dogs arthritis ,
no dog should be like that one was in the end .

[Desley (booktigger)]

I personally believe in euthanasia for humans too Sue, I do think it is one of the few ways where we treat animals better than humans.
I personally have only had to make a quick decision with one of mine, and I know looking back that I did the wrong thing, it is the only one of mine where I look back and think that I should have done it differently - the others, the only thing I am guilty of is letting them go too soon, and I would rather lose days/weeks wtih them, than risk them suffering for 1 day too long. The one that I regret probably scoped the way I feel about the subject - she was my first cat on my own, and I had only had her for 9 weeks when she suddenly started fitting at 3am in the morning. My neighbours kindly got up and took me to the emergency vets, where they put her on morphine to see what happened. We visited her the day after, and the vet said that everytime they took her off morphine, she fitted again, there was a slight chance that by keeping her on it longer, she would recover (this was a 14yo who had had an abscess drained days before - vet said there was no connection though), but it was my choice. As I had no idea of what to do in this situation, I (foolishly) looked to my neighbour for advice, she is the kind of person who thinks that if there is a chance, however slight, they should be given it. Sadly, the cat in question died 'naturally' an hour after I left her, and that is something I do regret. I have since learned that my neighbour takes giving them a chance too far, and as a result, every one of the animals she has lost since I have lived next door to them have suffered - and sadly, I am not exagerating, I saw the majority of the animals on a daily basis and could see it, but the odd time I did broach the subject, it didn't go down well. I wish that vets could be frank with people and tell them that it is kinder for their animals to go peacefully with a jab than let them go for months suffering, as some sadly do.

[Sue P (Paddysmum)]

Yep, I know what you mean.  Still not sure though.  It seems as wrong to me to let a person suffer a prolonged and painful death, as it is to let an animal suffer.  And yet, the prospect of euthenasia for people strikes me as somewhat unnatural too.   It's a decision I'd hate to have to make.  I can see why there is so much division of thought over the subject.

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

I think there is a difference - not so much regarding pain but in the perception of life.  People can have an understanding and appreciation of being alive in a way that animals don't.  For example, a person who is paralysed from the neck downwards may have next to no mobility but is still capable of enjoying life and being alive (enjoying films, music, art etc) whereas a cat that was totally paralysed would have nothing to enjoy.  So I do think there is a difference which is one of the reasons we try to preserve life in a person where we'd let it go in an animal.

[Sue P (Paddysmum)]

You know what I've never been able to fathom is why, when animals are ill or dying, we're told that it's kindest to put them to sleep yet when people are dying, it's a Doctor's duty to preserve life and not to end it, no matter how poor the quality of life.  Why?  What's the difference?  Is it purely a religious thing? 

I think in particular of a recent court case where the woman was fighting for the right to be allowed to die when her condition worsened, but the medical profession were arguing against it.

I don't know the rights and wrongs of it, just pondering aloud, I guess.

[CurlyCatz]

yep its not something you can help though im afraid..we would be better if we were like data from star trek and could turn our emotion chip off 

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

Agree Lynn - I know I developed selective hearing when Magpie was dying!  When the vet rang to tell me about a new drug that she could try to disperse the blood clot I clung to the hope that that would work and agreed no matter that it was going to cost thousands of pounds.  You just hear the sound of hope and shut out everything else.  It's hard in an emergency situation to see the bigger picture.

[CurlyCatz]

and also most vets i think regardless whether they are deemed "good vets" or not are all human and its sooo hard trying to do what is best thinking about both animal and owner because vets have to think about the owners care aswell, that might sound silly but there is the consideration of the human once the animal is gone, normally a person will feel better and be more accepting of whats happened if they feel EVERYTHING possible was done, once the animal has passed away they are gone and at peace but its the human that then is left to cope and deal with it.  I know not every vet may be so compassionate as to care for that but i believe many do.  In the human world this isnt quite so relevant because we havent euthanasia options, not in this country anyway so its never a disscusion that needs to take place, of course yes theres the recussitation / doping on morphine issues granted but no straight forward euthanasia issues.

Vets have many more issues to deal with than what we might see on the surface, i know i sound like i stick up for them alot of the time but i think i hopefully have a balanced view.  There are some b :censored:s i agree but many more get a hard time when they dont really deserve it.

Also where death is concerned its one of those subjects that most of it really dont want to think about in great detail and so if it lands on us suddenly in the case of a poorly pet there are often no pre thought out plans and where emotions run so high it can be very  confusing.  Then theres the issue of hearing what we WANT to hear, I mean in my case in my heart of heart i knew about sooty and the road we were on but the fact that antibiotics etc MIGHT have helped .... well that was all i allowed myself to hear and the fact that my friend/vet was treating the issue with kid gloves and my cat was litterally wasting away and slowly dying in front of me was totally blocked out because i DIDNT WANT to know the truth.

