Stop treating your pet like a fur baby – you’re damaging its health

Where they once lived in our backyards, many pets have—for better or worse—now moved on to pampered lives as members of the “fur baby” family. The American Veterinary Medical Association recently highlighted Pet owners are projected to spend nearly $1 billion on costumes for their pets this year. Many see it as harmless fun, but the growing tendency to treat pets as surrogate children – or at least little people – can have serious consequences for the health and welfare of animals.

The predecessors of the modern furry cub belonged to a widespread population of small domesticated predators of the genus Kanis And Felis. Although these pets have relatively short lives, they usually provide significant pleasure, companionship, and some health benefits to their owners, while teaching children respect for these animals and the vital needs of these animals.

Pets also brought other educational benefits, such as the ability to experience and mourn non-human death while preparing for the passing of loved ones. Most pets will be rewarded with food, water, shelter, vaccines, flea powders, and a name that reflects their service (Fido), color (Sati), or behavioral traits (Rover). It is important to note that they were usually guaranteed a relatively pleasant death before the inevitable effects of old age destroyed any remaining quality of life.

The evolution from pet to fur baby can be attributed to many reasons, including an overemphasis on the human-animal bond, growing prosperity, disregard for animal biological needs, rampant consumerism—and, in promoting ill-advised (though well-intentioned) anthropomorphism, social media. The underlying causes, drivers and consequences of fur babyism have intensified and spread throughout the world. The evidence of this is inescapable and goes beyond having clothes for birthdays, Halloween or Christmas. Strollers, jewelry, fragrances, diapers, nail polish, wool dyes, birthday cakes and shoes are now available to the modern fur baby, as is the “gold standard” of veterinary care.

The adverse physical and psychological health effects of fur babying are well documented. Take dog strollers: While they are potentially beneficial for injured or arthritic animals, overuse in other dogs can lead to muscle wasting, joint damage and obesity. Restricting a fur baby's movements limits its natural tendency to explore, mark territory, and interact with objects in the environment, such as others of its species, resulting in fear and anxiety.

Given these potential threats to health and welfare, one would expect the veterinary profession to take a universally condemning stance towards the fur baby phenomenon. Oddly enough, this is not the case, because… relationship from censure to capitalization. The latter position is of concern because by encouraging overtreatment, such as radiation therapy, in older animals, it may further compromise the welfare of the animals without necessarily improving their health.

An owner's deep love for their pet can always be accepted as long as the animal's best interests are a priority, which includes ensuring the animal's freedom from pain, suffering and suffering. Much less justifiable is a veterinarian who preys on an owner's misguided love for their pet to perform unnecessary, invasive, painful, unproven, and expensive tests and procedures on an animal that is unable to consent.

All caregivers should consider the suffering that can occur when animals are treated inappropriately: that is, as children rather than dogs or cats. And veterinarians who indulge the fur baby craze should know better.

Eddie Clutton is a co-author Veterinary disputes and ethical dilemmas (Routledge)