Bad Problems w/ Cat (May Be Ill/Dying)

[soren7550]

Ok, here's the rundown: my cat Azure for the past day or so hasn't been walking so good. She's been pretty wobbly and occasionally kind of falls over due to her back legs kind of giving out. As far as I can tell, nothing is broken because she doesn't mind at all whenever I pet her. As usual, she seems to rather enjoy it, purring loudly and even doing that thing all cats do when they're really enjoying being pet (raising their butts up).

Until recently, she's been fine and her good old self. However, she has me and my mother very worried since she's old (16-17 years old), and because she has been spending time in the bathroom. The fact she's going into the bathroom we view as a bad sign since the last two cats that have died on us have gone into there before they died (technacly, only one of the two died in there. The other we took to the vet where he had to be put to sleep, but he was quite ill when he took to the bathroom).
I figure (and really hope) she's just got a really sore leg or something since she has no problem with being touched. Arthritis has come up as another possible reason for her recent behavior. The latter could explain why she may be taking to the bathroom, since it's small & compact, the pipes are all close to one another, making it warmer than other spots in the apartment (the bathroom rug may be another factor). Also, she has been eating & drinking, as well as willingly moving about (although not as much as usual).

We're scared to take her to the vet though, fearing that should we take her there, we won't be coming home with her.

So, what is it I should do? What's my poor old cat's problem?

 

[EllEzDee]

Take her to the vet. Even if the diagnosis is bad, you don't have to have her put to sleep. If you think she can live the rest of her life then she doesn't have to be put to sleep. I hate it when the vets try to pressure you into putting your pet to an early - and sometimes undeserved - end. Since she still sounds like she's happy, and she can obviously still enjoy herself, it's probably not too serious, and even if it is, she'll still be able to live out the rest of her life.
It's probably just a sign of old age anyway, since 17 years is seriously old for a cat; with all the jumping and prancing they do, arthritis might be all it is.

Seriously though, the vet'll be the best option.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

 

[DarkenedWolfEye]

Sounds to me like bad knees; it's a common thing for old animals, both cats and humans. Did she play a lot, or maybe run into things when she was younger? Repeated strain comes back to her in old age.
I wouldn't take it as a sign of death, just a sign of sore old joints. I however am not a professional, so I recommend you see a vet. Likely they'll just give you something such as medicine or special pillows to make her more comfortable, and if in the next couple of years it gets too bad ... I'm sorry to have to say it, but your cat wouldn't lead a happy life when her joints get too stiff and painful for her to move. They get very depressed when they can't move around; even the laziest of cats need to be able to walk.
Sad thing, but 17 years is a pretty good age for a cat. And you can ask to take them home when it comes time to put them to sleep, if it's any consolation.

 

[dsmops2003]

Sorry it sounds like it has cancer probably in the brain, I hope not but... Take it to a vet. They will probably know whats wrong. Again I am sorry. Pets are like family. I have 3 dogs.

 

[EllEzDee]

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

Are you kidding me? Unless the animal is actively crying out, there's literally no need to end its life. Would you take your grandmother to the local slaughter house because her hips are hurting again? Like everything else in the world, a cat will tell you when it's in pain. Just because the cat isn't walking too well, it doesn't mean it's time to force it into death. It'll go when it's ready, which doesn't seem like any time soon considering there don't appear to be any other health issues with the cat ("Until recently, she's been fine").

And before the inevitable argument pops up: Just because cats are active, always jumping around and everything, it doesn't mean they don't calm down in old age like every other species on the planet. They can live a perfectly happy life even if they're unable to scarper around like the other cats.

 

[Vern]

I don't find any pleasure in telling you this, but 17 is really old for a cat. Most live to 13 or 14 at most. It sounds like your cat is getting old, it can't do the things it used to, and it's joints are giving out. It's your choice on taking it to the vet though. There's nothing the vet could do for her, aside from recommending euthanasia due to the advanced age. I'd say, if you're comfortable with it, just let your cat rest at home, enjoy being petted and loved. I hate to say it, but at that age it's almost undeniable that she will die soon, so you might as well spend your time loving that cat and making it comfortable. However, if she starts mewing in pain whenever she tries to walk, I would probably take her to the vet and stop the pain. Letting a house pet live in pain because you can't stand to let them go is worse than euthanasia. But that's the last resort. Again, I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but those are the options.

