Talk:Psychiatric service dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

There seems to be a war going on between two groups with this article. I was the original writer of it and it started out as one paragraph to give the basic definition of a psychiatric service dog. As more people found the page, the article grew and changed, and I've been editing it as needed for grammar, spelling, and organization.

Now, however, I am seeing that people are fighting over the proper definition of a service dog and what they have to do in order to qualify as a service dog. State facts. State what the law says. Do NOT write down YOUR interpretation of the law. That is for a court of law to decide should someone go to court over a service dog issue.

There have been several reverts/edits on this page. It appears that there are two very different POVs involved here. Can we agree on a final edit, or do we need to bring in a wikipedia mediator? Ideally we can resolve this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.15.78 (talk • contribs) 07:29, January 31, 2007 (UTC)

I can see no way either of you involved in that edit war saw it helping the article in any way. It is obvious that "winning" was the only goal here, and to that point, both of you have violated the three-revert rule, marred the edit history with ugly comments, and made me wonder at what reasoning was involved in making an article that totally repeats several paragraphs. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 15:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
What ugly comments were made? Please let me know, because I never added anything to the text other than information on the topic.
I was unaware of the three-revert rule before this morning, and I sincerely apologize for violating it.
As for winning being the only goal - I felt that the back and forth reverting was going nowhere, which is why I left a note for the other contributor to look at the talk page and then asked if we could agree on a final edit. It seems like there are two POVs (remaining neutral on this topic is difficult) but I think both POVs can be represented fairly in an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.226.15.235 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC).
It's far too much trouble for me to try and figure out who was right or wrong in their edits, though I admit it was mostly User:PSDS who was making the edit summary comments in the history. In any case, I believe I was reasonably frustrated to find the article in complete shambles when I logged on this morning, and if my frustration showed, I apologize only so far as to relieve any hard feelings. Cheers, Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 18:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I can understand your frustration and I apologize for my part in it.

Allow me to clarify my perspective on the editing issue. First and foremost, when federal law is quoted, it needs to be quoted ACCURATELY. Second, there are many different tasks and functions that are utilized by a large community of PSD handlers. To express one's opinion about someone else's task list is NOT appropriate for this article. All relevent tasks and functions have the right to be represented in this article. Third, removing a link to someone else's organization simply because you don't like the organization is inappropriate. There is room for everyone to have a link to their respective webpages. More than anything else, we need to reflect information ACCURATELY. Opinion, conjecture, or misrepresenting yourself as an attorney or a federal judge is intellectually dishonest. ACCURACY is what everyone should strive for. Sincerely, Dr. Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog therapeutic model since 1997.

New Entry: Yet again ERRONEOUS INFORMATION has been re-posted to this page. You are confusing a DOJ Business Brief with the Code of Federal Regulations, which I quoted numerous time and which you removed numerous times. Obviously, you are not an educated person and know nothing about the law. A business brief is an informal publication. Federal law is found in the Code of Federal Regulations and it states, "...do work or perform tasks..." Go ahead and bask in your ignorance. I've heard about all the people you abuse on your listserv and the false information that you propagate. I'm done with both you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSDS (talk • contribs) 07:24, February 1, 2007 (UTC)

There is no "false" information in this article that I am aware of. Please keep in mind that this article is supposed to deal with psychiatric service dogs around the world, and not just in America. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 15:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I haven't re-posted what you call "erroneous information" to the page. The most recent edit was done by Sarraduin. Also, I don't have a listserv. You're confusing me with someone else. Also, I think it's unnecessary to resort to being insulting.


