Owner’s desperate move after pet dog’s ‘heartbreaking’ diagnosis

When Alexandra Senter’s beloved dog Monty received a horror diagnosis, she was determined to go to great lengths to save him.

In February 2024 after several months out of the country, my husband and I returned home anxious to be reunited with our rescue pug, Montgomery.

As we landed, my parents called to tell me that Monty had collapsed and they’d rushed him to the vet where he required an emergency blood transfusion.

This was followed by a splenectomy due to a bleed in his stomach.

While surgery was successful, the diagnosis was heartbreaking – he had hemangiosarcoma, a highly aggressive cancer specific to dogs which attacks the lining of the blood vessels.

Told that his life expectancy might be two weeks, we immediately went to our veterinary oncology centre where Monty began chemotherapy.

This was new ground for me and I joined a Facebook group for pet owners whose dogs had been diagnosed with hemangiosarcoma.

Many members questioned our decision to pursue chemotherapy, advocating instead for “holistic” treatments they believed were more natural and less harmful. I didn’t expect my decision around Monty’s treatment to be controversial, but the experience brought home to me the deepening divide between scientific expertise and social media-fuelled scepticism towards it – a conflict that goes beyond veterinary care into broader domains of public trust in science. This attitude echoed for me the cultural schism that occurred during Covid.

The anti-science sentiment that dominated Facebook newsfeeds during the pandemic was not new. The past decade has seen a proliferation of groups on Facebook and other platforms opposing childhood vaccinations against such diseases as measles and rubella.

Alexandra Senter's pug Monty was diagnosed with cancer. Picture: Supplied

This trend fed into the Covid anti-vax hysteria and continues to bleed into areas such as pet care, creating a narrative where evidence-based treatments are dismissed as “unnatural”, “toxic” or worse, “cruel”.

The narrative surrounding chemotherapy, particularly for dogs, also reveals a broader misunderstanding about how medical treatments impact animals.

Unlike humans, dogs going through chemotherapy do not typically experience the severe side effects that many associate with cancer treatment. Less than 25 per cent of dogs have adverse reactions to chemotherapy.

Now, nine months after Monty’s two-week death sentence, and after a full round of intravenous chemotherapy, there is no visible change in his behaviour, no hair loss and certainly no lethargy or loss of appetite. He is still our happy little boy.

While some complementary therapies may improve a pet’s quality of life, most lack the rigorous scientific validation of efficacy and safety to warrant taking them seriously as primary treatments.

To pit alternative therapies against science-based evidence and making it a question of “ethics” does a disservice to pet owners, our pets and the difficult choices we face. Just as the anti-vax movement during the pandemic viewed recommended healthcare choices as “unnecessary” and “risky”, the wellness trend in pet care often mislabels what should be seen as a compassionate and informed choice.

There is no way around it, Monty’s emergency splenectomy and chemotherapy were expensive.

While Monty’s surgery was successful, the diagnosis was heartbreaking. Picture: Supplied

The cost of Monty’s treatment was no small thing to absorb. Picture: Supplied

Pre-existing conditions made him ineligible for pet insurance, so we bore the full cost. It was no small thing to absorb.

In the midst of a cost of living crisis, Australian families must often make hard decisions, humanely, responsibly and without judgement. They and their pets have a right to legitimate information. Many alternative treatments, while marketed as more natural, can be equally as expensive as those with a proven track record of therapeutic efficacy.

The organic concentrated powders and serums range between $50 to $150 for a small bottle, while many of the holistic treatments require online and in-person visits with an expensive pet homoeopath, or high-priced energy healing, raw diets, CBD oils and herbal supplements.

The quest for “natural” treatment does not supplant the cost and responsibility of being a responsible pet owner.

Elle McPherson has the right to “do her research” and decide against pursuing chemotherapy. Pets, like children, need advocacy from those who care for them. Pet owners must be able to make informed decisions based on available evidence, not a YouTube video titled “What they don’t want you to know”.

My husband and I are fully aware we are only “buying time” and that every pain-free day with Monty is a reminder of the support that science has afforded us in keeping our family together for as long as possible.

However, I have come to see how pet care, much like human healthcare, has become a battleground for competing ideologies.

Pet owners don’t want this. We want to be able to make informed decisions for our pets, without ideological bias or judgement. A balanced perspective is essential when considering any treatment that impacts a life in our care.

Alexandra Senter is the CEO of The Big Smoke and is a commentator on radio and TV