 

[RevRaptor]

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

Are you kidding me? Unless the animal is actively crying out, there's literally no need to end its life. Would you take your grandmother to the local slaughter house because her hips are hurting again? Like everything else in the world, a cat will tell you when it's in pain. Just because the cat isn't walking too well, it doesn't mean it's time to force it into death. It'll go when it's ready, which doesn't seem like any time soon considering there don't appear to be any other health issues with the cat ("Until recently, she's been fine").

And before the inevitable argument pops up: Just because cats are active, always jumping around and everything, it doesn't mean they don't calm down in old age like every other species on the planet. They can live a perfectly happy life even if they're unable to scarper around like the other cats.

Sorry dude but you are wrong. Cats don't tell you when they is in pain, its a cats natural instinct to hide the pain. A cat can be in a lot of pain and not show any outward signs.

This instinct to hide pain and infirmity is a legacy of the wild origins of our dogs and cats. While their "eternal infancy" as our pets makes it ok to shriek and howl if a favourite toy is taken away or a toe is stubbed, something far more primitive and survival-oriented kicks in when they are seriously ill or disabled. In the wild, an infirm animal is vulnerable to attack, and it's a survival advantage to act like nothing is wrong even when something most definitely is.

In short, the more pain your cat is in the more he/she hides it.

.
At soren7550,

take you cat to the vet dude, it sounds like arthritis. In NZ we give animals green mussel extract to combat arthritis and or immobility caused by old age. Any supplement with Glucosamine and Chondroitin Sulphate that's ok for animals should help.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

Are you kidding me? Unless the animal is actively crying out, there's literally no need to end its life. Would you take your grandmother to the local slaughter house because her hips are hurting again? Like everything else in the world, a cat will tell you when it's in pain. Just because the cat isn't walking too well, it doesn't mean it's time to force it into death. It'll go when it's ready, which doesn't seem like any time soon considering there don't appear to be any other health issues with the cat ("Until recently, she's been fine").

And before the inevitable argument pops up: Just because cats are active, always jumping around and everything, it doesn't mean they don't calm down in old age like every other species on the planet. They can live a perfectly happy life even if they're unable to scarper around like the other cats.

If that's true then the vet will tell her the same, and she should take the animal anyways. If I were to claim that I, who have never even seen the cat, knew that to be one way or the other, I would make clear what an arrogant fool I was. It's certainly possible that what you say is true, and yet animals do not always clearly voice their pain. For instance, if its lungs were filling with fluid, no doubt that would be an unpleasant process for the animal, and yet it might not cry out. The only point that I'm trying to make here is that a vet will probably be both better informed and more unbiased (in regards to what the cat might want) than anyone else, and so I was suggesting that the cat be taken to a vet who could decide what the best course of action might be, even if that course was that the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes. But, that's just my suggestion.

 

[SageSays]

Azure could have a wobbly walk for a number of reasons.
Arthritis requires an ongoing series of shots, which can be expensive, but will significantly improve the cats quality of life.
A sinus infection plays merry havoc with a cats sense of balance. Antibiotics will do the trick. A cat with a sinus infection will be less interested in food as they are primarily driven by smell in the search for food.
The other I can think of has a fancy name but means kidney stones. Cats have a very efficient set of kidneys and the high mineral content of dried food leads to the development of crystals. Outward signs of this condition are an increase in water consumption (cats usually drink 100-150ml of water a day) and standing up to urinate. This condition is usually quite painful for the cat, so it sounds unlikely in your situation. Still, the cat may prefer pats despite being sore. A couple of shots, a tablet or two, and a change in diet is required.
The sooner you that you take Azure to the veterinarian the less likely that a 'green dream' will be demanded to maintain 'quality of life'. A vet makes this decision based on their observation of the animal, so waiting until the animal is obviously terribly ill is counterproductive. Especially with an older animal.
I hope Azure gets hale and hearty, and graces your bathroom rug for many more days to come.

 

[SageSays]

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

Yes, seeking medical attention for an unwell animal is an appropriate response to a duty of care.

