Genuine need or narcissism?: F. Diane Barth on emotional support animals in public spaces

Dogs and cats, of course. But pigs, peacocks, and even squirrels? These are some of the animals that people have been bringing with them as “emotional support” on buses and planes, in stores and restaurants, and the trend shows no signs of abating. The concerns of those who claim to need their animal companions at their side at all times are pitted against the concerns of other people with fears or allergies that make the animals’ presence uncomfortable or even health-threatening. This June 2019 NBC Think essay by psychotherapist and author F. Diane Barth works through the causes and consequences of the situation.

Barth, “Is an emotional support animal serving a person’s needs or their narcissism?”

 

1. How does Barth answer the question posed by the title of her essay? What evidence does she present to support the side of “needs”? What evidence does she provide to support a response of “narcissism”? What position does she finally take on the question?
2. Although Barth does express her position about emotional support animals in public spaces, she demonstrates a very respectful attitude towards all of the ideas and positions in the debate. Does her attitude enhance her credibility as a knowledgeable professional in the field? Why or why not? Explain your reasoning.
3. Read (or re-read) the section on linking in Chapter 13 of your text. How well does Barth frame and introduce her hyperlinks? Why do you think so? Point to specific examples to support your evaluation.
4. Do you think there should be some sort of training and certification program for emotional support animals? Why or why not? How would such a program work? Would animals and their humans need to be trained together? Would animals be trained, certified, and then offered for adoption? How and where would the requirements for certification be applied—all transportation conveyances? restaurants? stores? Write an essay detailing your position, whether to uphold the status quo or to implement some kind of regulation. Use Barth as your They Say and draw examples and evidence from your own experience and what you have observed in your daily life.

Comments

[Rachael]

F. Diane Barth, the writer of, ‘Is an Emotional Support Animal Serving a Person’s Needs or Their Narcissism’, has both claims of if an animal can emotionally support a person, or if it is just their narcissism of who they want to be. Barth was recently on a plane and she had seen a lady with her dog. Barth states, “ which this owner said she needed to help her cope with anxiety.” In making this comment Barth is introducing if it will be a positive or negative if we have animals on planes to help with mental health people. One of Barth’s arguments were people could be allergic to pets and/or afraid of animals. According to one of Barth’s clients, “‘I’ve been on a plane where the owner took the dog out of it’s carrier and let it climb around on the seats. I was so anxious I spent the whole trip shaking and crying.”’ What Barth’s client is trying to say is that even though the animal is helping the owner, it; however, isn’t helping her in anyway. It is making her scared and becoming anxious herself. I feel if people that really need their animal with them to help with an illness there should be a special section with proper documentation to help benefit both the owner and the people around them.

[Taylor]

Should Everyone Go to College: Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill

According to Greenstone and Looney (2011), students that complete a bachelor's degree compared to a high school diploma reach over a 40,000 dollar pay difference in their lifetime. In Stephanie Owen and Isabel Sawhill’s essay, they both chose a strong economic approach to justify going to college.Both authors claim that the return investment of a college education is overwhelmingly positive on average; however, they also bring to light the biggest flaw in our culture’s belief that “a college degree is a prerequisite to entering the middle class”(pg. 318). Owen and Sawhill have both recognized the value of a college education while also acknowledging that it may not be the best option for many teenagers thinking about going to college. With this, I fully defend their standpoint. A power plant engineer requires no schooling other than training supplied by the ordered company and will make substantially more money yearly compared to an average bachelor's degree holder. I believe a college degree should be less of an expectation and more of an individual requirement regarding the person's field of interest.

[Taylor]