There are many within the Psychiatric Service Dog Community, that would have the world at large believe that in the US task training PSD's is not a requirement. It is my belief and the belief of many with the PROFESSIONAL SERVICE DOG TRAINING community that IT IS NECESSARY TO TASK TRAIN all service dogs, whether for physical or mental disabilities. I hold that the reasoning behind such thoughts, is that they are not willing to go the distance required, for whatever reason, to task-train your dog. I have a MI, I have a disabling MI. Yet, I have two task-trained service dogs. Task training is actually, truth be known, easier than obedience training. Again this just my opinion. Sincerely, Karla Clinch, A GOOD DOG ASSISTANCE DOGS, WWW.AGoodDog.net

Training a dog to do specific tasks to mitigate one's disability is the underlying definition of an assistance dog, so I think you're trying to make a point which, as far as I know, is something most people already know. A dog that is only trained in "obedience" is not an assistance dog. Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 22:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] When a prescribed dog fully qualifies as a Service Dog

Sarranduin, Dr. Joan Esnayra, founder of the Psychiatric Service Dog therapeutic model since 1997, Karla Clinch, A GOOD DOG ASSISTANCE DOGS, WWW.AGoodDog.net (not certain why, at the end of your edits did you do much as indicate your user name - where four tildes are used to sign off. I am also confused why were not at least bot-signed with an IP address.
But I will not continue to belabour that issue. What I am here to comment on statements that "psychatric dogs, unless trained to specific tasks as are seeing eye dogs, hearing dogs, movement dogs, and retrieval dogs. Also argued is that a psychiatric dog cannot have a service dog classification under current federal law definition.
Legislation law in many areas is pre-empted by judicial appellate judges which originates in the read-life needs and use of the dog to meet those needs. Legislation originates in legal actions meant to give judges a chance to determine if a right implicitly exists, which may or may not be appealed which leads to an appelate court judges concurring which eventually (there being so much to be crammed into legislative sessions and advocate groups managing to get as many legislators as possible to sign the recognition of need for change in law and their willingness to co-sponsor a bill. The current bill, Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (full text - www. dol.gov/esa/regs/statutes/ofccp/ada.htm is 18 years behind current real-life interpretaion of the nature of service dogs in psychiatric patients. A Disability Rights Task Force was created by the Civil Rights Division of the Dept of Justice & National Association Of Attorneys General and as of July '96, a document was issued by the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights specifying tht the legal rights and requirements of individuals with disabilities.
Judge David L Bazelon of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. He is considered to be always current on law that he posts www. Bazelon.org (http://www.Bazelon.org and is not only used to look for current judicial court law decisions, but provides legal representation. Worth a look.
My Pekingnese dog was an adult when acquired and satisfies all criteria for exceptional proper behavior in public working with me including ignoring the presence of others, no barking, no leash pulling and pausing & looking for oncoming "traffic" at cross-lanes, laying quietly in bottom of cart shopping cart. She often prefers to lay in my carry-tote with no more than my opening the head opening so she can stand up and stretch her legs like on long flights, or if I have a bulkhead seat, she is allowed out to sleep at my feet or sleep in my lap As such she, of course, qualifies for "support animal.
A Psychiatric Service Dog help ins handler mitigate his disabilty thru trained work and tasks, including but not limited to distracting the handler from repetitive obsessive thoughts or behaviours. ALSO "as well as many other tasks directly related to the specific handler's disability. My dog's "training" is a combination of normal dog training to supplement her "sole-human bonding" and quiet reserved nature in public places. The difference between ESAs and SDs is that ESAs are THERAPY pets, using emotional difficulties and/or with loneliness.
The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a service animal as an Individually Trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. Being quickly trainable by me to certain behaviors in public enables her to provide psychiatry service determined to be a supportive tool to render her a "by prescription service dog". He specifies in his letter that she is to correct certain limitations regarding leaving her home, social interaction, maintaning an orderly enviornment and structure goal-oriented routines, such as to enhance my ability to live independetly. I am on SSI with an officially recognized psychatric difficulties as to render me as no longer able to be gainfully employed.
To enlarge on the problems my psychiatrist refers to is that I had a total inability beginning in the Spring of 2000 (after an Extremely severe CPTSD that I still suffer from the symptoms), to execute simple work tasks as before, an inability to open mail, even personal mail and bills (unless a notice to disconnect my phone service). My mother was shocked to find YEARS of mail piled up and scattered in various portions of my apartment.
When my job ended, all I could do was call my parents for help for I could not even you the two or more availble months of notice to look for a new job.
Even after stabilization on meds, I continued, living alone again after my parents forced me out after a year of struggling with the wrong drugs prescribed, to resume my former ways. I left my apartment only ever 3 weeks to toss trash, go to the store and collect my mail. Mostly late at night unless my mother took me shopping with her (so I could drive her there). I was approved for in-home assistance, but I could not handle people coming into my apartment. No one in my family had come in over 3 years except when my mother forced her way in past me.
Pooh Bear needs to go outside for elimation, gets bored if I don't take her for longer walks (at first I could only do it at night, but more recently can manage being seen by others so can go on walks during the daylight hours) Pooh has to be fed. He asks for love at least once a day, wanting me to hold her close, tightly as I stand, and the two of us push our heads together, rubbing and snuffling one another. I go grocery shopping more often, at least weekly and do other tasks during the day withe her along, going to my bank and such. She gives me a more structured life, she now rules my life, owns me and manipulates me into getting outside the house, keeping the floor bare (she is happy when there is lots of floor space).
This is a case of a psychiatrically prescribed animal being a Service ANIMAL for she enables me to live more like a human being and less like a hermit cave dweller. THIS is the degree of disability that NEEDS a service animal, even if she doesn't do anything fancy. I feel braver with her alongside me for it is HER that people look at, not me - and if they talk to me, it is about her.
CPTSD, Bipolar and other psychiatric illnesses sometimes need this level of help. In the past few years, Service dogs of similar nature and traing have been prescribed to attend public school with children, such as autistic, who need the calming presence of the animal to function, as well as behave in a more functional manner at home.
These are things to consider in writing this article, looking for relevant information from large population studies (which I don't know if have been done), but if a doctor prescribes a drug "off-label", and it is successful, it is often used very extensively and frequently for years before the government adds the new use. Anyway, what I have to say here might help people do online searches for relevant websites, cases, and (maybe) legal decisions supporting such use. Spotted Owl (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was taking a glance at my Watchlist & recognized that my Edit Summary was very unclear and thus would possibly be ignored by those watching this article. My entire point for writing this was to show support for Sarranduin's contention that specialized (ie, professional) training is not required for some Psych Service Dogs.

