All Paws on Board?
Examining the Prevalence and Controversies
Surrounding Emotional Support Animals
Rachel S. Carson
March 19 2021 10 Minute Read
Emotional Support Animals in the Media & Related Policies
With the recent news of airlines becoming stricter on allowing emotional support animals on board, there have been more discussions surrounding Emotional Support Animals and their legitimacy. The breaking news story of the “Emotional Support Peacock'' sent Media consumers into a tailspin. While the new law enacted by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in January 2020 will still allow individual airlines to allow ESAs to their discretion, if the allowance is still there, passengers will have to pay a pet fee of up to $175 (NPR, 2020). Additionally, the “policy enhancement” enacted by DOT no longer classifies ESAs as service animals. The timing of this new policy is also peculiar amidst COVID-19, as several sources, including the Financial Times have shared anecdotes on how animals have served a crucial role as a “mental-health hero” during COVID-19 (Forbes, 2021)
The concept of emotional support animals (ESA’s) has become a buzzword over the last few years. However, there is much confusion on what they actually are, and oftentimes, ESAs are confused with other therapy and service animals. Based on some of these misconceptions, some important questions to address are: What is the definition of an ESA? How are they different from service and therapy animals? Why has their legitimacy come under fire?
In relation to the recent DOT rule, disability advocates, including Curt Decker, Executive Director of the National Disability Rights Network, says that while he understands some of the reasoning behind the new policy, fears that it will discriminate against individuals who cannot afford to pay the pet fee and otherwise benefit from having an ESA to assist with monitoring stress levels, as flying can be a fearful or traumatic experience for some (NPR, 2020).
In order to explore these questions, we’ll first define what an emotional support animal is, the distinguishing features between service, therapy, and ESA’s, their increasing popularity, as well as some recent criticisms surrounding their credibility. Lastly, we’ll explore what the future landscape may look like for these support animals.
What is an Emotional Support Animal?
An Emotional Support Animal (ESA) has been defined as a type of therapy, that is prescribed to an individual with mental health problems by a medical provider. Although service dogs can also be used for psychiatric purposes, the difference among these two classifications of these types of animals lies in the training – one is innate and the other has undergone extensive training (Huss, 2005). Pertaining to ESAs, it should also be noted that they are only protected under the law in two ways 1.) They are allowed in no animal housing and the landlord is not able to charge an additional fee and 2) ESAs are allowed to fly outside a carrier, or in a cabin on any U.S. flights. More recently, there have been policies attempting to modify the latter of the two protections.
It is also noted that the steps in qualifying an animal as an ESA are quite simple. The steps include: Having a diagnosis recognized by the DSM 4th edition, that the person is currently undergoing ongoing care for the mental disorder and the individual providing the treatment is licensed to assess such diagnoses and provide a letter documenting the ESA. However, some of the controversies lie in individuals who may attempt to purchase ESA documentation not serviced by an official mental health professional. There have also been reports of individuals attempting to dress their ESAs in service vests in order to gain their ESAs additional clearance.
Differences between ESAs, Service Animals, andTherapy Animals
While an ESA primarily serves a purpose of providing comfort and emotional support to those experiencing a psychological disability, they do not require specialized training and consequently have more restrictions as compared to therapy and services animals. Therapy animals may or may not assist individuals experiencing a psychological disability and typically work with a trained professional such as a counselor, physical therapist, or social worker. Additionally, they are not guaranteed access to public areas (Parenti, Foreman, Meade, & Wirth, 2013). Lastly, the ADA defines service animals as “dogs that are individually trained to work or perform tasks for those with disabilities (US Department of Justice). There is a sub-category, which includes psychiatric service dogs that assist individuals in carrying out specific tasks to help individuals that are experiencing a range of psychological conditions including Major Depressive Disorder, PTSD, Bipolar disorder, panic attacks, OCD, and schizophrenia (Taylor, Edwards, & Pooley, 2013). It should be noted that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) allows service animals access to all public areas. Specifically Title I of the ADA covers employment, requiring that all employers make reasonable accommodations for those who require and/or benefit from service dogs (Nagele-Piazza, 2021). One area of confusion lies in that animals may receive multiple designations, for example, a therapist with an ESA also registering as a therapy animal, potentially leading to further confusion on how the animal should be classified and which clearances should be granted (Schoenfeld-Tacher, Hellyer, Cheung, & Kogan, 2017).
Benefits
Some potential benefits of the human-animal interaction include several psychological, physiological, and emotional benefits through interacting with animals (Barker, Rogers, Turker, Karph, & Suthers-Mccabe 2003; Hanrahan, 2013). Specifically, a study by Nelson & Kogan (2009) revealed that participants’ levels of oxytocin, a neuropeptide associated with socialization, bonding, as well as stress relief, actually increased following interacting with or petting a dog. Another study by Colarelli, et al. (2017) found evidence of increased instances of prosocial behaviors, verbal cohesion, and increased cooperation among groups with dogs, while working on group decision-making and problem solving, as compared to the control group. While these studies had different focus areas in examining the dog-human relationship, all revealed promising findings that could translate into positive implications within the workplace setting. So, despite these benefits, why are there so many criticisms and pushbacks surrounding having ESAs?