Don’t Drop Out: Alex Kern

College is a modern expectation, a gateway to a “successful life”; yet, not all of us get the opportunity to attend a four year school or more. For students entering this new scholar lifestyle, not many are focused on anything other than a career for their future.In high school, students that are accepted into top schools often stand out at a young age. They collect academic achievements and stand out from their peers. Universities allow students to be around like minded peers that are racing to do better and be better than one another, they no longer can just expect to stay on top. College benefits students in a multitude of ways, one being networking. Networking is very difficult for a student that leaves high school and immediately enters the work force of their desired career. They have no advisors or professors to guide them nor answer their questions. College allows students to steer other students into the direction they should be going, along with easy access to future employers. Students in this position are often accepted and preferred over ones who enter the workforce before attending college if at all. People in college are given higher positions while others are placed at the bottom and must work to reach the top, of strict requirements aren’t in place for university degrees. As Alex Kern presents a number of criticisms, after reading the following points he comments about, I feel he presents them fairly because they are in fact his just opinions. One example was, "A college education makes you more likely to get the job of your dreams." In this case he responded that it is true for most professions, yet not enough to keep him motivated. Another was, "Many success people have college degrees”;for instance, Steve Jobs, founder of apple. Lastly, "A degree gives you a safety net to fall back on." In my personal opinion many people are successful without a college diploma. I don’t like to misconstrue modern education for overall intelligence. If you ask a fish to fly, a bird may view it as stupid;although, it does something a bird can’t do - it can swim. I use that motto for my opinion on Alex Kerns article. I support his essentially unbiased opinions, and I don’t believe everyone should have the same expectation. We all have different passions, different visions of a perfect life. As powerful as a college degree may be, there are a plethora of career paths that have their very own yellow brick road that leads to the wealth and power of a college graduate.

[Sydney]

F. Diane Barth is the author of several articles on the NBC Think portion of the website. In her current article, also titled "Is an emotional support animal serving a person's needs or their narcissism?", she delves into the two particular sides/stances of emotional animals in public areas. Throughout the story, the view goes back and forth until it ends up being that emotional animals are used for narcissism then actual help. In a way, I agree with her statement in the aspect that humans tend to use emotional animals as a means to cheat the system. For example, when she was interviewing families, one stated how "pets certified as an official support animal because they had heard too many stories about animals that had been lost or had died while traveling in the traditional way. They were aware that some of their fellow travelers could be uncomfortable with their pet, but they said that he was a hypoallergenic breed and that they gave him a mild tranquilizer before any flight." The interview conducted helped showed that animals or excuses are simple ways humanity tries to save money at the extent of other passengers. To further back up the claim, there was another person, who was interviewed and stated that she was scared of a dog climbing around freely, causing her to shake and cry the whole way there. I do understand the other side, and thus there could always be a compromise. What would be nice to see is that those who need therapy or emotional dog can get one that completely trained, or teach both the owner and dog how to behave in public environments.

[Danielle Benton]

Barth answers their question within their essay. Barth balances between both sides and acknowledges the fact that animals do provide comfort to patients with extreme anxiety and depression, but also notes that people abuse the system and have pets for their entitlement. Barth first talks about how calming pets are and the experiences she’s had with them. She then migrates to how some people feel that they are entitled to a service pet. As stated in the essay, some people use their service pet as a way to either keep their pets with them and not make them suffer in the plane cabin or allow the owner to not pay for their airline tickets. Barth explains both sides of the argument, but shows their view on the subject towards the end, “My British friend asked, “Wouldn’t a stuffed animal do just as well?” It would certainly be less selfish,” (Barth). This shows that Barth agrees that there are other ways to handle stress and that, even though animals do provide a form of comfort, it seems selfish to other people and to the pet itself.

[Saimon Shabandari]

No one can deny that people who have pets are love them and treat them as their family members. And that is normals as they feed them, bath them , take them out to walk , They spend a lot of money on their loved ones buying for them things and services like clothing, grooming, medicine. They even sleep share same bed with their domestic animals, i have heard that some enthusiasts even pt their pets name in their will. Therefore having them so close and taking care of them make their emotional and physical bonds strong. However, me as a person who suffers from allergy against having pets in public places , especially food chains , restaurants , cafes and supermarkets. Statistic shows that over 30 % of world population suffers from allergy. And Why should I pay for medicine and suffer from serious health problems if for some reason my next table person wants to have his pet company. Why should I pay decent amount of money to restaurant to get quality food and spend quality time , but suffer from consequences later .
I strongly believe that people who wants to enjoy their pets company outside should take them to places where there is afresh air , like parks and never ever to restaurants , and those restaurants that claim to be pet friendly should allocate special room and area for people with service dogs and pets.

[Mary Huth]

In her article “Is an Emotional Support Animal Serving A Person’s Needs or Their Narcissism?”, F. Diane Barth discusses whether or not emotional support animals are a necessity for their owners or if they are being used for their owner’s pleasure and convenience. On one hand, she argues that emotional support animals are known to lower people’s anxiety levels, provide comfort that another human may not be able to give, be used for trauma patients, as well as plenty more reasons. But Barth also acknowledges that some people use them to their advantage in a selfish way, not medical. For example, one family certified their pet as an emotional support animal so that they could avoid the process of bringing them on a plane. Barth also argues that while service animals may lower anxiety for some people, they can also increase the anxiety of those around them who may have a fear or allergy. In addition to this, she expresses her concern about the animal’s wellbeing and whether or not they are comfortable and trained enough with being in public.

