On Fido Not Being A Doctor
In Hal Herzog’s “Fido’s No Doctor. Neither is Whiskers” in today’s New York Times, the author questions the conventional wisdom that pets and other animals are good for the emotional and physical well being of humans. Though there have been studies that have indeed demonstrated benefits of the companionship of pets or of therapy using animals or even of swimming with dolphins, Herzog warns that the evidence isn’t as one-sided as we tend to hear.
A 2006 survey of Americans by the Pew Research Center, for instance, reported that living with a pet did not make people any happier. Similarly, a 2000 Australian study of mortality rates found no evidence that pet owners lived any longer than anyone else. And last year Dutch researchers concluded that companion animals had no effect on their owners’ physical or mental well-being. Worse, in 2006, epidemiologists in Finland reported that pet owners were more likely than non-pet owners to suffer from sciatica, kidney disease, arthritis, migraines, panic attacks, high blood pressure and depression.
Part of me wants more studies to find that there are no actual benefits to people, because I know that people will tend to use that evidence as yet another reason to breed sentient nonhumans or seize them from their homes and families to exploit them through businesses purportedly created to help people. Another part of me says that if we can rehabilitate animals who are going to be killed and take them around to hospitals or nursing homes or libraries, that seems like a much better deal for them than death. And yet another part says: That doesn’t have to be the choice; it’s a false choice but given the dearth of no-kill counties and cities in America, it’s a realistic choice.
When people are using their own beloved pets to help calm children as they read (as many greyhound owners do), that’s hardly anything to get all riled up about. But when we realized certain breeds could help people by being guide dogs, look what happened: an industry (which you may or may not agree with). The more helpful we believe animals are, the more likely we are to exploit them. Meanwhile, the more helpful we believe they are to us, the more we like them and value them, as well.
As long as they’re cute.
It certainly is a double-edged sword for some of them.
What say you?
Stephanie Ernst
Marji
Kelly G.
Deb
Mary Martin
The studies show that people who live with pets have the same levels of health and well-being as people whose lives are devoid of pets.
I’m a scientist, and there appear to be some glaring weaknesses in the studies and their conclusions. It’s entirely possible that prior to having pets, pet guardians were LESS happy and mentally healthy than the other group. Thus, pets may indeed be therapeutic and, once in their guardians’ lives, they may have increased their people’s happiness to the level of the other group.
Similarly, in examining physical health, people may choose to have pets in part BECAUSE they aren’t well (and thus start out sicker than the no-pet cohort). As with emotional/mental unwellness, they may be seeking the comfort and joy that animals provide; and their life style may be more accommodating of pets since they’re home more because of their health status.
For at least these reasons, then, sicker people may be more likely to have pets.
Once present, pets may therapeutically increase their guardians’ well-being to the same level as those who started out in greater health.
(Duhhh. :) )