The ethical perspectives of using animals in pediatric health

Abstract

While there are ethical standards for human biomedical research, animals have historically not benefitted from the same levels of protection. Cultural shifts in response to studies demonstrating animal capacity to suffer have resulted in laws defining minimum ethical standards for the treatment of various animal populations. However, none of these pertain to service or therapy animals nor do they define ethical considerations regarding training, placement, environment, and duty limitations specific to this population. The potential for harm and inability to provide consent should raise ethical questions of animal assisted interventions (AAI), including how to best balance the risk: benefit ratio for both animal and human participants.While service animals have specific definitions, therapy and emotional support animals are much less clearly defined and therefore have far less standardized practices regarding their training, certification, and process for matching to handlers. This can lead to animals being inadequately trained to cope with the stresses of their jobs or being placed in incompatible environments. Meanwhile, service animals’ duties are constant, and the animal has little ability to consent to or withdraw from participation, leading to overwork, without the opportunity to engage in activities that align with the animals’ natural preferences. Emotional support animals are the least defined of these populations, receive no formal training, and are at increased risk of inadequate care, unstable housing, and abuse from handlers who may also be poorly prepared to properly handle their needs.To uphold our moral obligations to the animals that serve to improve our own mental wellness and physical independence, urgent actions are needed to improve the protections in place for these populations.