NY Shelter Dog Needs Viagra Donations For Heart Condition

Ben Lahnger · 05-17-2010, 08:59 AM

Vet Says NY Dog Needs Viagra For Heart Condition

NY Animal Shelter Seeks Viagra Donations To Treat A Pit Bull

SOURCE

May. 16, 2010

HUNTINGTON, N.Y. - A New York animal shelter is seeking donations of Viagra to treat a pit bull with a heart condition. Staff members at the Little Shelter Animal Rescue and Adoption Center in Huntington, on Long Island, say 6-year-old Ingrid needs two of the little blue pills every day or she will risk heart failure. They said a vet suggested it.

The pills cost about $10 apiece, and the shelter has been asking Viagra users to pitch in and donate their unused pills.

Viagra was originally developed as a heart medication but is now used mainly by human males to give their sex lives a boost.

One woman donated her husband's stash to the dog because she suspected he was having an affair.

Ben - So she gave all the pills to the dog because hubby was in the doghouse! Ha ha ha ha ha ha!

HavelockV · 05-17-2010, 09:56 AM

At the risk of sounding like a heartless cad, I cannot help but ask whether it would be a kindness to have the unfortunate creature humanely euthanized. After all, there is little hope that the shetler will find an owner willing to spend twenty dollars per day on medication to prevent the dog's expiration, particularly when there are so many other adoptable animals available without such burdensome medical issues.

Of course, if the administration of pills would somehow cure the dog's ailment, well then I retract my statement and hope that help will be forthcoming.

The last part of the article did procure a hearty laugh, however.

retribution · 05-17-2010, 10:58 AM

As much as I'm against abandoning that poor soul, I'm sure that money could be much better spent. I mean if it costs 20 dollars a day for it to live, that money could be much better spent to save many animals.

KontanKarite · 05-17-2010, 11:41 AM

Fuck that jealous bitch. Though it's a bit of a strawman, her actions reminds of that story Misery by Stephen King.

Pineapple_Juice · 05-17-2010, 06:36 PM

I spend about 20 bucks a day on myself to live. If I had a kid I wouldn't hesitate to spend 20 bucks a day to keep it alive. Why not this dog?

KontanKarite · 05-17-2010, 07:22 PM

Really, Pineapple? I mean, the dog isn't interchangeable with a kid. It's a dog, not a person. HERE is a far more worthy cause than some dog, in a shelter, eating 20 dollars of pills a day. Honestly, I'd be pissed if someone spent that kind of money on a dog when 25 dollars can actually change the condition of a human life for the rest of their days for the better.

Anyone that would jump to the rescue of this dog by actually spending money on it like that is just an asshole in my book.

KissMeDeadly · 05-18-2010, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KontanKarite

Really, Pineapple? I mean, the dog isn't interchangeable with a kid. It's a dog, not a person. HERE is a far more worthy cause than some dog, in a shelter, eating 20 dollars of pills a day. Honestly, I'd be pissed if someone spent that kind of money on a dog when 25 dollars can actually change the condition of a human life for the rest of their days for the better.

Anyone that would jump to the rescue of this dog by actually spending money on it like that is just an asshole in my book.

I have to disagree with you there.

I mean, what makes that dog's life any less valid than yours? I would hope that if I needed it somebody wouldn't mind paying 20 dollars a day to keep me alive, even though I do little to nothing for society, just like that dog.

Ben Lahnger · 05-18-2010, 08:07 AM

But you're not seriously suggesting that the life of a human is equal to the life of an animal? Because I am a dog owner ... no, a dog lover ... and I don't think that is true.

And I have to admit as much as I like dogs, that spending $140 dollars a week keeping a dog alive when a one time payment of $20 can protect a whole family in Africa from dying of Malaria, it just doesn't even seem like a difficult choice to me.

A child dies of Malaria every 30 seconds. Three thousand Malaria deaths happen every day. And that's just one example. Is this really a difficult choice for you?

Saya · 05-18-2010, 09:08 AM

This isn't a situation of "well if the dog gets its medicine than kids in Africa will die," if a person wants to spend 20 dollars a day on a dog instead of getting a big feed at a resturant or going to the movies is their business, I doubt everyone here is spending all their disposable income on saving the world. Second, its not the battle of the causes, we could argue all day which causes are better and whether the one you're with is as necessary as the next, but there's enough disposable income in the world to go around, and the main problem with people not donating that money isn't because they have sick dogs. Besides, they're asking for the donation of pills, not money, and maybe the dog will get lucky and be adopted by someone who has viagra covered by their insurance.