Are you kidding me? Unless the animal is actively crying out, there's literally no need to end its life. Would you take your grandmother to the local slaughter house because her hips are hurting again? Like everything else in the world, a cat will tell you when it's in pain. Just because the cat isn't walking too well, it doesn't mean it's time to force it into death. It'll go when it's ready, which doesn't seem like any time soon considering there don't appear to be any other health issues with the cat ("Until recently, she's been fine").

And before the inevitable argument pops up: Just because cats are active, always jumping around and everything, it doesn't mean they don't calm down in old age like every other species on the planet. They can live a perfectly happy life even if they're unable to scarper around like the other cats.

Yes, by the age of 15+, cats are nowhere near as active as when they were kittens.

If that's true then the vet will tell her the same, and she should take the animal anyways. If I were to claim that I, who have never even seen the cat, knew that to be one way or the other, I would make clear what an arrogant fool I was. It's certainly possible that what you say is true, and yet animals do not always clearly voice their pain. For instance, if its lungs were filling with fluid, no doubt that would be an unpleasant process for the animal, and yet it might not cry out. The only point that I'm trying to make here is that a vet will probably be both better informed and more unbiased (in regards to what the cat might want) than anyone else, and so I was suggesting that the cat be taken to a vet who could decide what the best course of action might be, even if that course was that the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes. But, that's just my suggestion.

Oh-kay... where to begin?
If the veterinarian believes it is their job to inform the pet owner so that the pet owner is able to make an appropriate decision then your first statement becomes more than partially true.
It is unfortunate that the profession seems to have a fair share of 'arrogant fools' who believe that they are more capable of reading moods, and have a greater awareness of attitude, than a person who has interacted with the animal for longer than a decade. Considering an animal that they have possibly met for the first time less than ten minutes ago.

An educator who has already decided that death is an improved 'quality' of life is unlikely to provide a fully informed diagnosis, in the service of triage. This is an inappropriate mixture of the educational and medicinal aspects of the profession, but it is usual as it is expedient. This is an attitude that is likely to upset most people with a perceived duty of care, or any sort of emotional attachment.

The belief that an emotional attachment of care would lead someone to decide to extend the misery of the focus of that attachment presupposes mental disturbance or narcissistic dysfunction. That's just not very friendly of you. The duty of care I mentioned previously has to have, as it's base, the primary focus of continuing life. Otherwise it is just watered down lip service. This forms the main thrust of the argument against euthanasia, which includes subjects that can clearly express their dissatisfaction with their quality of life issues. For some reason it's seen as more okay to do this to a being that cannot convincingly argue about quality of life. I clearly do not favour this position.

Basically; we understand as pet owners that it's no longer all party time every day for our favorite animal, but some opportunity for a bit of party down the track is better than all parties over, finished and done for.
Now for the bit that really gets me hopping...

the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes

WTF. You had better have been crying when you typed that, but I doubt it.

Justify? The animal can live with effort, but it's easier, for 'everybody', to kill it. Make that sound straight. Come on. Dare ya.

Forcing? Animals that believe they have no hope for quality of life pine and die. Ask someone that works in a zoo. That shit happens and it tears the heart out of the people who have chosen to care.

You, sir, are a self important prig. Reasonable advice notwithstanding, your position is foul and significantly more self-serving than that of those you denounce as hysterical. If I was in your presence I would find a stout stick and I would beat you with it. Roundly.
For the possibility that it would improve the general quality of life.
But, that's just my suggestion.

That's what SageSays

 

[Kpt._Rob]

*snip*

If that's true then the vet will tell her the same, and she should take the animal anyways. If I were to claim that I, who have never even seen the cat, knew that to be one way or the other, I would make clear what an arrogant fool I was. It's certainly possible that what you say is true, and yet animals do not always clearly voice their pain. For instance, if its lungs were filling with fluid, no doubt that would be an unpleasant process for the animal, and yet it might not cry out. The only point that I'm trying to make here is that a vet will probably be both better informed and more unbiased (in regards to what the cat might want) than anyone else, and so I was suggesting that the cat be taken to a vet who could decide what the best course of action might be, even if that course was that the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes. But, that's just my suggestion.