[Susanne (urbantigers)]

I think you're right, Lynn.  It is a difficult decision to make and the one last kindness we can do for our pets is to let them go before they suffer too much.   But it's so hard to say when is the right time.  Most of us want to hang on to our pets for as long as possible and may end up being guilty of not letting them go soon enough.  I've never been in the position when I've had to make that decision but it was touch and go with Magpie for the few hours before he died and in retrospect it would perhaps have been kinder to have him pts earlier in the evening.  My vets were very good and although I felt they were encouraging me to have him pts they gave me all the options.  They were very honest with me when I took his body back for cremation.  The senior partner told me that he had instructed the vet that if Magpie stopped breathing they shouldn't try too hard to ressusitate him.  I approved of that decision and was glad that they had Magpie's best interests at heart as well as considering my wishes (they had earlier asked me if I wanted them to try and resussitate him if he stopped breathing and I said yes).

This is a good article about this subject

http://www.messybeast.com/towards-end.htm


edited to add - quote from the above mentioned article sums up the decision about when to let go quite well I think

Cats live for the here and now. What matters to a cat is the current quality of life not its life expectancy - cats have little concept of future time. An illness may be temporarily treatable, but ultimately reaches a point when the cat no longer enjoys life. He is visibly distressed, withdrawn or incontinent. Having seen him when he is happy and healthy, you will recognise when he is miserable. A caring owner understands their final duty towards their cat is to prevent further suffering by procuring a swift, painless release from life. Sometimes, a terminally ill or injured cat is given life-prolonging treatment because the owner cannot yet come to terms with its condition. It is hard to come to terms with mortality in general.

[Ela]

Very sound advice in my opinion.

the owner is left with a big bill and no pet its easy to nit pick and complain.

So true how many times I hear that kind of thing is unbelievable. Usually when a person has relayed the story, the vet in my opinion did the right thing After all they want to save lives and if they think there is a chance go for it. Although I do know one vet practice ( I would not take a dying flea there.) They will just keep saying to people came back next  when there is little or no chance, it is so unfair.

[CurlyCatz]

i started a new thread as this is getting away from the original pre op bloods topic but i think this is an interesting discussion.

Its always a grey area i think, some vets may be more blunt than others and say there is no hope but then owners often want to "try" even if theres only a tiny bit of hope, then when theres a poor outcome and the owner is left with a big bill and no pet its easy to nit pick and complain.
 I dont agree with a vet carrying out treatment where there is defo no hope but in the case of kidney failure etc some animals "might" respond to drugs and fluid therapy to get the levels down enough to be stabalised.  Its hard to comment if we're not there at the time but i agree we all as pet owners need to think rationally and logically at this terrible times (which is a difficult thing to do at that time)  and contribute to the decisions made.
 I know for a fact many animals everyday are kept "going" more so for their owners benefit than the animals themselves, i myself admit i was guilty of that the last few days of sootys life, esp the last 2 - 3 days but i was praying for a miracle, not because i was cruel but because i couldnt bare to lose him.  My colleauges tried to guide me in a "softly" manner when really they could have said "look lynn sooty will not get better, he is suffering please have him pts straight away" but in reality no one is going to be so abrupt and cruel hearted to say that to anyone who is obviously in distress and the type of owners who cling to hope and try everything are the type who perhaps are more strongly attached to their pets..if they were not they might be able to agree with pts more easily.
Vets themselves have to kind of judge how far a client would like to go if the client themselves are very unsure and often confused and anxious.  Again another reason why i declined advice to think about vet school..to many decisions i personally would not like to make for owners and animals.
Your vet sounds like quite a good one really and i think the vets who do "all" tests are fundamentally better for your pets interests than the vet who isnt so hot on up to date treatments and tests.  However atleast you are aware that perhaps your vet is abit on the over optimistic side shall we say so if you are in that position you will know to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

oh and i meant to say if you break down the 300 pound bill you will see where it mounts up .. consult fee, blood tests, iv fluids, hospitalisation, possible drugs..i think its a big bill but can see where it comes from altho i think lots of things are very expensive in the veterinary world i also am aware of vets horrendous out goings, such a pity there isnt a nhs for pets but then i mustnt have a lot of faith in nhs either or else i wouldnt pay for bupa for my family    (which incidentaly i didnt realise you had to pay the initial £100 of an injury / illness as its abit like an insurance policy)