I guess the answer to that question depends on your point of view.

The author of this recent column in the Sydney Morning Herald sure seems to think it is.  But, as with most such arguments (see here for a similar recent post, which refers to this column), it largely misses the point.

There are a couple of issues here.  The first is a misunderstanding of the cost of care.  Any argument that veterinary care is more expensive than comparable human medical care totally ignores the true cost of human medical care.  Human medical care is vastly more expensive than veterinary medical care -- however, most humans in the developed world rarely pay anything close to the full cost of their medical care.  Rather, this cost is underwritten by the state (with government-run health care programs) and/or by private insurers (the cost of which is borne by employers, including the self employed).  The fact that the client bears the full cost of veterinary care only makes it seem like it is more expensive.

  **********  

Second, these arguments almost always provide -- as is the case in that column -- one or more anecdotes of people who could not afford to pay for the care for their pet without extraordinary measures (such as remortgaging a home).  All I can say is that people make choices.  If they choose to have a pet they take responsibility for it and they should be going into it with an awareness that part of that responsibility is providing veterinary care that may be costly.  Furthermore, no one forces an owner to pay $12,000 for cancer care for their pet.  For some people, costly procedures to extend a quality life for their companion animal are worth it.  If one does not think so, there are less expensive palliative care measures that can make an animal comfortable until euthanasia or natural death.  As with most things in a comparatively wealthy country like ours, this is about choices by those who choose to own animals. 

Finally, the author of the column in the Sydney paper raises the issue of the magnitude of these costs in contrast to the significant poverty and suffering in the world.  There is nothing particularly special about this argument as applied to veterinary medicine.  These are choices people of some means in any developed country must wrestle with in any decision they make about paying for a lifestyle that far exceeds that of those in poverty around the world.  I do think, though, that the veterinary profession does have to acknowledge this contrast --  we have to prepare professionals to deliver very expensive, state-of-the-art care for companion animals in the developed world while at the same time training individuals with the skills needed to tackle global animal health problems in an attempt to improve the health and economic well being of billions of people who live in poverty (for example, this is the mission of our School for Global Animal Health).  The contrast is striking...and worth some consideration.