I’ve written previously about the ethical challenges of writing letters for emotional support animals. Because of recent developments that have been reported in the news regarding this topic, it’s time for an update.
I think most, if not all, therapists would agree that the presence of an animal can be very beneficial. More specifically, the soothing nature of a loved pet can help reduce anxiety. This is one of the major reasons for the increased popularity of emotional support animals. According to the Official ESA Registration of America, emotional support animals are “animals that provide therapeutic benefits to their owner through affection and companionship.”
But do the rights of the anxious trump the rights of the public? There are some businesses who are pushing back.
Delta, for example, has now established new rules that make it more difficult to bring emotional support animals on a plane. Because there are no standards for licensor or certification of emotional support animals, they can and do misbehave. Whereas anything from random urination to constant barking is certainly annoying, there was one case where a passenger was bitten repeatedly on their face by an emotional support animal, requiring hospitalization. Read more about Delta’s experiences here.
Forget barking, urination and biting for a moment. What about people who have animal phobias? Or just don’t like them? Because emotional support animals are allowed in spaces that are normally pet-free, the encounter of an animal may be an unwelcome surprise to people with an animal phobia. Should the person with a dog phobia be forced to be around one because someone else can’t leave their house without their dog? In these cases, one person’s soother is another person’s trigger. Is this really fair?
Is a letter by a mental health professional a guarantee the person has been thoroughly evaluated?
Recently, I was contacted by a company that offered to hire me to write letters for clients who need emotional support animals. Although they stated I was free to evaluate the client in any way I saw fit, they were only offering to pay me $25 per letter. Looking at the economics, there’s no way I could make money from this unless I didn’t bother to properly evaluate the client. Therefore, I can’t imagine that other therapists working for such companies are doing thorough evaluations.
In sum, although animals can be a great comfort, should they be allowed in public spaces that were previously designated as pet-free? The lack of standards in evaluation is allowing people to take advantage of the system, resulting in unwanted exposure for the public. Further, there’s the clinical argument as to whether the animal is really helping in a long-term way. Some clinicians believe people need to focus internally to develop long-term coping strategies rather than depending on an animal.
More to come, I’m sure, on this interesting topic!
Yours in the Joy of Knowledge,
Dr. Barb Lofrisco
