Previously, there lived a lady with a walking disability in Minnesota. One of the key requirements this lady had was an animal, such as a miniature horse, that would aid her in walking and other personal needs. Despite having this service animal, this lady suffered from poor mental health due to the discriminatory behavior that neighbors showed her due to her disabled condition. Increased levels of stress and depression called for the doctor to prescribe her an emotional peacock to keep her relaxed and cool (Hoy-Gerlach et al., 2020). Having worked as a kennel technician, park ranger, veterinary assistant, and zookeeper for four years, I have garnered knowledge on the need for animal emotional support for mental health patients. While animals may be used to offer different services, including day-to-day personal routine, animals can offer emotional support that avails social connection and structure.
Social connection and a structure to control are essential for people living with mental health problems. These individuals need to belong and connect with things, people, and even animals. By having animals around their proximity, these individuals can control their anxiety, regulate their emotions and even increase their self-esteem. In addition to social connection, mental health patients need to have a structure that they can control. Animals provide an ideal structure that enables the mental health patient to have a caring role and execute various tasks based on the animal requirements (Ratschen et al., 2020). Ultimately, the social structure provides a balanced approach that shortens the patient’s recovery period.
Organizations need to allow mental health patients to move around with emotional animals like peacocks to enhance their recovery journey. Corporations such as airports, companies, and schools need to allow mental health patients to allow mental health individuals to carry around these animals as they ensure the recovery process is continuous compared to intermittent, which occurs when these animals are prohibited. Typically, these organizations have set forth places with signs of ‘no pets allowed,’ making those individuals with specific mental health problems more depressed as their emotional support is unavailable (Brooks et al., 2018). Perhaps some might ask what would be done to those service animals than people with no mental health carry around. Distinctively, mental health patients should carry their doctor’s permit, which they can show at the no animals allowed zone to allow their passage.
Everyone here in the audience can visualize what would come for the mental health patients. Allowing these patients a chance to walk with their emotional support animals will certainly make them larks, which consequently will offset the negative emotions brought by stress and depression (Chan & Rico, 2019). Additionally, this will mark a leeway to becoming horses, meaning they will be physically fit and mentally stable.
In the action stage, I will require you to sign a petition to ask the government to formulate a policy that requires the public organizations allow mental health patients to carry their emotional support animals around for therapeutic purposes. This petition will be made available on the Change.org website at the end of the day (Winkle et al., 2020). Additionally, your approval on the postulated response toward the needs of the mental health patients is imperative.
Inconclusively, emotional support animals are essential as they offer social connection and a proper structure for mental health patients. They give the feeling of belonging in social connection and a sense of care in providing social structure. Generally, we have great mental health challenges and opportunities, but with your aid, we can shift this year from the typical year of suffering to a year of recovery.
References
Brooks, H. L., Rushton, K., Lovell, K., Bee, P., Walker, L., Grant, L., & Rogers, A. (2018). The power of support from companion animals for people living with mental health problems: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence. BMC psychiatry, 18(1), 1-12.
Chan, M. M., & Rico, G. T. (2019). The “pet effect” in cancer patients: Risks and benefits of human-pet interaction. Critical reviews in oncology/hematology, 143, 56-61.
Hoy-Gerlach, J., Rauktis, M., & Newhill, C. (2020). (Non-human) animal companionship: A crucial support for people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Society Register, 4(2), 109-120.
Ratschen, E., Shoesmith, E., Shahab, L., Silva, K., Kale, D., Toner, P.,… & Mills, D. S. (2020). Human-animal relationships and interactions during the Covid-19 lockdown phase in the UK: Investigating links with mental health and loneliness. PloS one, 15(9), e0239397.
Winkle, M., Johnson, A., & Mills, D. (2020). Dog welfare, well-being, and behavior: considerations for selection, evaluation, and suitability for animal-assisted therapy. Animals, 10(11), 2188.