Oh-kay... where to begin?
If the veterinarian believes it is their job to inform the pet owner so that the pet owner is able to make an appropriate decision then your first statement becomes more than partially true.
It is unfortunate that the profession seems to have a fair share of 'arrogant fools' who believe that they are more capable of reading moods, and have a greater awareness of attitude, than a person who has interacted with the animal for longer than a decade. Considering an animal that they have possibly met for the first time less than ten minutes ago.

An educator who has already decided that death is an improved 'quality' of life is unlikely to provide a fully informed diagnosis, in the service of triage. This is an inappropriate mixture of the educational and medicinal aspects of the profession, but it is usual as it is expedient. This is an attitude that is likely to upset most people with a perceived duty of care, or any sort of emotional attachment.

The belief that an emotional attachment of care would lead someone to decide to extend the misery of the focus of that attachment presupposes mental disturbance or narcissistic dysfunction. That's just not very friendly of you. The duty of care I mentioned previously has to have, as it's base, the primary focus of continuing life. Otherwise it is just watered down lip service. This forms the main thrust of the argument against euthanasia, which includes subjects that can clearly express their dissatisfaction with their quality of life issues. For some reason it's seen as more okay to do this to a being that cannot convincingly argue about quality of life. I clearly do not favour this position.

Basically; we understand as pet owners that it's no longer all party time every day for our favorite animal, but some opportunity for a bit of party down the track is better than all parties over, finished and done for.
Now for the bit that really gets me hopping...

the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes

WTF. You had better have been crying when you typed that, but I doubt it.

Justify? The animal can live with effort, but it's easier, for 'everybody', to kill it. Make that sound straight. Come on. Dare ya.

Forcing? Animals that believe they have no hope for quality of life pine and die. Ask someone that works in a zoo. That shit happens and it tears the heart out of the people who have chosen to care.

You, sir, are a self important prig. Reasonable advice notwithstanding, your position is foul and significantly more self-serving than that of those you denounce as hysterical. If I was in your presence I would find a stout stick and I would beat you with it. Roundly.
For the possibility that it would improve the general quality of life.
But, that's just my suggestion.

That's what SageSays

Clearly what we have here is a difference in opinions not just of how a cat should be cared for, but of what the ultimate purposes and meanings of life are. As Lao-Tsu says, knowledge is the root of all ignorance, and as such I will admit that you may very well be right, and perhaps I should happily accept my beating with a stick. Nonetheless, I would be remiss to not point out that there are perspectives other than yours, and in questions of absolute morality can either of us claim to have ultimate knowledge of right or wrong?

I will say this, if I were old, caused great suffering by the condition of a withering body, and still holding on to life not because I expected anything of value to come of it, but just because I was still afraid to die, I would consider it a kindness for someone to kill me. And unfortunately, as a result of modern medicine which has been designed not to overcome but merely to delay a timely death, the prospect of a situation in which I am exceedingly old and in great suffering which is simply being prolonged is rather high. That is to say that the hypothetical situation this cat might be in, is one I very much expect to face some day myself. My opinion mirrors the choice I hope I would have the presence of mind to make for myself, the choice to let go and accept the inevitable.

I do not happen to think that "the choice to extend the misery of the focus of attachment," as you have put it, does presuppose mental disturbance or narcissistic disfunction. Rather, I think it presupposes fear. And it is not wrong that one feel fear of loss of a being they have cared for, or even that they feel fear for that being, those it seems to me are natural things to feel for a being which one cares for. That said, in evaluating whether a being should live in suffering or be allowed to move on, I think that fear can get in the way of making a good judgement. Part of the payment one makes in return for supposing to "own" another being is that they will very likely be forced to make the decision between fear and letting go.

Perhaps where you show the greatest misunderstanding of my point (whether that was my fault for not wording it well, or your own, I do not know) is when you assert that I think it would be easier for everybody for the cat to be put down. Quite the opposite, while it might make their lives more convenient, the taking of any life is something that weighs on you, especially the life of a being you care for. Continuing its suffering is much much easier, a fact evidenced by the number of people who choose to do just that. Anyone considering whether a being they love should live a tortured existence or be allowed to pass faces a decision that I do not envy because there is no choice with a happy ending, just two terrible decisions. But like it or not, that is a part of life.