There is an organization works directly with families in a specialized program to do their own training to help increase availability of dogs and reduce cost. Their program involves a beginning period of the dog trainer working with the family at their home. Phone support & guidance is available. I put up the link at the support dog Neurotalk forum. Involving the entire household in understanding how the training is done, how they should interact with animal to keep from 'undoing' the training. This helps do away with the problems that sometimes develop after the patient and dog return home from their training.

Also something to be especially noticed, for both professionally trained and family trained service dogs, in a study by (I think it was Texas A&M - link at Neurotalk) university, it was determined that it was NOT cost or time effective to begin dog selection and training with pups, because most of them wash out. They agree with the further development and use of their program (think it was 2-4 weeks) as they selected adult dogs via dog pounds by first assessing personality traits necessary, then trained a group of various dogs where the objective was to find out just how quickly these dogs could be trained, easily and rapidly selecting those dogs with the hightest aptitude.

They strongly advocate the use of adult dogs (only those over the age of 2 or so, not pups, that are selected via personality screening, then a uniform training program to rapid cull those that take too long to train or fail to complete the training program. This approach, abandoning the starting with puppies, would rapidly increase the number of dog available to be quickly well-trained and placed. It also will decrease the costs involved so more people needing service animals (for all types of training).

More and more dog shelters employ or have volunteers who can do a uniform standardized temperment assessment to select only those who were determined, during the research, to be most trainable. This makes more support animals accessible to children and to those who would not be able to meet the animals needs sufficiently and who live in a stable continuing group as a family is.

