I once said to a vet friend of mine, when she was telling me about the practices hamster who was sick, (she was telling me about how they were going to operate to save its life)

I said, "Why don't you just knock it over the head and get a new one, surely that would be cheaper"

She was horrified and not very happy with me at all. My only excuse was that I was young and didn't appreciate how important the pet was to the practice.

I would never make the same mistake again.

But to me it begs the question.

Is there a limit on how much you spend on preserving a pet’s life and is one type animal more worthy than another?

The hamster was certainly worthy in my friend’s case, but then she was the vet so there was no expense.

I recently ran up a bill of two thousand trying to save my dog. I only stopped beacuse the vet told me he would never recover. Otherwise I would have carried on.

If you consider an animal to be part of the family (and I would not place any particular worth, or lack thereof, on any one type), then you are likely to be as determined to keep them healthy and comfortable as you would any other member of the household.

Hence I don't think there is any particular limit on a pet's worth as such. It's how much you can afford compared with the chances of any meaningful recovery.

Touch wood, our 11-year-old cats haven't been ill since they were tiny, so haven't cost us much over the years.