Imagine this scenario:

You are booked on a full flight to LA, coach class, of course, window seat. The middle seat next to you remains vacant right up to departure. At the last moment, in comes a twenty-something young fellow to claim his seat. You notice he is carrying an odd looking bundle. Once seated, he proceeds to unwrap his python (emotional support pet, that is). Horrified, you say, "Isn't there a law against this?" Actually, thanks to a 2003 ruling by the Department of Transportation, scenes like this happen regularly. I used the snake for shock effect, but airlines report accommodating (in the passenger cabin) dogs, of course, but also cats, monkeys, miniature horses, goats, and yes, even an emotional support duck.

Here is an excerpt summarizing the 2003 ruling:

[More:]

It clarified policies regarding disabled passengers on airplanes, stating for the first time that animals used to aid people with emotional ailments like depression or anxiety should be given the same access and privileges as animals helping people with physical disabilities like blindness or deafness.

Of course, it is not just airlines that are dealing with this but restaurants, spas, hotels, and pet-free rental properties. The reason I highlight this insanity is that it is symptomatic of the therapeutic, "me first" culture that we live in today. Never mind the rights, fears, or allergies of the other person!

How pathetic it is that our best friends and emotional support is coming from non-humans. NYT Columnist, Timothy Egan prophetically commented in a March 2001 column, "More than ever, people view their dogs as family, with all the inherent rights of the dominant species without tails. The anthropomorphizing of four legged creatures has come to city halls, courtrooms and state legislatures across the country."

Naturally the system is being abused. Basically all you need is a letter from your psychiatrist, or better yet just go to the Internet and purchase a vest for your pet and a wallet-sized card explaining the rights of a support dog owner.

While no one questions the value of the trained animals who help the disabled, this loophole allows Susie, who can't stand the idea of flying without her Labradoodle (untrained, only knowing how to lick and wag) to abuse the system.

How should Christians respond to people needing this type of emotional support in ministry settings? Listen to this story from a friend: The new member of our study insisted that she NEEDED to bring her service dog with her to class for emotional and psychological support. It seems that she has a very difficult time relating to people, and being wheelchair bound, she felt that the dog helped her to break the ice. People would talk to the dog, then to her, etc. They chose not to allow this since they had the following policy for children-- We do not let 2 year olds bring “support objects” (pacifiers, blankets, comfort toys) because we are training them to trust Jesus who is living and not a Binky or a Blankey that just feels good. So, we told the lady this applied as well to her. The policy on pets only allowed service dogs for those physically impaired. The lady stayed in nearly a year.

The article about Emotional Support Pets was in the NY Times on May 14, 2006.

Anybody think we are being unreasonable to question this?

Wendell

Comments:

Comments are closed for this post.