I can understand the desire for those selecting a SUPPORT (not Service) dog to think that starting with a young puppy will foster a stronger bond as well as provide the fun that puppies provide (before they begin chewing on furniture and shoes). Most of these dogs would never be able to take into a wide variety of public venues because of temperment or bad behaviors.

-Spotted Owl (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While professional training is not required (in the U.S., though it is in most of the rest of the world), specialized training IS required of all service dogs, be they for persons with psychiatric disabilities or otherwise. Using U.S. law as an example, a service animal is one that is "individually trained," to meet the specific needs of a person with a disability.
Bazelon's article on emotional support animals, which you referenced, is in regard to HOUSING, not public access. We're talking about two different laws, two different definitions of service animal, and two different standards. For the purposes of housing, the definition of service animal is more general and includes emotional support animals as a type of service animal, even if they wouldn't qualify as service animals under the ADA (which covers public access).
ESAs are also considered service animals under the ACAA. However, they are NOT under the ADA. The DOJ has made it clear that task training is a requirement of all public access service dogs. They've stated this in their business brief and on their help line. What Joan Esnayra has failed to grasp is that the DOJ, not Congress, wrote the definition she is so fond of quoting. Who is more qualified to interpret what that definition means? The agency that created it, or a geneticist?
That said, the task issue has been tested in court several times and ALWAYS upheld. http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/195 Some individual states have a more broad interpretation of what a service animal is, but in the U.S., a service animal used for public access must be trained to perform tasks, or it is not a service animal.
Nowhere in any U.S. federal law does it state that a doctor's prescription makes a dog a service dog. In fact, I can't think of a single country where that is the case. A doctor's opinion may be evidence in a court's determination of whether a person is disabled, but no one is qualified to evaluate the training of a dog just because he has an MD. Separate evidence, from dog training experts would be required for that element of the court case. Even with evidence to disability and to training of the dog, the ultimately only a judge can determine whether a person is disabled and whether a dog is a service dog under the ADA. It is a strictly legal determination, not a medical one.
Spotted Owl, if you paid attention to court decisions interpreting the ADA you would understand that it is the Supreme Court that has set us back decades, not the ADA itself. We have fewer rights now than we did when the ADA was originally passed. Courts are not broadening their interpretation of disability laws, they are narrowing them. That's why Congress is in the position of having to make an ADA restoration act.

Kirsten07734 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't resist adding that Judge David L. Bazelton did not write the site named for him, and represents no-one as he has been deceased since 1993. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_L._Bazelon