So yes, my opinion is that if the vet, a hopefully unbiased party whose judgement is not clouded by fear, thinks that the rest of the animals' life would be suffering, then the appropriate decision would be to listen to him. That is just my opinion, I speak it not as a self declared "sage" or from any position of knowing the truth, but as best I can from the position of a man who has dwelled on the subject of death perhaps a little too much. So, you can think what you want of my opinion, and of me for having it, you can even visit me here in Stillwater and beat me with a stick if it'll make you happy to think there's one less person like me out there, all I will say is that if I had to make that decision, it is the path I would walk.

 

[SageSays]

Yup, I'll bite. Such erudite and arrogant trollmanship should probably be rewarded... Warning - - Serious text wall

Spoiler: relevant previous posts to place rant in context, all readily available by scrolling up, and you have probably already read them...

I don't mean to sound insensitive here, but, all things die some time. If she's having trouble walking she may be in a lot of pain, and as much as it would hurt to lose her, do you really want to risk putting her through unnecessary miseries because you are afraid of being without her? Take her to the vet, even if that's hard to do, isn't it the right thing to do?

*snip* by Kpt._Rob

If that's true then the vet will tell her the same, and she should take the animal anyways. If I were to claim that I, who have never even seen the cat, knew that to be one way or the other, I would make clear what an arrogant fool I was. It's certainly possible that what you say is true, and yet animals do not always clearly voice their pain. For instance, if its lungs were filling with fluid, no doubt that would be an unpleasant process for the animal, and yet it might not cry out. The only point that I'm trying to make here is that a vet will probably be both better informed and more unbiased (in regards to what the cat might want) than anyone else, and so I was suggesting that the cat be taken to a vet who could decide what the best course of action might be, even if that course was that the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes. But, that's just my suggestion.

Oh-kay... where to begin?
If the veterinarian believes it is their job to inform the pet owner so that the pet owner is able to make an appropriate decision then your first statement becomes more than partially true.
It is unfortunate that the profession seems to have a fair share of 'arrogant fools' who believe that they are more capable of reading moods, and have a greater awareness of attitude, than a person who has interacted with the animal for longer than a decade. Considering an animal that they have possibly met for the first time less than ten minutes ago.

An educator who has already decided that death is an improved 'quality' of life is unlikely to provide a fully informed diagnosis, in the service of triage. This is an inappropriate mixture of the educational and medicinal aspects of the profession, but it is usual as it is expedient. This is an attitude that is likely to upset most people with a perceived duty of care, or any sort of emotional attachment.

The belief that an emotional attachment of care would lead someone to decide to extend the misery of the focus of that attachment presupposes mental disturbance or narcissistic dysfunction. That's just not very friendly of you. The duty of care I mentioned previously has to have, as it's base, the primary focus of continuing life. Otherwise it is just watered down lip service. This forms the main thrust of the argument against euthanasia, which includes subjects that can clearly express their dissatisfaction with their quality of life issues. For some reason it's seen as more okay to do this to a being that cannot convincingly argue about quality of life. I clearly do not favour this position.

Basically; we understand as pet owners that it's no longer all party time every day for our favorite animal, but some opportunity for a bit of party down the track is better than all parties over, finished and done for.
Now for the bit that really gets me hopping...

the cat's remaining quality of life might not justify forcing it to wait to pass of natural causes

WTF. You had better have been crying when you typed that, but I doubt it.

Justify? The animal can live with effort, but it's easier, for 'everybody', to kill it. Make that sound straight. Come on. Dare ya.

Forcing? Animals that believe they have no hope for quality of life pine and die. Ask someone that works in a zoo. That shit happens and it tears the heart out of the people who have chosen to care.

You, sir, are a self important prig. Reasonable advice notwithstanding, your position is foul and significantly more self-serving than that of those you denounce as hysterical. If I was in your presence I would find a stout stick and I would beat you with it. Roundly.
For the possibility that it would improve the general quality of life.
But, that's just my suggestion.

