Paws for thought The moral maze of prolonging a pet's lifespan

Many cat or dog owners will happily pay for medicines that help their four-legged friends to live longer. But is itthe right thing to do?

- By Joel Snape

Last November, my family brought home a puppy. Frankie was eight weeks old when he came to live with us, and now, watching him bound around with my seven-year-old son, I don't want to imagine ever saying goodbye to him.

Well, maybe I won't need to, or rather, I can at least kick that day into the long grass, and buy Frankie some extra time. After all, scientific understanding of the mechanisms of ageing has never been better; there is a plethora of longevity products to choose from and more in the pipeline; and, thanks to research over the past decade, prescription-based longevity interventions that are now approaching FDA approval. All I have to do, it seems, is put in the time, care and (lots of) cash.

But should I do so? Don't our pets live long enough already? In the UK, the life expectancy for a dog is just over 11 years, while cats average 14. As a working cocker spaniel, Frankie should be with us for 12-15 years - old enough that he'll still be around when my son leaves home, just not long enough to see me into my dotage.

That's fine by me - let the cycle of life and death proceed apace. But the figures show that many of us are investing money and time into extending the lifespan of our four-legged friends. In the UK, the pet supplement industry is worth around $255m, with the overall pet market in the US set to reach a value of $200bn by 2030: this growth is driven partly by an increased spending on pharmaceuticals, diagnostic testing and vet bills. There are wearable activity trackers for dogs and cats, smart collars that collect sleep data and apps to analyse your pets' poop. But we're now seeing the emergence of something new: longevity-focused pills and injections that can address the more fundamental causes of pet mortality.