I completely agree with Barth’s view that emotional support animals can be both beneficial and harmful. I understand how pets can calm anxious feelings and bring comfort to their owners but I also think it is important to recognize that they may not bring those same feelings to others. In order to resolve this solution, I believe that the people requesting emotional support animals need to go through strict evaluations and the animals themselves need to be extensively trained. I also believe that considering only allowing hypoallergenic animals to be used as emotional support animals could ease the concern that many people have.

[Drew Grespin]

I agree with F. Diane Barth that it is wrong to have bothersome emotional support animals, but I believe that people with mental illnesses should be able to have trained therapy pets or have small animals which would not bother others. Like Barth, I think that support animals are not properly trained for the settings to which they are brought. Thus, I believe there should be training for settings like airplanes and classrooms that animals must clear to be able to assist in those settings. This would help with both preparing the animals and helping the other passengers feel more comfortable. However, unlike Barth, I believe that small animals like guinea pigs should be allowed in carriers. Although I do concede that others have the right to feel comfortable, I believe that other people are being unreasonable if they feel anxious about a tiny animal that cannot escape its container. Finally, I believe that Barth is correct that narcissism plays a role in people’s “need” for emotional support animals. When someone sees another person with support animals, I know from experience that some people feel entitled to them as well. However, I do not know how much it plays a role because I have been fortunate enough not to suffer from mental illness. Thus, I will not accuse someone who is suffering of being selfish.

[Rochelle Sullivan]

In the article, Diane Barth argues whether or not people are taking support animals too far. Barth addresses the concerns and needs for emotional support animals and how they are beneficial, but she also states there are some concerns with the issue. Barth believes service animals are a helpful yet harmful factor to society. They “soothe and comfort their owners” but “increase anxiety and tension among others” (Barth par 13).

I agree with Barth’s opinion against how service animals may be harmful to society, but I disagree that it’s narcissistic. People are afraid of a lot of things in the world, but support animals are trained. Although these animals are allowed in most public facilities, they will not bother anyone and are only there to make sure their owners are okay. To contracted myself, Barth states some people do use the support title for free airline travel or other ways out of things and that is not okay.

[Olivia Pait]

In the article “Is an emotional support animal serving a person’s needs or their narcissism?” by F. Diane Barth, a psychotherapist, she argues that the increasing amount of emotional support animals is due to narcissism and selfish motives. She presents three main reasons or incentives for people having and acquiring these certifications for their animals. She states that the levels of anxiety and depression in the world is increasing and having an emotional support animal helps many people cope with their fear and calms them down. She does not deny the fact that ESA’s help many people with mental health issues but does state that she has never written an ESA letter for her patients. She also states that the increase in popularity of emotional support animals is due to the changes in attitudes towards mental health. The stigmas once associated with a lot of these conditions has decreased in the recent years. Lastly, Barth suggests the reasoning for the increase is that an attitude of “me first” has made the population increasingly more narcissistic. She states that often people with emotional support animals have their animals registered by their doctor selfishly in order to feel more secure when travelling with their pets to protect the animals from injury or loss in travelling transitions, as well as to avoid the costs associated with travelling with pets. In her eyes this is selfish due to the lack of thought for other travelers and their fears
I disagree with Barth’s point of view on the topic that the number of emotional support animals is increasing due to narcissism. Although, I do agree that as with a lot of rules and regulations there will always be people who want to “play the system”. I personally have an emotional support animal whom I adopted from a shelter. My intentions were not to have him certified to avoid some of the expenses that accumulate from having a dog in college. I have him because he helps comfort me when I have anxiety attacks and he is a great companion. If a doctor agrees that an animal would help someone’s treatment of anxiety why wouldn’t one reap the benefits of having a registered ESA. I believe that to manage the downfalls of emotional support animals in planes and public areas there should be designated places for people who need their animals, and places for people who are afraid of animals or have allergies. I don’t believe that it is the responsibility of someone who has a prescribed animal to help them with their anxiety or depression to have more stress because of how people around them will react or feel about their form of treatment and coping. I agree with Barth that in order for these animals to be taken to certain places such as an airplane that they should at least be cleared to be around large groups of people.