Clearly what we have here is a difference in opinions not just of how a cat should be cared for, but of what the ultimate purposes and meanings of life are. As Lao-Tsu says, knowledge is the root of all ignorance, and as such I will admit that you may very well be right, and perhaps I should happily accept my beating with a stick. Nonetheless, I would be remiss to not point out that there are perspectives other than yours, and in questions of absolute morality can either of us claim to have ultimate knowledge of right or wrong?

I will say this, if I were old, caused great suffering by the condition of a withering body, and still holding on to life not because I expected anything of value to come of it, but just because I was still afraid to die, I would consider it a kindness for someone to kill me. And unfortunately, as a result of modern medicine which has been designed not to overcome but merely to delay a timely death, the prospect of a situation in which I am exceedingly old and in great suffering which is simply being prolonged is rather high. That is to say that the hypothetical situation this cat might be in, is one I very much expect to face some day myself. My opinion mirrors the choice I hope I would have the presence of mind to make for myself, the choice to let go and accept the inevitable.

I do not happen to think that "the choice to extend the misery of the focus of attachment," as you have put it, does presuppose mental disturbance or narcissistic disfunction. Rather, I think it presupposes fear. And it is not wrong that one feel fear of loss of a being they have cared for, or even that they feel fear for that being, those it seems to me are natural things to feel for a being which one cares for. That said, in evaluating whether a being should live in suffering or be allowed to move on, I think that fear can get in the way of making a good judgement. Part of the payment one makes in return for supposing to "own" another being is that they will very likely be forced to make the decision between fear and letting go.

Perhaps where you show the greatest misunderstanding of my point (whether that was my fault for not wording it well, or your own, I do not know) is when you assert that I think it would be easier for everybody for the cat to be put down. Quite the opposite, while it might make their lives more convenient, the taking of any life is something that weighs on you, especially the life of a being you care for. Continuing its suffering is much much easier, a fact evidenced by the number of people who choose to do just that. Anyone considering whether a being they love should live a tortured existence or be allowed to pass faces a decision that I do not envy because there is no choice with a happy ending, just two terrible decisions. But like it or not, that is a part of life.

So yes, my opinion is that if the vet, a hopefully unbiased party whose judgement is not clouded by fear, thinks that the rest of the animals' life would be suffering, then the appropriate decision would be to listen to him. That is just my opinion, I speak it not as a self declared "sage" or from any position of knowing the truth, but as best I can from the position of a man who has dwelled on the subject of death perhaps a little too much. So, you can think what you want of my opinion, and of me for having it, you can even visit me here in Stillwater and beat me with a stick if it'll make you happy to think there's one less person like me out there, all I will say is that if I had to make that decision, it is the path I would walk.

On Topic

I'm glad to see that you've revised your opinion to be closer to mine.

...my opinion is that if the vet, a hopefully unbiased party whose judgement is not clouded by fear, thinks that the rest of the animals' life would be suffering, then the appropriate decision would be to listen to him.

My concern (and I suspect that of the OP's) is that the vet is rarely unbiased, if you consider professional reputation, liability, insurance and so forth. The issue of triage cannot be ignored, even if it is inappropriate in a situation where all the resources are available at the time. Even in the most considerate of veterinarians the training for triage can be over-utilized. Knowing how is not really the same as knowing when, but it's an easy mistake to make.
A possible solution is to have a close friend take the animal to the veterinarian and explain that they are looking after the pet, they expect the owner to return in a few days, but after speaking on the phone it was decided to bring the animal in for assessment as soon as possible. This will help the vet understand that this is a situation that requires significant investment in education, if the medical prognosis is as bad as the OP fears.
As the OP's previous experience shows, there is quite a reasonable fear that their favorite animal may be destroyed. The place where that fear becomes dysfunctional is where it stops a pet owner from seeking medical advice. This is exacerbated by the professions current attitude towards geriatric care but; this does not remove the responsibility of the pet owner to seek medical attention.

So take Azure to the vet. If you are worried about being put on the spot, get a friend to take Azure to the vet, and that gives you a chance to make a considered decision.

The possibility I didn't mention, in the consideration of the OP's reasonable fears, is the lack of balance could be due to cancer. If this is the case then, in my opinion, the 'green dream' may be the kindest action to take. If you do decide that this is kindest, I would suggest seeking the service of a vet that performs house calls, so it may be done in a familiar environment to reduce the distress for the animal. It won't reduce yours but, that is a part of loving another life.