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saya

maybe the dog will get lucky and be adopted by someone who has viagra covered by their insurance.

I wonder if pet insurance would cover it? I mean it is designed for use in people but it was recommended by a vet so it really could go either way and a remarkable number of people have health insurance for their pets.

I'm honestly upset how many people have said that this dog doesn't deserve help because it is too expensive and that for the same amount you could help poor starving people in Africa. I understand wanting to help those in need and giving the most help to the neediest but not a single one of those people has said anything about how people tend to spend their disposable income on absolute crap. If you care some deeply about human suffering that you think someone is an asshole for helping a dog then why they fuck aren't you in Africa helping those people?

Ben Lahnger · 05-18-2010, 10:06 AM

I think the point was that we cannot argue about which cause is better. People can choose what they spend their money on, but saving an animal's life is not equal to save a humans life.

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

saving an animal's life is not equal to save a humans life.

Not everyone feels that way.

Ben Lahnger · 05-18-2010, 10:36 AM

I hear that, but it is irrational and irritating. They're not equal, regardless of how some people "feel".

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 11:34 AM

It really depends on the situation, saving the life of the average dog is not equal to saving the life of the average person, that much I agree with. On the other hand there are people who have done and are capable of doing terrible things and animals who have done truly heroic things, surely you don't think that terrible person isn't more deserving of being saved just because they are human?

HavelockV · 05-18-2010, 12:45 PM

To those who are of the opinion that saving the life of a dog may be as important as saving the life of a human, I return to a theme I touched upon in my original post to this topic.

Why should the shelter use i's limited and valuable resources to keep alive a dog that probably does not have a good chance of finding an owner when there are countless other perfectly healthy and adoptable dogs that are being euthanized every day because shelters run out of space and money to keep them? What makes the lives of those animals any less valuable than the life of this chronically ill dog?

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 12:53 PM

That I can fully understand but the shelter isn't spending money on the medication, they are seeking donations in the form of people's extra pills. Now I may be taking this the wrong way but I saw that and thought they were meaning expired pills or ones that people have left over when they are due to fill a new prescription so they aren't even really asking for anything that has much, if any, monetary value.

Also if you just mean keeping a dog around that isn't as likely as others to be adopted out then you may as well be talking about any dog over the age of 7, those with any scars, and any with emotional problems (even the non-aggressive ones) because those are all much less likely to be adopted out than perfect little puppies. Shelters that do euthanize animals generally do it based on a time limit so all of the animals at that shelter are given an equal chance to find a home so those "more adoptable" dogs aren't being euthanized to save a spot for the "less adoptable" animals.

HavelockV · 05-18-2010, 01:00 PM

Be that as it may, the dog still has to have a place to sleep, food to eat, and other related articles of care allocated to it for as long as it stays in the shelter. What the sickened dog consumes and uses, a healthy dog may be deprived of.

Keeping the facts in mind, however, I think it would be safe to assume that this particular establishment is a no-kill shelter, so my argument might not apply to this specific situation; but I do hope that you see my point.

HavelockV · 05-18-2010, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solumina

Also if you just mean keeping a dog around that isn't as likely as others to be adopted out then you may as well be talking about any dog over the age of 7, those with any scars, and any with emotional problems (even the non-aggressive ones) because those are all much less likely to be adopted out than perfect little puppies.

I did not see your edited addition to your previous post before I responded.

I think that the problems you refer to are ones that do not essentially preclude a dog from being adopted. I know people who do not want the responsibility of having to train a puppy and prefer mature, older dogs. I know people who have dogs who have scars from surgeries or scuffles with other dogs (not related to illegal dogfighting). I know people who have adopted dogs that have anxiety and fear issues. These are all situations where someone may be willing to invest the time and money to rehabilitate the dog as best they can.

Twenty dollars a day, on the other hand, spent on a dog that, as far as I can discern, will never improve or recover, seems to be a lost cause. The odds of finding someone who is willing and able to make such a commitment seem vanishingly small.

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 01:23 PM

I see your point but I don't agree with it. Plenty of dogs with long term medical conditions are adopted on a fairly regular basis so I don't see why they are any less deserving of that spot in the shelter. I understand that it is a shame for a healthy dog to be put down, especially when there is another unhealthy animal there, but they are given the same amount of time to find a home and sometimes it is the dog with a medical condition, the one missing an eye, or even just the plain old ugly one that someone connects with and decides to take home.

