Talk:Therapy dog

Enjoyed the Nat'l Geographic Article

Good addition, Elf. Josie and I just recently got therapy dog certified. We've visited hospitals one evening a week the last three weeks. The "magic" the dogs work on patients is immediately evident.Wcrowe 03:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good for you! I got 2 of my dogs tested and one passed and the other was "great BUT you need to work on him jumping on people first." Duh. He didn't jump much and wasn't rough about it, but of course that's too much for therapy dogs. At the time, he was 7 and my older guy was about to turn 9 and I just let it slide and didn't go back for training... Now I have a wild & crazy young dog who's not at all suitable for therapy, and my older guy is almost 13 (jeez, hard to believe it was that long ago!) and I'll have to wait for another life or a different dog to try again, if I can tear myself away from agility long enough. Elf | Talk 05:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Probable Incorrect Information

A recent change to the article states that an ADA certified therapy dog can legally accompany an owner anywhere. I believe this information is erroneous for two reasons: First, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is the law, not a certifying organization. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as an "ADA-certified" dog. Secondly, my research indicates that therapy dogs cannot fit the category of service animals, despite what they may be called by certain people or groups. Here is an excerpt of a transcript of a webcast sponsored by the Disability Law Resource Project at the Independent Living Research Utilization staff at The Institute for Rehabilitation and Research affiliated with the Baylor College of Medicine. The person speaking is Sally Conway of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.

I think part of the problem is that we have so many different labels and descriptions for animals that may in fact be service animals and somebody else using that same term for a different animal that may not be a service animal. Generally speaking, if we're talking about therapy, comfort, emotional support animals -- and I think those typically are used interchangeably. Those are not going to be service animals under the ADA because they haven't been trained to -- remember that three-part -- that definition, they haven't been trained to do work or perform a task for the benefit of an individual with a disability. Typically, comfort, emotional support animals by their very presence certainly performs a valuable service, but it's an innate ability. It's their mere presence. It doesn't reach the level of having been trained to do work or perform tasks. So if I am -- if I am using those terms sort of -- I hope that I'm using them correctly. They would not be covered. And, again, we would look at not necessarily what the animal is called because different people call different animals different things, we look at what service it performs on behalf of that individual with a disability. I mean, and I know that there are issues of companion animals and I'm not really sure what a companion animal is. Again, the bottom line is what does that animal do for that individual with a disability? If the presence of the animal -- the mere presence performs -- you know, it meets the need of that individual with a disability, I think it's absolutely critical and it's wonderful, but as we talk about the definition as of today, that is not a service animal under the ADA.

So the problem arises because some people use the term "therapy dog" to describe a comfort or companion animal. Such animals are not true therapy dogs. Therefore, I think the recent additional text referring to ADA-certified therapy dogs should be deleted.The Dogfather 18:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing that you're right about that, but I have no info one way or t'other. Perhaps the original poster has more clarifying info? If not forthcoming shortly, the info shd probably be removed based on this info. Elf | Talk 22:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the ADA simply states "Service animals are defined as dogs that are individually trained to do work or perform tasks for people with disabilities. Examples of such work or tasks include guiding people who are blind, alerting people who are deaf, pulling a wheelchair, alerting and protecting a person who is having a seizure, reminding a person with mental illness to take prescribed medications, calming a person with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during an anxiety attack, or performing other duties. Service animals are working animals, not pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person’s disability. Dogs whose sole function is to provide comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA." This being the case any doctor treating someone for PTSD can write a prescription stating that the persons pet is a certified PTSD service dog. I've seen it done.voiceofreason 18:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs)

I think the ADA needs to offer clearer definitions. It appears that some therapy dogs are service dogs, and some are not. This situation only confuses the public. In the situation Mcgyver2k describes, a physician writing a script stating that a pet is a certified PTSD dog, it is a disaster waiting to happen. This is because many personal pets have no business being in public places. I'll let the edit stand for now, but you should provide a better citation for the article than "I've seen it done."The Dogfather (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the ADA should clear this up. What they have done is open the barn door for anyone and everyone to simply get their doctor to write a prescription stating that the persons pet is somehow magically transformed into a service animal. Abuse of the system will be even more rampant now. Not sure if you were tracking the Vietnam Veteran with PTSD who threw a fit the other day on U.S. Airlines and got kicked off the plane but it sounds like he is a classic example of this. As for providing a 'better' citation, I provided one to the actual definitive source (ADA website) so not quite sure what you are looking for. As for you "letting the edit stand" I was unaware that you owned either Wikipedia or this page. I guess I should bow wow down to you (pun intended).208.79.15.49 (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

We're all editors here, and all have the ability to remove sections that are unreferenced. Lots of eyes on the articles produces quality -- at least that's the theory at Wikipedia. If you follow the history back you will see that I created this article nine years ago, so yes I do feel a certain responsibility towards its content and quality, and I watch it closely. The citation you provided simply quoted the ADA rules, which say nothing about certified therapy dogs being classified as service dogs. You really should have a citation that confirms that.The Dogfather (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand your intent but I think your execution could have possibly been a bit less confrontational. You are correct that you could simply edit my comment out but I could simply put it back and we could do that daily. Probably would do much more harm than good though and I hope you'd agree on that. My whole point was that one person stated that a dog that simply provides emotional support doesn't qualify it as a "service animal" is incorrect according to the ADA definition. Therefore, legally and technically, that person is wrong. Do I agree with that statement "that it's not really a service animal"? Yes I do but I am not the "authority", the ADA is. I see a huge loophole that can be, and is being, exploited by people that will have the end result of bringing discredit to the service animal community. Due to the ambiguous wording of the ADA rule anyone can simply claim to have a disability without even stating what the disability is and claim that their dog is a "service animal" and that's the end of it. No need to prove you have any disability or that the animal is officially trained as "certification" is not even required. In that scope, people with PTSD (or that simply want to take their animal places others can't) can and are exploiting the loophole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcgyver2k (talk • contribs) 07:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)