Kirsten07734 (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question. I'm naive of this subject so bear with me. What constitutes a "task?" While there seems to be interpretation here that the "task" be support orientated at the exclusion of "basic obedience," it does not appear to say so in the material quoted (unless I missed it). Like can being completely silent unless directed to bark, or ignoring typical distractions be "tasks." What I'm getting at is, while business have right to ask the task question, what can one say to be compliant but at the same time preserve one's privacy? Legitimus (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you that tasks should be more clearly defined in the article. Specifically, there was a revert war over adding a list of representative tasks and what should go on that list. The current version is the compromise. It is frustrating, but a document with many cooperating authors, like Wikipedia, often requires compromise. A task is something that is not a natural behavior of the dog, that the handler cannot do for themselves, that mitigates their disability. See http://servicedogcentral.org/content/node/77 . The PSDS (Psychiatric Service Dog Society) claims the term "do work for" in the codes of federal regulation (US regulatory law) mean that anything the dog does that benefits the person makes it a service dog. They include things like the dog needing to be walked as a task because it gets the depressed handler out of the house. This is NOT the position of the U.S. Department of Justice, who wrote the law in question. Note: regulatory law is not the same as laws passed by Congress. Congress passes a law, directing a regulatory agency to do something to manage Congress' law, and the regulatory agency in turn issues regulatory law to describe how they interpret Congressional law and how they intend to enact it.Kirsten07734 (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. That's helpful. You know, it's odd that the primary issue among support animals seems to be the issue of public access, rather than what the dog actually does. Heck, if the dog only does work in your own home, nobody would give it a second thought and no law would even apply. Legitimus (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
What the dog does SHOULD be the key consideration. The problem with public access is the novelty of taking a dog where one isn't ordinarily permitted. Some people crave the attention. Some people want to feel special. They try to come up with excuses instead of focusing on what is actually needed. These are the people most likely to screech about their RIGHTS RIGHTS RIGHTS. The ADA is really about compromise. It isn't about a PWD (person with a disability) trumping all others. It isn't affirmative action. The key word is "reasonable," and too many forget that. Some service dogs are legitimately needed in public. Some are only needed at home. There is nothing wrong with that. If a person doesn't actually need their service dog in public, then they should leave it at home when not needed. It's still a service dog. The classic example of excuse training is the person who, because of their disability, takes medication. They then train their dog to remind them to take medication at a certain time of the day by leading them to the kitchen cabinet where the medications are kept. Then they consider justified in taking the dog with them everywhere. What are the odds they will need the dog to perform this function at any public accommodation? Zero. He can't perform it anywhere but home, because that is where the medicine cabinet is. The first question a judge will ask, of course, is why can't you just use an alarm to remind you to take your medication? The example I like to use is this: I like tanks. I like them because they are comfortable, there is room for a drink and snack holder, and I love the cammo look. Does that mean I have a right to drive a tank through the local Piggly Wiggly for a gallon of milk? No, of course not, it isn't reasonable. In my case a cane is sufficient assistance for my mobility issues most of the time, and when it isn't a wheel chair does well enough. If a watch does well enough for med reminders, then that is what should be used, because a dog would be over-kill. We also have to bear in mind that other people also have rights and needs. Other people do have allergies and fear of dogs. Is it morally right to subject them to a dog because the dog's owner enjoys the limelight or the novelty? Now, if the dog owner is unable to pick up important things they drop (such as keys or a wallet), or navigate, or hear a siren warning of a coming fire truck, then they might have a legitimate need that supercedes the need of the allergic or fearful person. Unfortunately, without any regulation in the US, this law is abused frequently, especially when people forget to consider the "other guy."Kirsten07734 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't quite expecting that kind of response. Not that I disagree, the point is well taken. I know tons of elderly folks with arthritis who teach their dog to get things for them, like remotes, keys they drop because they cannot bend over, or phones in emergencies. They're not services dogs, because they don't go in public, but they're certainly do the work of one.