There. I hope I've done my best to convince you, the OP, to do the right thing for Azure.

Off Topic

Dear Kpt._Rob,

Spoiler: I give Kpt._Rob a bit of what for, and possibly go a little over the top. Success is not for me to decide.

Clearly what we have here is a difference in opinions not just of how a cat should be cared for, but of what the ultimate purposes and meanings of life are.

Damn straight. Or, in the vernacular you seem to prefer; Clearly you are the master of stating the obvious.
Let's consider the first part of your statement with reference to a position you make clear later in the same post.

Part of the payment one makes in return for supposing to "own" another being is that they will very likely be forced to make the decision between fear and letting go.

My opinion of pet ownership is closer to the concept of stewardship. More 'responsible for the care of and any repercussions from' than
'this is mine', but I can see where you're coming from even through your attempts to be disingenuous.
I happen to consider my position to be more mature, but will happily admit to that opinion being self serving.

...the ultimate purposes and meanings of life...and in questions of absolute morality can either of us claim to have ultimate knowledge of right or wrong?

I'm not sure how this is germane. I think it is more of your attempts at being disingenuous but, luckily for me, we are discussing the care of a cat, which has little that is absolute about it. Good troll though. I like discussing philosophy.

I do not happen to think that "the choice to extend the misery of the focus of attachment," as you have put it, does presuppose mental disturbance or narcissistic dysfunction. Rather, I think it presupposes fear.

I say you presuppose, you say why you presuppose, I stand confirmed. You should try smarter, rather than harder.

just because I was still afraid to die, I would consider it a kindness for someone to kill me.

This makes no sense to me, even in context. I'm of the opinion that life chooses life in preference to any other situation; despite whatever tools of the mind we use to convince ourselves otherwise. When it comes down to it you will not wish to 'go quietly into the night', nor thank the hand that holds the knife. It is obvious that you have convinced yourself that I am mistaken. I suggest that relief is a more appropriate word than kindness in this context and that it carries a significantly different meaning from that which you argue for. This is a subject where objective evidence is hard to come by. Let us agree to disagree on this point.

I think that fear can get in the way of making a good judgement(sic).

I agree. I also believe that hubris, which rather holds hands with your opinion of 'ownership', is more likely to lead to poor judgment.
Not using the spellcheck function of the text editor is just lazy.

Perhaps where you show the greatest misunderstanding of my point (whether that was my fault for not wording it well, or your own, I do not know)

Yes, it is your fault. Every post has been carefully built to exacerbate the reasonable fear of the OP. Every word was chosen to exploit misery and death. At no point have you offered the consideration that the fear of misery and death may be unnecessary in this situation.
I called you out on this, and you have back-pedaled, pretended to address a higher issue, defended your hubris and eventually provided helpful, humane advice. Proving that it is possible, which makes your previous posts less defensible.
I am still of the opinion that it is an attempt at being disingenuous but, if you really don't know, then I feel sorry for you. You could, at least, revel in how thoroughly evil you might be.

I speak it not as a self declared "sage"

Oh come now, I know I was rude enough to engage in name calling but, surely you are above such things. I will admit to an excess of passion regarding this issue, as I have had a vet refuse treatment simply on the basis of great age, and it was a terrible experience for me personally, as well as being fatal for the cat.
I believe my name refers most relevantly to a shade of green, but it is ambiguous, and I make no claim to great wisdom, although I am working on great age, and a better story. If you have an issue with my name I suggest you take it up with my parents. I know I did.

Trying to bring Lao Tsu to the argument shows that you have a broad education. Your attempts to use it here shows how little understanding or effort you brought to that education. I have been aware of the Tao Te Ching, or 'Actions of the Universe' (very loose translation), for some time and, since the text advocates a policy of non-interference, it would recommend that the OP simply wait until such time that the OP felt that action was unavoidable. This is not your position. So the mention of Lao Tsu is simply pretentious, and an attempt to gain authority by association. Which failed miserably.

.. or from any position of knowing the truth, but as best I can from the position of a man who has dwelled on the subject of death perhaps a little too much.

