Once commonplace pets in our yards have transitioned, for better or worse, into pampered “fur babies.” The American Veterinary Medical Association recently noted that pet owners are anticipated to spend nearly $1 billion on pet costumes this year. While many consider this harmless entertainment, the increasing trend of treating pets like surrogate children can pose significant risks to the health and well-being of the animals involved.

The ancestors of today’s fur babies belonged to a group of small, domesticated carnivores within the Canis and Felis genera, distributed worldwide. Even though these pets often have a shorter lifespan, they provide immense joy, companionship, and health benefits to their human companions, teaching children respect for animals and their basic needs.

Additionally, pets offer educational advantages, such as helping individuals experience and process non-human death, preparing them for the loss of human loved ones. Most pets receive basic necessities like food, water, shelter, and vaccinations, along with names that represent their traits or characteristics (e.g., Fido, Sooty, Rover). Crucially, many are assured a relatively peaceful end before the wear of old age diminishes their quality of life.

The shift from pets to fur babies can be attributed to various factors, including an overemphasis on the human-animal bond, rising affluence, lack of understanding of animals’ biological requirements, rampant consumerism, and reckless (though well-intentioned) anthropomorphism. The principal causes and effects of fur baby culture are intensifying and spreading globally. This is evident not only in the availability of costumes for special occasions but also in items like strollers, jewelry, perfumes, diapers, nail polish, hair dye, elaborate birthday cakes, and designer shoes, all coupled with access to “gold standard” veterinary care.

Research indicates that fur babyism negatively impacts both physical and psychological health. For example, while strollers may assist injured or arthritic pets, excessive use for otherwise healthy dogs can result in muscle atrophy, joint issues, and obesity. Limiting a fur baby’s mobility curtails their instinct to explore, mark territory, and interact with their environment, which can lead to anxiety and fear.

Given these potential risks, one might expect the veterinary community to collectively oppose the fur baby trend. Surprisingly, this isn’t always the case. There’s a shift from outright condemnation to capitalizing on it, which is concerning. Encouraging excessive treatments, like radiotherapy for older animals, can further jeopardize animal welfare without necessarily enhancing health.

A pet owner’s affection is commendable as long as it prioritizes the animal’s well-being, ensuring they are free from pain and suffering. However, veterinarians who exploit an owner’s misplaced affection for profit through unnecessary, invasive, and costly tests and procedures lack ethical justification.

All caregivers should contemplate the distress caused by misclassifying an animal’s needs—treating them as a human child rather than as a pet. Veterinarians who cater to the fur baby trend ought to know better.

Eddie Crutchin I am a co-author of Veterinary Controversies and Ethical Dilemmas (Routledge)