Are There Ethical and Legal Limits to Emotional Comfort?

"Creature comforts" have been usually defined as "things that contribute to bodily comfort and ease of mind as food, warmth or sleeping facilities" (The Free Dictionary). However, the "creature" in that definition is us. What if it is animal creatures that have been selected to provide the human with psychological comfort? And now we are talking about "emotional support animals" (ESA), which are a variety of animals which provide emotional comfort for their emotionally ill owner but unlike dogs for the deaf or blind or psychotic patients which are trained for specific duties, these emotional support animals are untrained but after being prescribed by a physician or psychologist or other therapist, the animal's owner has been provided with certain legal rights under federal and state laws to keep the animal with them in housing and travel.

Here is an excerpt from "Comfort Creatures" in the April 22 2013 issue of

Time Magazine: "Petey the pig contains multitudes. He is a beloved member of the Forgione household in suburban Whitestone, Queens. He is a bona fide form of prescription medicine. He is an enemy of the New York City department of

health. And on a spring afternoon walk with his owner, Danielle Forgione, 1-year-old Petey is just a pig pursuing wholesome piggish endeavors: snorting, grazing, rooting through the dirt, searching out bugs." Read the article.

A variety of animals have been used for emotional comfort from dogs, cats, pigs, horses, birds and even lizards. Though ESA have been shown to be of value to those in emotional distress, they all have not been fully accepted by others in all

environments. Indeed as of March 15 2011 in a revision of the Americans with Disabilities Act, those creatures which are not trained to perform specific services to a patient are no longer considered "service animals" and are no longer permitted in environments where they pose problems with regard to safety, sanitation or disturbance. A question can be asked as towhy in our society it is necessary to turn to lower animals to provide emotional comfort? Is there no adequate benefit available from inter-personal relationships. Or is a common denominator of the discomforted patient

the lack of personal ability to develop a helpful relationship with another person who could provide needed emotional support?

The issue of providing emotional comfort can be looked at beyond the use of ESA but also with regard to drug and alcohol abuse and other behaviors which society might look upon unfavorably. Beyond the treatments utilized for comfort, there is the overriding question of whether attempting to maintain emotional comfort is always an ethical "good" and should always be encouraged including with legal support if necessary. Does such comfort always provide a path to the betterment of the

individual or society? Shouldn't emotional discomfort be considered a natural and acceptable challenge to stimulate the individual to make constructive changes with improvements in his or her life and perhaps even in addition better the life of

others? What is your opinion regarding use of ESA but also that of the primacy of maintaining emotional comfort under all circumstances?  ..Maurice.

Graphic: From Wikimedia commons