Woman is branded a 'bad person' after insisting pet owners should not take on 'life-altering medical debt' on behalf of their animals

From adorable pups to cuddly kittens, animals are valued members of many families, with a lot of owners claiming they would do anything for their furry friends.

So, when they're faced with an unexpected illness or injury, it can be a really difficult time for everyone involved. Owners are being forced to pay thousands of pounds in vet bills while some are even going abroad to avoid sky-high costs. 

A furious debate has been sparked on social media, after a woman insisted that pet owners should not take on 'life-altering medical debt' on behalf of an animal.

The X (formerly Twitter) user from Cleveland, Ohio, who goes by @realgirl_fieri, decided to share her controversial take on the topic - which has left a lot of people unhappy.

The tweet, which was posted yesterday, has already been seen by more than 7.2 million people, and has amassed 700 replies.  

A furious debate has been sparked on social media, after a woman insisted that pet owners should not take on 'life-altering medical debt' on behalf of an animal (stock image)

The tweet, which was posted yesterday, has already been seen by more than 7.2 million people, and has amassed 700 replies

Expanding on her point, the American added: 'If rehoming to a family who can more readily afford care is an option, that is a good option! 

'But potentially permanently altering your own financial situation for a pet is never a good idea.'

Some pet owners were in agreement, with one writing: 'Oh girl you're gonna get crucified for this but you are correct.'

A second quipped: 'Someone stuck up flyers in Manhattan with a link to a GoFundMe for their dog's brain cancer treatment, with a picture of the dog, that is clearly ancient. I think they might need to hear this.'

Meanwhile, a third chimed in with: 'Years ago I'd have disagreed SO hard but now after so many rescues I've taken in of cats and dogs, I am starting to agree with you. Vets can be absolutely vicious with over-testing and making you feel guilty.'

Someone who had battled the tough dilemma themselves admitted: 'Amen! They thought our dog probably maybe had a brain tumor because he showed all the signs but it would be $6K to find out, and sadly no.'

Another reasoned: 'I didn't take on debt but I did spend $6k to save our dog in February. 

'It was an emergency surgery situation and my heart won out. I don't regret it but it was a big hit to my savings and I wouldn't judge anyone for making a different choice.'

Some pet owners were in agreement, with one writing: 'Oh girl you're gonna get crucified for this but you are correct'

Another user argued: 'Life-altering medical debt for animals - and HUMANS - just shouldn't exist. People should NOT be forced to give up their pets because they can't afford to treat them.'

However, some people were furious with the contentious opinion, calling her a 'bad person' and demanding she should never have a pet.

One owner remarked: 'If you aren’t prepared to cover the costs and you don’t take out insurance you don’t deserve your pet.'

A second wrote: 'If you're that type of person who'd rather let their animal die than try to find medical care, never get a pet.

'When you get an animal you accept they will have health issues at some point and need care. If you don't want that responsibility, don't get one. Simple.'

Others simply penned: 'Don't ever have a pet then' and 'I don't care. Money comes and goes, a friend is forever.'

'You should not get a pet without pet insurance' and 'You had to say it on National Pet Day?' quipped X users.

Another pet owner wrote: 'I spent 10,000 keeping my dog alive. I'd never regret it. Don't have animals if you can't afford to care for them.' 

However, some people were furious with the contentious opinion, calling her a 'bad person' and demanding she should never have a pet

'There's so much I wanna say here but I won't. You're entitled to your opinion. But I'll just say simply. Respectively, NO' added another angry owner. 

The heated debate comes just after the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) warned pet owners may be paying too much at the vet for their animal's medicine, prescriptions and care.

The CMA's review found that consumers may not be given enough information - including price lists - to enable them to choose the best practice and treatment for their pet.

Caitlin Dolan, 25, told how her cat, named Precious, passed away because she couldn't 'even begin to afford' the £3,000 bill she was quoted for tests and treatments.

Ms Dolan, who took her cat to the vet because it seemed lethargic, told the BBC the 'emotional toll' of not being able to afford the bill was 'incredible'.

'We couldn't even begin to afford it. The emotional toll was incredible,' she said.

Ms Dolan added that the vets 'weren't really willing' to tell her what was wrong with her cat 'without going through £3,000 worth of tests and treatment'.

Meanwhile, a cat owner told MailOnline they were 'outraged' after they were quoted £5,000 for a surgery on their tabby who had a broken leg after she was hit by a car when their insurance only covered £4,000.