Edit to respond to your last post: with health insurance that condition could possibly be rather inexpensive and plenty of people do have insurance for their pets. Many animals with chronic conditions are able to find loving homes. I believe that epilepsy is one of the most common conditions that adopted dogs have and that is something that requires daily medication but most owners aren't bothered by this, I don't see how a heart condition is any different.

Ben Lahnger · 05-18-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solumina

It really depends on the situation, saving the life of the average dog is not equal to saving the life of the average person, that much I agree with. On the other hand there are people who have done and are capable of doing terrible things and animals who have done truly heroic things, surely you don't think that terrible person isn't more deserving of being saved just because they are human?

That is offset in my opinion by the fact that one human being can save the lives of thousands (and even tens of thousands) of other humans ... or animals. No animal can do the same.

Saya · 05-18-2010, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

That is offset in my opinion by the fact that one human being can save the lives of thousands (and even tens of thousands) of other humans ... or animals. No animal can do the same.

And yet we don't, we greedily consume more than we need and ream those without in the ass, while killing thousands of other people and millions of other animals.

The thing what Solumina is saying, is that the life of an animal isn't always necessarily less in value than that of a human. If a child rapist and killer and a puppy were in a fire and you had to save one, who would you choose?

Regardless, this still isn't a us vs. them situation. Again, plenty of people spend this much money on animals anyway, and all of us have luxury items that could have gone to feeding the poor and sick of the world, but we spent it on ourselves anyway, and plenty of us do destructive things that harm other humans and animals. And plenty of us even though we work with animals and save them also work to do the same for humans, so whats the problem? The dog isn't going to steal money from kids with malaria.

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 01:54 PM

Well Saya pretty much nailed it so there really isn't anything to add.

KissMeDeadly · 05-18-2010, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben Lahnger

But you're not seriously suggesting that the life of a human is equal to the life of an animal?

I am saying exactly that. Now, don't get me wrong, it's not like I think somebody who forgets to feed his fish should be charged with murder, quite the contrary, I am saying, however, that if you see an animal in need of something, it is your moral obligation do whatever you can to help that animal out.

Do I think that donating viagra for this dog is as important as helping starving African children? Not at all, however I don't think it's something that should just be tossed aside as unimportant. Now, obviously, the need of the many outweigh the need of the few, and the need of my own species outweighs the need of other species. The fact remains though, that frankly I'm not donating to either cause. I'm not donating because I simply can't afford it, and at the end of the day, *my* needs come first and foremost. Maybe that makes me an asshole, but whatever.

If I had the money though, you can bet your sweet gothic ass I would donate to both causes. I think saving this dog is a *little* more important than the dinner special at Golden Coral you were planning on going to.

Ben Lahnger · 05-18-2010, 02:28 PM

KMD, you weren't being an asshole until you made that Golden Corral comment.

Saya, there are humans who do exactly what I said, saving thousand of human and/or animal lives. No animal can do that.

Look, a tiger doesn't think the life of another tiger is of equal value to the life of a gazelle ... or a human baby. So there's that level.

I don't think the life of a member of my family is of equal value to the life of a stranger. That's another level.

Given the choice to save the life of an unknown human versus an unknown animal, I'm going to choose the human because the human life has greater value to me. That's another level.

And you had to dig pretty deep (a child rapist vs. a puppy) to come up with a scenario where I would chose the animal vs the human, so again, in general and on principal that actually proves my point.

And one final thought. A human can be a right royal bastard and yet come to a point in their lives when they change and dedicate themselves to do good. It's not common, but it does happen. We can look at a human, and even if we can look at the whole of their past behavior right up to the present moment, we cannot know what their potential for the future is. A person can transform themselves at any point in their life (quit being in a gang, get off of drugs, go to school, get a degree in medicine, dedicate the remainder of their life to helping others.) It does happen. When we look at an animal, we can measure their potential fully, and without human intervention we know exactly what they can and cannot do for the rest of their lives.

Solumina · 05-18-2010, 02:59 PM

Actually I don't think her scenario was digging all that deep. Sure it was a truly terrible person but it was an average puppy, not a therapy animal who has helped thousands of people, not a search and rescue dog that has saved dozens of lives, just a normal puppy. We can all agree that there are child killers and child rapists out there and we can also all agree that there are animals that save lives so I'm really not sure how picking one extreme is all that out there, especially if you are comparing it to the average in the other group. Also I'm not sure how a scenario where you would pick the animal proves your point, unless you were agreeing with me the whole time because that is exactly what I was trying to say.