Every truth belongs to only one man. How's that for hyperbole? Did I win? I'd write about elephants but, you can only lead a horse to water. Focusing on death doesn't resolve your desire for immortality, but keep trying Robby and you may be the first.

So, you can think what you want of my opinion, and of me for having it, you can even visit me here in Stillwater and beat me with a stick if it'll make you happy to think there's one less person like me out there, all I will say is that if I had to make that decision, it is the path I would walk.

I'm glad I don't need your permission to breathe as well. I suspect I lost it somewhere...
I never expressed a need to beat you to death, but I suppose you can be allowed some dramatic license. I did suppose that the people that suffer your company would greatly enjoy the lessening of hubris that the embarrassment of a sound beating might engender.
See? I'm capable of qualifying too! Is it possible that I might be a peer? No. You'll find a better qualifier, I'm sure...
Well, that's a relief. Only the opinion of peers can carry any weight...
Unfortunately, your continued argument has revised my opinion to be less inclined to 'self-important tit-warbler' and more leaning towards 'fear-mongering, misery-promoting sadist'.
Isn't that great, you managed to increase your summary value by a whole word, you must be positively glowing with achievement!
I hope that your voice is that of a lonely, dis-empowered man with no authority to enforce your mindset upon others, no matter how prettily you may express it. Nice tieback to Lao Tsu but, since it doesn't support your argument, it is simply a cry for pity from your hubris.

Bugger me if I could be bothered to cross half the world to do a good deed that no one would thank me for. You can come to Melbourne if you're so worked up about it. It would be bad of me but I would take a simple (and great) pleasure in 'sortin' ya out mate' or, to use the language of the pedigree you emulate, 'proving the will of god with the strength of my good right arm'.

Give me a chance and that's the path I would walk, and it wouldn't require a change in direction.

That's what SageSays

 

[ilspooner]

If you love the cat, take it to a vet. The vets are NOT going to put your cat down unless it is in a massive amount of pain, and it can't enjoy a good qualitly of life. Basically, if the cat has arthritis, then the vet can prescribe treatment.

But really, look at it this way. If the cat is unwell enough to make the vet decide to put it down, how happy do you think the cat would be, if you allowed it to live out the rest of its days in misery? This problem doesn't sound too bad, considering the age of the cat. I doubt it is something fatal. But, still, get the vet to check it out. They know what they are doing.

 

[StBishop]

Take the cat to the vet, why would you do anything else?

You are neglecting your cat, there could be treatments available and you aren't exploring that.

So, what is it I should do?

You would rather have the pet suffer than take it to a vet?

Sigh...

Sounds selfish to me. If you care about the animal, try to get it the help it needs.

GO TO A VET!

I don't know why you are potentially causing your beloved pet pain because you're scared.

You don't have to put her down, the only reason to put her down is if she's suffering, by being alive. Wouldn't you rather take her to the vet and get pain killers or something?

It sounds like you're being pretty silly. She may not even need to be put down.
And if she does, you're being selfish, would you punch a cat in the head to make you happy? Because negligence is just as bad as actively causing pain.

TAKE HER TO THE VET

 

[Valksy]

Agree. She needs to go to the vet. And I am so sorry that you cat isn't well, she sounds like a grand old lady. I'm not sure that any of us are qualified to say what might be wrong, the right thing to do is get her looked at. Given her age it could be something as simple as a urinary tract infection which is easy to cure, or it could be very serious indeed. The right thing to do is to get a professional to look at her and to give you proper advice and guidance.

And yes, making that decision is hard. I sympathise, I truly do. I had to make the decision for my Artemis (Missy) on the 4th June 2009. When I took her to the vet, she was dying. I was given the choice of a humane ending, or taking her home and letting her die of natural causes. She could hardly breathe and was going to asphyxiate to death. I made the proper choice and she was allowed to die in peace, safety and dignity. As her guardian, I know it was the right thing to do to spare her the pain of her organs failing. It's awful. It truly is. But it was an informed and considered choice that I had to make.

Get some facts. You need to know what is going on. Hesitating and making her go without proper treatment because you are uncomfortable or afraid is not the right thing to do.