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.
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.
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".
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.
>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.
(Not that this always happens)