I should preface by saying I do not have a service dog, but I am lenient towards people who claim to have one. Public access isn't all about novelty or attention seeking. I've always sensed that US culture is kind of anti-animal. Most health codes the forbid dogs are based on superstition and politics rather than hard medical fact. Heck, why aren't people considerate with KIDS this way? Talk about biohazards. Case in point, I work in arguably one of the largest hospitals in the United States. Are dogs allowed here? Yes, you bet they are if they have permission. Pet or Service dog does not matter, we control which ones we let in and where they go. Family pets can visit patients with clearance, and therapy dogs arrive weekly to make their rounds. Do they go in isolation or the OR or ICU? Heck no. But we don't let visitors in their either. We actually have more restrictions on human children in certain areas. As for allergies, those can be set off by the human owner carrying the dander on their cloths just as easily as the animal, so I never quite understood that, and their has not been a single incident here so far. Another point is business owners need to know how to turn people away. We're so damn afraid of being sued. If a cafe owner could tell the noisy flee bitten one to get lost, but say sure, the quiet, calm, neatly combed one can come right in (like they do in France), I don't know if we'd need such restrictions that would need to be mitigated by acts like the ADA. Idealistic, I know, but one can dream. Legitimus (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
But a dog doesn't have to work in public to be a service dog. The only legal requirements, at least in the U.S., to make a dog a service dog are that 1) they are trained to do something to mitigate their handler's disability and 2) that their handler be legally disabled (under the ADA, which uses a different definition than, say, the Social Security Administration). This is an important distinction for those having difficulty with landlords over their in-home service dogs because they do have legal protections to keep their service animals even in "no pets" housing.
My issue isn't with dogs in public. I agree with you about dander being carried on clothes. I shed more than my dog. I also agree about business owners being fearful of being sued, largely due to "drive-by litigants" who target small establishments who can't afford to defend themselves from frivilous lawsuits under the ADA. I personally believe that well behaved dogs should be allowed most places where the public can go. My issue here is with people claiming their pet is a service dog for some reason other than actually NEEDING assistance, and then parading around with a dog that barks, lunges, attacks other dogs, menaces children, urinates or defecates in stores, or otherwise behaves not only unlike a service dog, but unlike a well-behaved pet. Yes, it is happening. A woman with a hearing dog was attacked, with her dog, by THREE dogs another woman had brought in a store claiming as service dogs. Both the deaf woman and her dog were hospitalized due to injuries from the attack. All of the other things I've listed really are happening, and none of them ever should. I've personally been lunged at by another "service dog" just for daring to be in the same store. I've felt even more backlash from what others have done not in my presence, whenever I go someplace after one of these untrained teams.
Task training is supposed to be the litmus test of whether the dog is trained or not. Frankly, task training is the easiest part of training a service dog. Heeling and proofing are much harder. If a person cannot even do the easiest part of the training, then they really aren't capable of training a service dog at all. Yet there are groups out there claiming that task training isn't even required. Why the resistance to task training when it is 1) easy, and 2) what you are supposed to want the dog for in the first place? Where does it leave us? The US Department of Justice, and several courts, have all ruled that it is within a business' rights to ask a person with an apparent or a claimed service dog, what that dog is trained to do, as a way to determine whether or not it is actually a service dog. Most businesses don't know they have this right. Many that do are too fearful of a lawsuit to actually avail themselves of this small protection.
IMO a national system of certification for service animals, to raise the general standard of behavior is needed. The majority of the U.S. disabled community does not agree with me on this point though it is the case in most of the rest of the world. (Yes, I am disabled and use a service dog.) In the absence of that certification, we are left to self-regulation. Arguing about what is and is not acceptable behavior has worn me out and made me a cynic. I sound grumpy and I apologize for that. I depend on my dog to be able to live without an attendant. I've had human attendants, and aside from the fact there are some things my dog can do better, it is entirely different in terms of my self-esteem to ask my dog to help me than to ask a human. I fear that with the exponential increase in poorly behaved pets being claimed as service dogs for the novelty of it all, there will be even more restrictions on people with disabilities using service dogs, and those who legitimately need these dogs, just to survive and feel like human beings, will lose them.
Spotted Owl's statements reflect the attitude of that group who don't believe in actually training their dogs. That's what really set me off. I apologize again for my emotional response. It is very difficult for me to remain objective on this issue because it hits so very close to home. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirsten07734 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kirsten.. As you can tell, it's been some months now since I have dropped by Wiki, but I hope the group does not resent that dropping in.. *smiling*.