[MK Osborn]

“Is an emotional support animal serving a person’s needs or their narcissism?” by F. Diane Barth the controversies that are on the rise about emotional support animals. Barth starts by explaining how there are definitely positive effects from having a pet or an emotional support animal. She recalls a patient that felt so at peace because a cat was by her side during her session, that her patient went and bought a cat. Barry includes info about how research about how people with PTSD can see improvement in their mental illness with an emotional support animal. She then flips her argument around in order to show the opposite said of the argument. Barth includes how having animals in public places can actually have reverse effects, and cause others to feel anxiety. Barth explains how those who are afraid of animals or have certain allergies feel the negative side of having animals around, as they are greatly effected both physically and mentally. Barth’s view is kind of split down the middle, but it helps get the argument across and shows that she is willing to see both sides.

In my opinion, I do feel that people are allergic or may have a fear of animals shouldn’t have to suffer because of an emotional support animal, but at the same time, there’s not a way for people to avoid this problem altogether. I feel that if people have an emotional support animal, they should have a valid reason for it. Nowadays, so many people just abuse having the opportunity to take your pet with you and claim it’s for emotional support. This takes away from those who actually need those emotional support animals, and it almost makes the animals seem less legit to outsiders. I know a lot of people that have emotional support animals for a valid reason and it does help them a lot to have that companionship. I understand the issues that can arise from bringing a support animal out in the public, but if they are being used for the right reason, I think that emotional support animals are great and they can have amazing benefits for your mental and physical health.

[JBautista]

Nowadays we know more about the health benefits of service animals. There also seems to be a competition between who has the more exotic service animal, but who knows if the typical service dog works better than the service snake. Barth gives us examples on both sides of the argument. Whether having a service animal is good for all or only benefits the owner. In the article it states that “the range of animals that provide emotional support has expanded to include geese, pigs, peacocks and even iguanas and snakes.” These service animals are being taken in to public spaces where who knows what else it might trigger, for example I have a phobia of snakes and would have a panic attack if by accident, the service animal of another person came slithering to me. Many people also have allergies to certain animals and could have an allergic reaction. Or where do the animals go if their owner goes to sleep, and do they take them to the bathroom with them? But every person does deserve a sense of comfort and I agree that people who need them should be able to carry their service animals. This also means that airplanes, restaurants and places who welcome them should also designate places and have a plan of purchase or experience for them that won't affect other people’s health. There should also be a more enforced form of checking that the animal has a certification and that it is well trained and able to be taken out in public.

[Trixie]

I believe that people should not be able to have emotional support animals unless they have a valid reason. I believe this because the people who take advantage of an emotional support animal are taking away the importance of the people who really need the support. Regardless, I think it is absurd that people are allowed to bring animals other than cats and dogs on an airplane. Many people have a fear of certain animals and bringing them into a public place can calm the person down who needs the support but also trigger anxiety for the people around those animals. The fact that people feel the need to take an animal on an airplane, just to not pay for their ticket is useless. Also confining the situation for the people that really need the help. Emotional support animals should be highly trained just as much as service dogs should be. Especially in a public place where the animal is surrounded by people, the animal should be able to know how to act around other people and not just be able to go in those places to “support” their owner.

2. Barth’s attitude does enhance her credibility as a knowledgeable professional in the field because she explains her understanding of the use of emotional support animals to help with people mental illnesses. She explains that these animals can help relieve stress and anxiety in situations. But she also explains that the need for the animals can be unnecessary. Dogs and cats can be acceptable to an extent, but peacocks and squirrels are entirely inappropriate to bring in public places. The downside of bringing dogs and cats in public areas such as airplanes or restaurants is people have allergies and can be harmful to other people. Yes, I agree, emotional support animals can be helpful to one person but the fact that these animals do not have to be properly trained can affect the use of them. Looking forward there may be more regulations to emotional support animals.