Misconceptions and Abusing Policies
Perhaps some of the most notable frustrations surrounding ESAs originate from their perceived disruptiveness in certain environments (airline, workplace, etc). There are also varying legitimacies of different animals (e.g., dogs vs. pigs) to those with disabilities.
Misconceptions surrounding the expanding definition of disabilities through Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) also pose questions regarding defining those disabilities that aren’t clearly visible (Wendell, 1996). While ESAs do receive some recognition, other businesses by law are not required to accommodate ESAs. Additionally, as of late 2020, the American Disability Association did not consider stress and anxiety as conditions that may require a service dog (SHRM, 2020). These may include restaurants, retail, college campuses and universities, as well as other places of employment.
Although it’s been recognized that individuals experiencing conditions such as stress, anxiety, PTSD, or depression, may be more productive and likely to function better in the presence of their ESA, oftentimes, they are not able to receive this accommodation (Price, 2017; NPR, 2020). If allowing employees to bring their ESA into the workplace would allow them to be healthier, happier, and more productive in the workplace, why isn’t this avenue being explored?
Where Do We Go From Here?
In examining the past and present implications of ESAs, it’s been noted that animals have been instrumental for several people navigating through stressful experiences, notably that of COVID-19. While we experienced a different type of world last year- both personally and professionally, many individuals began working from home, in which they found their pets as their new coworkers. As some organizations begin to shift back to “in-person” work, there is a question of whether employees should be able to bring their pets into the workplace when they return. Although there are positives, there are also several concerns surrounding these potential new policies. While some organizations like Zappos have been recognized for allowing animals into the workplace under their “holacracy” culture, it appears that other organizations are hesitant to follow in their footsteps.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there is a “one size fits all” approach in this type of situation. However, one potential avenue may be for the employer and employee to partner and discuss a strategy that works for them, especially if the presence of an ESA allows the employee to complete the essential functions of the job. If this accommodation cannot be granted, perhaps the employer may consider allowing the employee to continue working from home so that they can be with their ESA. Although media portray of ESAs may be the culprit of some of these more recent controversies, it is still important to consider the implications individuals who rely on their ESAs may experience. In partnering with employers, businesses, and other organizations, in exploring potential accommodations, perhaps this may serve as a first step towards legitimizing the need for ESAs, as well as validating these individuals’ experiences.
SOURCES
Barker, S. B., Rogers, C. S., Turner, J. W., Karpf, A. S., & Suthers-Mccabe, H. M. (2003). Benefits
of Interacting With Companion Animals: A Bibliography of Articles Published in Refereed
Journals During the Past 5 Years. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(1), 94–99.
doi:10.1177/0002764203255215
Hanrahan, C. (2013). Social work and human animal bonds and benefits in health research: A
provincial study. Critical Social Work, 14(1), 63-79.
Huss, Rebecca (2005), “No Pets Allowed: Housing Issues and Companion Animals”.
Kolmes, Susan. (2020). Are emotional support animals prosthetics or pets? Body-like rights to
emotional support animals. Journal of Medical Ethics, medethics–2020–
106205. doi:10.1136/medethics-2020-106205
Parenti, L.; Foreman, A.; Meade, B.J.; Wirth, O. A revised taxonomy of assistance animals. J.
Rehabil. Res. Dev. 2013, 50, 745–756. doi: 10.1682/JRRD.2012.11.0216
Price, Margaret. “What is a Service Animal? A Careful Re-thinking.” Review of Disability Studies:
An International Journal 13, no. 4 (2017): 1–18.
Schaper, D. (2020, December 08). No More Emotional Support Peacocks As Feds Crack Down
On Service Animals On Planes. Retrieved March 16, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/
2020/12/08/944128033/no-more-emotional-support-peacocks-
as-feds-crack-down-on-service-animals-on-plan
Taylor, M.F.; Edwards, M.E.; Pooley, J.A. “Nudging them back to reality”: Toward a growing
public acceptance of the role dogs fulfill in ameliorating contemporary veterans’ PTSD
symptoms. Anthrozoös 2013, 26, 593–611. doi: 10.2752/175303713X13795775535896
Wendell, S. (1996), “The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability.”
Wlodarczyk, J. (2019). When pigs fly: emotional support animals, service dogs and the politics of
legitimacy across species boundaries. Medical Humanities, 45(1), 82–91. doi:10.1136/
medhum-2018-011625
US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. Service Animals. ADA Requirements. Available
online: https://www.ada.gov/service_animals_2010.htm (accessed on 16 March 2021).