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

Where they once lived in our gardens, many pets – for better or worse – have now transitioned to a pampered life as the “fur babies” of the family. The American Veterinary Medical Association recently highlighted that pet owners are expected to spend nearly $1 billion on costumes for their pets this year. Many view this as harmless entertainment, but the growing trend of treating pets like surrogate children – or at least like little humans – can have serious consequences for the health and well-being of the animals involved.

The precursors of the modern fur baby belonged to a widely distributed population of small domestic carnivores of the genus Canis And Felis. Although they had a relatively short lifespan, these pets generally brought great fun, companionship, and some health benefits to their human owners, while teaching children respect and the life demands of these animals.

Pets also brought other educational gains, such as the ability to experience and mourn nonhuman death in preparation for the passing of human loved ones. Most animals would be rewarded for this with food, water, shelter, vaccines, flea powders, and a name reflecting their service (Fido), color (Sooty), or behavioral traits (Rover). Importantly, they were usually assured of a relatively pleasant death before the inevitable effects of advanced age extinguished any remaining quality of life.

The evolution from pet to fur baby can be attributed to many factors, including an overemphasis on the human-animal bond, increasing wealth, ignorance of animals’ biological needs, overwhelming consumerism – and, propagating misguided (although well-intentioned) anthropomorphism, social media. The main causes, factors and consequences of fur babyism have intensified and spread globally. The proof is inescapable and goes beyond the availability of clothes for birthdays, Halloween or Christmas. Strollers, jewelry, perfume, diapers, nail polish, coat dyes, birthday cakes and shoes are now available for the modern fur baby, as are “gold standard” veterinary treatments.

The harmful effects of babyism on physical and psychological health are well documented. Pack dog strollers: Although potentially useful for injured or arthritic pets, their overuse in other dogs can lead to muscle wasting, joint damage and obesity. Restricting the fur baby’s movements limits its natural tendency to explore, mark its territory, and interact with environmental features, such as other species of its species, leading to fear and anxiety.

Given these potential risks to health and well-being, one might expect the veterinary profession to take a universally condemnatory stance toward the fur baby phenomenon. Oddly, this is not the case, with attitudes ranging from censorship to capitalization. The latter position is troubling because by encouraging overtreatment, for example radiotherapy in geriatric animals, it may further compromise animal welfare without necessarily improving animal health.

An owner’s deep love for their pet can always be accepted, as long as the animal’s interests are put first, which includes protecting them from pain, suffering and distress. What is considerably less defensible is the veterinarian who takes advantage of an owner’s misguided love for their pet to perform unnecessary, invasive, painful, unproven, and expensive tests and procedures on an animal that cannot give consent.

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

Eddie Clutton is co-author of Veterinary controversies and ethical dilemmas (Routledge)