In their effect it may be.
:eek:
:eek:
Very interesting article. Actually made me think twice about my attitude toward non-traditional assistance animals.
I’m not going to be suckered into bait-and-switch arguments. This thread is about how ludicrous it is to claim any animal is a medical necessity, with no proof presented, and must be accommodated by everyone else. It’s so obvious that accommodating a person with a bottle of pills is not the same as accommodating a person with a dog, pig, or horse, that to engage in further argument about it is silly and ignorant.
If (as now seems likely) the notion of a service animal is broadened considerably, it will never be possible to draw an accurate line. Some cases that look wrong will in truth be valid (animal really is providing essential help) and many will be abuses (owner would simply like to have his pet along and knows that the fear of a lawsuit will stifle opposition).
It’s probably analogous to handicapped parking slots. No sensible person would argue with the concept, but the rate of valid & honest compliance is probably below 20%.
And the pet owner can always say “Having my pet with me makes me calmer and happier - who’s to say that isn’t a service?”
Really? What sort of accommodations did the other passengers have to make for the Yorkie in the OP?
As far as I’m concerned, any animal that doesn’t bother me doesn’t bother me. It IS exactly like a bottle of pills. *Misbehaving *animals are another matter, of course. But there’s no indication in the OP that the Yorkie bothered anyone, except insofar as people got self-righteous and “where’s MY cookie?!” about the whole thing.
I’d rather share a boat with a dozen polite Yorkies than one sanctimonious twit who can’t mind his own business.
They had to leave their pets home, perhaps paying for a kennel.
That’s not an accommodation for the Yorkie.
From the article **Fiveyearlurker **linked to.
And this is the problem with no set standards for training and certifying service animals.
No reputable training organization would have allowed these animals to graduate.
I have nothing against non-traditional service animals but they need to be properly trained for service in public areas.
Again, I’m not going to engage in bait and switch arguments. A dog is not the same as a bottle of pills.
You can qualify it with so long as it doesn’t bother you, but you are not the world. You don’t know which passengers were or were not bothered. And it doesn’t matter if they would or would not be bothered by other passengers dogs, a dog is not the same as a bottle of pills.
You can’t tell from the report that the dog did not misbehave, only that it wasn’t reported. And you can’t make any extension towards future scenarios with the same or other dogs. It’s irrelevant, because a dog is not the same as a bottle of pills.
Let’s stop the logical chicanery. A dog is not the same as a bottle of pills. No, not even on the bizarro-world of the SDMB.
I remember reading this article and being horrified by that story. I’d always thought that guide dogs had very strict standards, and that often dogs who were almost perfect but not quite ended up not being given to handicapped people but just adopted out as regular (and very ideal) pets because the standards were just not that high. But then, I suppose it’s not like one organization is doing the training.
But is there a guarantee that the dog will behave? I just think there has to be some standard. Everyone’s going to claim their dog is fine. I’d just like to see some guarantee that the dog will behave, won’t annoy people/bite, take a crap on the floor because there are some incredibly badly trained dogs out there. And if this dog isn’t actually certified, then we’re just going by the owner’s belief that the dog is well trained.
But that’s not the point. The argument isn’t that letting someone bring a little Yorkie on a cruise ship is somehow burdensome. The argument is about whether or not one passenger should be allowed to flout the rules that prevent other passengers from bringing their pets with them, simply by relabeling the pet a “service dog.”
That was *exactly *the point I was responding to:
Freudian Slit, they’re dogs. There is no guarantee, not for the valedictorian graduate of K-9 Akademy. Would I agree that it wouldn’t be unduly burdensome to carry a wallet sized card from an obedience school certifying the dog has had recent training and passed a minimum standard for deportment? Sure. I think that’s fair, and that doesn’t violate HIPAA. But demanding to know someone’s private medical condition so you can judge whether or not the animal is “really” needed is a violation of HIPAA, various state laws, and, if one wants to make a point, practicing medicine without a license.
You’re making an argument of utility, Una Persson is making an argument of fairness. It’ a concept I just read about in my sociology class.
Una is saying it isn’t fair to the other passengers who couldn’t bring their pets. This is true.
You’re saying it doesn’t cause them any extra trouble. This is also true.
The point of disagreement seems to be whether utility or fairness is most important.
My personal opinion is the “Depresion Dog” needs to be scrutinized by professionals. Just like anyone can’t get a handcap sticker cause they want it; they need to demonstrate a disability that makes them need one. Then neither should people be able to use service animals without demonstrating need.
I think that would be fair to the other passengers and anyone needs service animals. Also it’d prevent service animal abuse which would score high on the metric.
So my opinion is if that yorkie is a bottle of pills then it needs to be regulated just like a bottle of pills, or be treated just like another dog.
Sure, I’ll drink to that. Now, how do we do that so we don’t violate HIPPA or the ADA?
Change 'em.
Seriously. If a law has such a big loophole in it, a loophole that quickly becomes unworkable as more people take advantage of it, the law is flawed.
Think Kant. If everyone who wanted to bring their dog on a cruise took advantage of this loophole in the law, then suddenly the cruise ship would become a very different place. People who didn’t want dogs on a cruise ship (due to allergies, PTSD, or simple dislike of doggie behavior) would be unable to obtain the service they wanted. Untrained dogs would get into fights or shit in the hallway.
It is impossible for everyone who wants their dog along to take their dog along. THe law currently awards the least scrupulous people with extra privileges. That’s a flaw.
It’s at least possible that it does cause extra trouble: Some passengers may be allergic to pets, or have dog phobias, or simply want some time away from yapping animals.
They will certainly have checked, and have been encouraged to book the cruise by the “no pets” policy. They would probably find the very rare case of a valid service animal to be fully tolerable - especially since such animals tend to be conspicuously well behaved, far ahead of the average pet. They are likely to find a collection of “anti-depression” Yorkies rather, er, depressing.
ETA: something of a simulpost with LHoD.
See, here’s the real problem I have: people who put *depression *in scare quotes, like it’s not a worthy illness. Like this woman couldn’t possibly have a more functional and fully lived life when her Yorkie is with her. Like she couldn’t conceivably find this dog, trained or not, more therapeutic than drugs. And like the Yorkie couldn’t possible be a trained service dog. What, you think they only train black labs?
I would say, IF we change the law to require service animals to be dispensed only with a prescription, and if we further change it so that service animals have to be specially trained and licensed*, then they should be subject to the same rules and restrictions as any other doctor’s prescription. They may be carried anywhere, used as directed by the patient’s doctor, and the *only *person on a cruiseship who has the right to ask to see the prescription to verify it’s validity is the ship’s doctor or the guy working at customs, same as prescription drugs or medical equipment.
So you still don’t get to know why she has a Yorkie with her, or pass judgement on her.
*Which would be a pisser for the poor, of course.
I’d guess that 90% of the pet owners I know would say their life is better - more “fully lived” - with their pets around. (It’s kind of why people have pets.)
The problem is how do you safe guard the system from abuse? If there’s perceived “wide spread abuse” of the system it’s going to come under attack to detriment of people with honest needs.
The problem is how do we know she isn’t just saying she needs the Yorkie?