5 ms·

Who says that emotional support can even be measured by science? In other words who cares? If you are lacking in emotional support, and then start receiving i

Who says that emotional support can even be measured by science? In other words who cares? If you are lacking in emotional support, and then start receiving it, you don't need science to validate your experience. You just know.

probably_wrong 9y ago
> In other words who cares? Landlords, for one, who have to deal with tenants that argue their E.S. animal should be excepted from the "no pets" policy. Also H.R. departments (what if an employee brings a bird to work?), hospitals, and places where food is served ("Waiter! That guy's dog licked my plate!"). It's one of those situations in which the potential for abuse is pretty big, and so there's an actual interest in differentiating "this dog helps me cope with life" from "you have to allow this untrained animal here thanks to poorly defined laws and paperwork with no clear meaning".
- iamcasen 9y ago
  If it's legal to own a pet, then in my opinion, it cannot be made illegal for a pet to live anywhere. The fact that hotels, businesses, landlords, or whatever can deny entry to a pet is simply ridiculous. The same rules for humans should apply. If the pet is a nuisance, or destructive, or loud or whatever, then that pet can be removed just like a human would be removed in the same circumstances.
tinymollusk 9y ago
I agree on an individual level. In order to develop policies, however, it's important to base decisions on the truth. (Not that this always happens)
- leohutson 9y ago
  Policies should take also into account individual preferences and freedom. Individual freedoms should only be taken away if there is evidence good evidence that they are causing significant harm to others at a group level or individual level. Mild inconvenience to others is not a significant enough problem to take away emotional support animals, because owners clearly value them highly.
jahewson 9y ago
Personal experience != measurable clinical outcomes on a population level.
astura 9y ago
The article addresses this: >So if you want to say that “my pet makes me feel good and it’s fun,” that’s great. You don’t really need lots of evidence for that. >But with these emotional support animals, we’re talking about what is essentially a prescription from doctors to people with clinically significant symptoms. When we talk about that, there are very specific standards of evidence for psychiatric and psychological treatment, and these have not met that standard.

probably_wrong 9y ago

> In other words who cares? Landlords, for one, who have to deal with tenants that argue their E.S. animal should be excepted from the "no pets" policy. Also H.R. departments (what if an employee brings a bird to work?), hospitals, and places where food is served ("Waiter! That guy's dog licked my plate!"). It's one of those situations in which the potential for abuse is pretty big, and so there's an actual interest in differentiating "this dog helps me cope with life" from "you have to allow this untrained animal here thanks to poorly defined laws and paperwork with no clear meaning".

iamcasen 9y ago
If it's legal to own a pet, then in my opinion, it cannot be made illegal for a pet to live anywhere. The fact that hotels, businesses, landlords, or whatever can deny entry to a pet is simply ridiculous. The same rules for humans should apply. If the pet is a nuisance, or destructive, or loud or whatever, then that pet can be removed just like a human would be removed in the same circumstances.

tinymollusk 9y ago

I agree on an individual level. In order to develop policies, however, it's important to base decisions on the truth. (Not that this always happens)

leohutson 9y ago
Policies should take also into account individual preferences and freedom. Individual freedoms should only be taken away if there is evidence good evidence that they are causing significant harm to others at a group level or individual level. Mild inconvenience to others is not a significant enough problem to take away emotional support animals, because owners clearly value them highly.

jahewson 9y ago

Personal experience != measurable clinical outcomes on a population level.

astura 9y ago

The article addresses this: >So if you want to say that “my pet makes me feel good and it’s fun,” that’s great. You don’t really need lots of evidence for that. >But with these emotional support animals, we’re talking about what is essentially a prescription from doctors to people with clinically significant symptoms. When we talk about that, there are very specific standards of evidence for psychiatric and psychological treatment, and these have not met that standard.