[Aylyn Luna]

1a. Barth answers the question passed by the title of her essay, because she states real life situations where people have needed the love and care of an animal, to actually feel at peace. Also, she gives examples on how someone can take an animal into a public space just because they want to be selfish, and don't want to take into consideration the feelings of others and even the animal.
1b. For needs, she gives us the example of when a psychiatrist was in a rush and took his cat to work. One of his patients, a socially isolated woman, as described by Barth, saw the cat and asked if she could hold it. The cat and the woman were both at peace the whole session. And later on the woman told the psychiatrist that she went out to buy a cat, because the cat made her feel good. For narcissism, she explains a story about how someone took their dog onto a plane and then let the dog roam free, not caring about how other people on the plane might feel. Only to find out later that there was a woman on the plane who had a fear of dogs, she stated that she felt uncomfortable the whole plane ride. Bart, in my opinion, thinks that it is selfish to have animals in public areas without thinking about how others may feel about the situation.
2. Yes, her ideas and positions in the debate do enhance her credibility as a professional in the field, because she gives both arguments for both sides of her debate. She fills each side with pros and cons of the situation.
4. Yes, I do believe emotional support animals should be trained and have a certificate stating that they meet the requirements to be support animals. Most animals don't know how to act in public if not trained. Some animals might get scared of other human interactions that are not with their owners. They might lash out at others. It won't be the animals’ fault, because all animals are innocent and don't really know what they are doing or what's going on.

[coolguy02]

F. Diane Barth, the writer of, “Is an Emotional Support Animal Serving a Person’s Needs or Their Narcissism?” discusses both claims about the need for service animals and the narcissism. Barth uses her own experience on a plane. She explained how it was her and most likely many other passengers first time around an emotional support animal. The animal was very excited and was acting out a lot. She also listed off facts about how emotional support animals can be inappropriate and rude to others around them. At the end of her article she sided more with the narcissism but not fully. She was mostly neutral about the situation. Emotional support animals should be in a training program. Because they go places with their owners and many are public places. They should be trained to know how to behave. In Barth's story the animal was extremely excited which caused it to misbehave. With training the animal could have known a way to not become excited and overwhelmed and would have made the passengers around it and Barth feel more comfortable. Barth's way of approaching the question makes her a more credible writer. Even though she favored one side she was able to keep her thoughts and what she was talking about neutral to the question. By doing this it is easier to read along and continue reading without having to only hear one opinion. Barth is a credible writer for being able to keep her thoughts to herself and give credit to both sides of the question.

[Waldina]

1)When Barth answers her own question, posed by the title of her essay she makes several points. Most people make their pets into emotional support animals she points out that they do it so that they don’t have to pay a fee to take their pets with them on a plane or so that their pets don’t have to travel the traditional way because of the horrific stories they have heard. Some people don’t take into consideration how the animal feels and the people around them. Some people are scared of dogs or cats and want to be in an enclosed space with them. The animal may feel overwhelmed being in an area with a lot of people. When Barth asked people from other countries they responded with “I’m afraid it sounds like stereotypical Americans having rather too much sense of entitlement!". It's like Americans feeling entitled to everything.
2)I believe Barth's credibility is enhanced due to her respectful attitude because she views not only her side which she believes not all animals should be emotional support animals, but she also saw the reasons why some people want their pets to be emotional support animals. She is taking into consideration other people’s feelings which, when some people are arguing they don’t think about the other side and why they do what they do and only argue that their side is right without acknowledging the others side’s reasons. She does not bash anyone because of what they are doing even if she believes they are wrong.

[ME]

hi

[Mac]

In Diane Barth's "Is an emotional support animal serving a persons needs or their narcissism?" the pros and cons of support animals are depicted as well the reasons for it expanding. This includes the increase in depression and anxiety as well as the social acceptance of mental disorders. The first half of the article includes the benefits of emotional support animals such as PTSD victims. The second half criticizes the improper use of support animals that feed an individuals narcissism and give them special privileges. Barth's main argument is that improper use of untrained emotional support animals leads to potential harm or increased anxiety for the animal and others around. I agree with Barth's argument as improper use of emotional support animals can give people who actually need a support animal a bad reputation.

1.Barth answers the question posed by the title by using testimonies from professionals, and preliminary studies. She provides a copious amount of evidence for the "needs" side including PTSD, and individuals that genuinely need help from animals. She also provides evidence for the "narcissistic" side which primarily comprises of testimonies from professionals. She takes a position against support animals as they fuel narcissism.

2.Her attitude increases her credibility as a open minded approach towards a topic allows for more factual information and an objective view can allow individuals to be swayed more easily as oppressing one side of the argument can make it appear that the author is writing purely on her personal preference and the information being biased.

3.Barth frames and introduces her hyperlinks rather poorly as one paragraph has 4 hyperlinks crammed into it with none of them getting a proper introduction. The hyperlinks feel forced and rushed.

