CSotD: Lincoln’s Mother’s Doctor’s Therapy Animal
Skip to comments
Zits taps the increasingly ridiculous world of "therapy animals."
I'm so old I can remember when, on an email listserv, the quite serious topic of safely transporting dogs on airplanes came up, and someone jokingly suggested donning dark glasses and pretending your pet was a Seeing Eye Dog so he could ride in the cabin.
The response was a series of "That's not funny" slapdowns by people who were either blind or had blind friends and dealt with bureaucratic pushback against service dogs in public spaces. They didn't think the idea of fakers was in the least funny, since they already were forced to leap through hoops to prove the validity of their animals.
My-Oh-My how times have changed, and there not only emerged an on-line market for phony therapy dog certification but a new set of regulations that were immediately misinterpreted to mean you had to accept any claim that a beast was a "therapy animal."
Which didn't just include dogs, and Pierce is not off the mark because there are very few animals that haven't been promoted as four-legged therapists. Or two legged or no legged or probably 1,000 legged.
However, the "you're not allowed to ask" rule is not really a rule, at least under federal law, while, under that law, "emotional support" animals don't count at all.
Here's a guide, from which I excerpt this:
Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under Title II and Title III of the ADA. Other species of animals, whether wild or domestic, trained or untrained, are not considered service animals either. The work or tasks performed by a service animal must be directly related to the individual’s disability. It does not matter if a person has a note from a doctor that states that the person has a disability and needs to have the animal for emotional support. A doctor’s letter does not turn an animal into a service animal.
And this:
When a person with a service animal enters a public facility or place of public accommodation, the person cannot be asked about the nature or extent of his disability. Only two questions may be asked:
1. Is the animal required because of a disability?
2. What work or task has the animal been trained to perform?
These questions should not be asked, however, if the animal’s service tasks are obvious. For example, the questions may not be asked if the dog is observed guiding an individual who is blind or has low vision, pulling a person’s wheelchair, or providing assistance with stability or balance to an individual with an observable mobility disability.
State laws could differ, but I side with blind people and others who require service animals and would prefer this need not be watered down by frivolous claims. (Yes, there are valid ones. They're rare and specific.)
Incidentally, most working dogs — bomb-sniffers as well as Seeing Eye — outlive their ability to be useful. Police officers often adopt their retired partners as pets, but my experience is that the blind understand that a guide dog will eventually need to be replaced and that keeping the old fellow around is not often practical.
By contrast, an emotional support tortoise will probably outlive you and perhaps your children. Imperturbable to the end.
On a slightly related note
Candorville probes the issue of personal vendettas in the public arena, a matter which has gained momentum in the age of social media.
I had only heard this one indirectly, probably because I don't watch Entertainment Tonight or read People Magazine and I don't even know if either of them covered Joss Whedon's divorce, which I gather wasn't pleasant.
Y'know. In contrast to most divorces which are a barrel of good-natured giggles.
And having just read his ex-wife's piece explaining what a piece of shit he is, I am more shocked that the damn fool told her all that hurtful stuff than by how she responded to it.
Perhaps it was one of those letters that therapists tell their patients to write, and that incompetent therapists tell them to send rather than burn.
Which is why it is sometimes better to have a support gerbil than a therapist, depending on the relative intelligence and good judgment of each.
In any case, while we all have the right to dislike certain public figures because of their private behavior, I think we should admit our distaste is personal and not expect the entire world — including that person's employers — to join the boycott.
Any history or English major could provide a lengthy list of creative people whose personal lives you would not approve of, and, if you reject them all, you'll never read another book or poem or watch another play or go to a movie or vote for anyone.
I'd also add that there is no way Lemont is going to win this debate.
I say this as someone who just lost yet another discussion of whether it's enough to serve a year and a half in jail, express your remorse, donate a million dollars and record public service announcements to attempt to repair the damage you've done.
Shut up, Lemont. Really.
Stop talking now.
Yes, I'm old
But not quite old enough to know that, regardless of today's Bizarro, Superman can't fly. Or, at least, he originally couldn't.
I was in my 30s when I learned that he could leap tall buildings in a single bound but that actual flight was an add-on, along with a lot of other stuff that I didn't know was new when I was 10 and that made him even less logically consistent.
As for Lois, those who have read this won't mind reading it again.
Meanwhile, back in the Marvel Bullpen
Yesterday would have been Jack Kirby's 100th birthday, and a number of comic bloggers marked it with samples of his work, including Mike Lynch and Tom Spurgeon, while Heidi MacDonald linked to entire Kirby comic books.
Now here's your moment of zen:
Comments 3
Comments are closed.