First, I thank both those who pointed out the limitations of my one cited source, and I also thank those who extended support.

At least a couple of persons mentioned those with psychiatric service dogs as being those who were into seeking attention. First, I do NOT like her receiving any significant attention and when someone asks if they can pet her when she is "on duty" (in a public place), I say, No, she's working right now" because she MUST stay my service dog, not an attention-seeking "normal dog". When she is in her carrier, she (as a black dog) is invisible thru the black ventilation panels, and MOST people never even notice her in the bottom of my shopping basket because she IS doing as trained to do. When out walking on the 15 foot lead so she can run about, investigate interesting odors and "just be a dog", she approaches others, socializing with both dogs and humans. She is "off duty"

But a disability patient is no barrier to their using their Service Dog as a novelty or attention seeking tool. A number of years ago, I was in an enclosed mall and saw a Golden Retriever with his disabled blind "handler". He was tail-wagging and actively socializing with all around him and the woman was ENCOURAGING people to get acquainted with him, pet him, play with him. I stopped to talk to her for some period of time, focusing on HER, not the dog. I found that this was her SECOND dog because the first became "untrained", failing to perform as a lead dog. Here the two of them were in a public place where she NEEDED a lead dog, but she was using the dog for attention and to please others, to have people stop to visit with her. I left her dearly wishing that the organization NEVER gave her another dog to ruin when there are blind people who are willing and capable of WORKING the dog, not turning them into an undisciplined pet who refused, as I viewed, to transition into work mode and help her go into the store she was standing in front of. I relate this shockingly depressing thing I observed to point out that the psychiatrically disabled do not necessarily see their dog as "entertainment for others" and not the only disabled who do so.

If my dog stops acting properly while "on duty", she could no longer accompany me as before. One way I have trained her is getting her to vocalize, to "talk to me", something she had never done before. She now vocalizes a number of needs and desires. In the government-sponsored housing available to me, I am not allowed to have a roommate, and as someone who cannot handle PEOPLE coming in, yet who has suffered a lot from loneliness to the point of increasing levels of dysfunction over the years, her vocalizing and coming to me when she knows that I need a hug (NOT something she came to me knowing how to do), she increasingly becomes a skillful asset in my psychiatric treatment plan.

And as to the issue of those who mention allergies, I wash her with a specially formulated a shampoo with antibacterial and antifungal ingredients. "Head & Shoulders" and "Seldane" have anti-fungal ingredients and the reason they work is that they kill off the yeast who feed on shed skin cells, turning them into a profuse smelly substance that in turn provides a home for bacteria to feed on - "doggy smell". My dog goes for 4 weeks without developing any doggy odor at all.

Actually, I have run into problems with only 2 people - and both of them said she could only enter if she wore a service vest. I got a startled look when I informed them that anyone can go online and buy a service dog vest or identity tag. When I was rushed via ambulance for an imminent heart attack, the LAST thing I needed was her along and would never have dreamed of demanding she come along. Even a blind person can easily do without their service dog while hospitalized.

Actually, as she has helped me become more secure away from home (on days without lots of anxiety or stress-related symptoms), I am increasingly able to sometimes leave her in the van while I am inside certain places - which means she is also a curative agent. Of course, I rely on her being inside the van when I get back - I cannot use a tranquilizer if I plan to drive, so having her on her elevated bed beside me where I can be touching and massaging her as I drive is my alternate tranquilizer. Even if I am in a facility where I leave her in the vehicle, I know that she is as close as the parking lot.

I am grasping (from info above) that the courts have been seeking to increasingly limit the ability of psychiatric service dogs to gain legal admission. When I see a child able to attend public schools because his dog is there - not to play with the other kids, not to bounce around and 'be a dog", but to be a calming grounding influence, a bit of home coming to school with him, I am glad that "off-label" rights are being popularly acknowledged and rights extended from the ground up.

Yes, it is true that a "psychiatric service dog" can be "trained" to come up to a distressed person and lean against their leg, put their head on their owner's lap, press a paw against them, all to help sooth or distract a person in a panic or anxiety attack, to disrupt a psychotic rant, et al ---- this is NORMAL behavior in many dogs for dogs are, by their very nature, to be HIGHLY attuned to their owner's needs. This is what makes them the animal of choice as service animals for all manner of disabled persons, despite the retrieval or alerting behaviors. While all this cannot be part and parcel on the article page, I think the nature of "Psychiatric Service Dog" being legally threatened with links to a "good enough" website(s) should be appropriate, and hope they are always featured, just as endangered animal articles can speak of the legal recognition and support/non-support of the endangered status. A warm hello to everyone. GREAT discussion. Spotted Owl (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)