4.There should be mandatory training for support animals that focuses on getting the animal accustomed to large crowds with their owner being taught on how to handle situations where the animal is overexcited as that would prevent excitement and aggression from the animal in large crowds. The training would be application based where the animal has to pass training in order to be certified. Application of the certification should be everywhere but have designated areas for the animal and owner to go. The plane example would be a designated area where humans and their support animals could go and sit separately from the other passengers.

[Josey Jennings]

In Diane Barth's "is an emotional support animal serving a person's needs or narcissism?", Barth answers the question in the title of her essay by stating real-life situations where people have needed the presentness of an animal, to actually feel calm. She also gives real-life examples of how taking an animal that isn't truly your anxiety-ridding pet, just a pet you have for fun, can be dangerous to other people, pets, and children around. For narcissism, she explains a story about how someone took their dog onto a plane and then let the dog roam free, not caring about how other people on the plane might feel. Only to find out later that there was a woman on the plane who had a fear of dogs, she stated that she felt uncomfortable the whole plane ride. For "Needs" she gives us an example of when a psychiatrist was in a rush and took his cat to work. One of his patients, a socially isolated woman, saw the cat and asked if she could hold it. The cat and the woman were both calm and collected the whole session. Later on, the woman told the psychiatrist that she went out to buy a cat because the cat made her feel less stressed out. In my opinion, the author thinks that it is selfish to have animals in public areas without thinking about how others may feel about the situation, regardless of how much the owner of the pet THINKS they need them.
Yes. Bart's positions in this debate enhance her credibility and sophistication as a professional in the field because she gives both arguments and counter-arguments for both sides of her debate.
It is extremely important to support animals to have proper training because if they don't, they could hurt their owners and other animals. These support animals are brought everywhere that their owner goes. One can't bring a random dog into a library and have it start tearing things up. These support animals need to be calm and properly trained. A proper program would consist of a training course for puppies where the animals get trained to ignore distractions. The course would end with a simple test of how easily distracted the animal is at the end of the course, and then the animals would get put up for adoption. If a pet failed the end test, they would be put up for regular adoption instead of support therapy pet adoption.

[Sophia]

In this article, “Is an emotional support animal serving a person's needs or their narcissism?” Diane Barth provides the argument of whether emotional support animals nowadays are for helping a person's genuine needs or their selfish behavior. Alongside with this topic, is the idea around poorly trained pets who are considered to be "Emotional support animals" but are really only there to be a narcissistic owners' companion who is in perfect health condition. It can be inferred that animals who are not well behaved in public places tend to propose a sense of narcissism toward their owners. Commonly, animals that are serving a genuine purpose for their person tend to have a cool, calm, and collected manner. Highlighting question number four, it is extremely important to put your animal through a training and certification program to become an official emotional support animal. This can not only be for the public's safety, but for your own if you're in a serious need for one of these aiding animals.

[Toni Valente]

ESDs, also known as Emotional support dogs, are extremely important. They help individuals that suffer with anxiety and or depression along with other illnesses. ESDs have certain privileges that most dogs do not. The Fair Housing Act, for example, allows ESDs to be with their owners even in places where pets are prohibited. Emotional support animals should undergo extensive training. Emotional support animals should also only be permitted if the owner has a reasonable reason. This is because I feel that those who take advantage of an emotional support animal diminish the value of those that really need assistance. Many people are afraid of dogs, and getting them into a public place can help them relax, but it can also cause discomfort in those who are around them. Most individuals feel compelled to take an animal on an airplane in order to avoid paying for their fare. Often, limiting the situation for those who really need assistance.

[Kayla]

F. Diane Barth, the author of “Is an emotional support animal serving a person’s needs or their narcissism?”, she introduces both sides of the argument as emotional support animals are used for its advantages or used for actual emotional support. She explains how beneficial emotional support animals can be to someone struggling with anxiety and depression. She also explains how emotional support animals can be taken advantage of for their own personal use. Towards the end of the article, Barth expresses her opinion and sides with emotional support animals should not be allowed. I agree with her because many people can say their pet is an emotional support animal just to have their pet with them. Another example of people abusing the power to have an emotional support animal was explained in the article. People bring their animals to travel with them on planes and will say their animals are for emotional support to avoid boarding fees and have their animals safely next to them. It is easy for someone to lie and say their animal is for emotional support when their animal is not certified. Allowing emotional support animals out in public can be portrayed as very selfish because many people are scared or allergic to animals. Pets can be comforting and beneficial to people under stress and anxiety but pets can be a huge stressor for people with a fear or allergy. It is not fair for people to be afraid to go out because of something that can be completely avoided. I think emotional support animals should be allowed outside of places but not inside of stores, restaurants, etc. At least in this case, people with allergies and fears can avoid them. Also, emotional support animals should be hypoallergenic to lessen the risk of someone having a reaction. Support animals should be trained and certified before going out.

[T Smith]

In the article “Is an emotional support animal serving a person's needs or their narcissism?” F. Diane Barth goes over her thoughts on both sides of the argument on the needs of having an emotional support animal. She complains that emotional support animals lack training especially to be in public spaces such as accompanying them on planes or restaurants. I do think that some of the emotional support animals some claim to have have gotten out of control such as the peacock that was shown in the article. I do think there should be some sort of training for these animals, especially those that are being taken out in public. This would be for basic consideration of the rest of the public the animal would be around, for example no one would feel comfortable for an aggressive barking dog next to them at a restaurant. I do not think the training needs to be as intense as the training is for service animals or working animals but just to have basic training on how the animal needs to behave in public. I think that it would be beneficial for the animal to undergo a small training program that has to be passed before finishing the certification of becoming a service animal. I also think that the owner needs to be excessively evaluated that the animal is absolutely necessary for them to have for their emotional support.

[Celest Garcia]

According to the article, “Is An Emotional Support Animal Serving A Person's Needs Or Their Narcissism?” by Diane Barth, emotional support animals are not meant to help people but, instead, they benefit them in other ways. I greatly disagree with this article because people who have emotional support animals need to be diagnosed beforehand. Therefore, people who have emotional support animals have a specific need for them and do not show them off. I understand the author’s point that these animals make bother people on planes or other areas where animals aren’t allowed. Yet, I find it very hard to believe that the people who are bothered by emotional support pets can’t find another way to keep away from the animals. For example, in a plane setting, it is very easy to ask an attendant for another seat because of an allergic reaction or an uncomfortable situation. I believe people should be more understanding of people who struggle with emotional stress and not make a fuss over emotional support animals. I also recognize that some individuals will take advantage of having an emotional support animal and make it uncomfortable for others. In these circumstances, it should be questioned whether the animal is certified for its intended purpose. If not it is important to contact authorities or someone who is in charge of the disabilities act. However, people who actually have a legitimate emotional support animal should be allowed to take their pet anywhere without feeling like they are inconveniencing others. Overall, people do not have the right to say that people with disabilities and anxiety, have emotional support pets because they are narcissistic. This is an unfair accusation that is made by people who lack the knowledge of the differences between support animals and the struggles of mental and physical health issues.

[Jake Y.]

F. Diane Barth’s post on emotional support animals in public spaces being a genuine need or narcissism brings interesting views on emotional support animals. Opinions will vary based on your feelings towards these animals. Animal lovers will think it is genuine and people who are fearful of animals will see it as narcissistic. She presents evidence on both side of the argument and tries to be as neutral as possible. She states how some people are helped by emotional support animals in public spaces. She uses the example of the time she had her cat in her office and had a patient became relaxed during her session just because she was able to sit with the cat and pet it. She also states the negative effects on other people who may be around such as the seats on an airplane not being cleaned well enough for someone who is allergic to the animal hair. Others can be terrified of the animal but be trapped near them with nowhere to go, like when the dog was let loose on a plane and the person near the dog suffered their fear throughout the duration of the flight. The use of her hyperlinks is very effective because whenever there is a fact that someone might want to look deeper into, they have the option to do so. They also might not fully understand a term or what is being talked about, so they have the option to look it up. Since some people in public spaces have fears of animals or are allergic to them, there should be intense training to be able to register an animal as an emotional support animal. In Barth’s post she shared a story of people registering their dog as an emotional support animal because they didn’t want the dog to leave their sight. They did this because they heard stories of animals dying or getting lost during a flight. This dog that they registered was their family dog, it was not trained in any sort of way. This means it can react if it feels it needs to protect, or if its scared, or be too excited and scare others around them. People who are terrified of animals will react very badly in these situations. For emotional support animals to be considered genuine and not for narcissism, they should be properly trained and hypoallergenic. This will reduce the negative effects they might have on the people around them.