Blog Leader: "Creature Comforts"

            Up until recently I don’t believe that anyone has ever considered the issue of what should be considered as a service animal. Most stories that Rebecca Skloot uses as examples are recent or dating back to only the early 2000’s. There were many times in the article when the question of what species of animal should be eligible to be a service animal was either directly asked or implied somehow. Where is the line between public safety and the needs of a person with a disability? This article tries to explain this line but even Rebecca Skloot doesn’t seem to find a clear answer. Growing up in an area where there aren’t many service animals other than dogs, it is hard to see the concern. However, Skloot didn’t just use first hand stories she backed up her information with statistics and facts concerning the use of service animals.

        
   
It seems that there isn’t enough research being done on exotic animals and their threats to the public health and well-being. When Skloot was interviewing or taking information from the D.O.J and A.D.A it seemed like a lot of information was mainly speculation. A specific instance is when Skloot was talking about Rose and her Monkey Richard. Kevin Gibson, the director of the local Health Department in Rose’s area claimed that Richard poses a health risks, so therefore he could be excluded from the original A.D.A regulations. However, Fredrick Murphy, former head of viral pathology for the C.D.C. stated, “the threat that viruses from service monkeys present to humans is essentially unknown. Yes, monkeys and other exotic animals are naturally wild and sometimes dangerous in different ways such as spreading viruses but that doesn’t mean these animals can’t be trained or tested in order to determine if they truly are dangerous.

            When thinking about the question of whether or not an animal should be considered a service animal shouldn’t we also think about the owners of these animals? There is such a thing as an invasion of privacy and when a person goes into a business or enters a bus or train they already have to deal with people staring, they shouldn’t have to explain themselves and have everyone know why they have a service animal. I understand that the rules and regulations should be more defined when it comes to service animals but making rash judgments on the effectiveness or threat of an exotic animal without evidence isn’t fair to the person who needs the animal. Why can’t there be a universal way to certify a service animal? The article didn’t state any progress on laws pertaining to the use of service animals but if people are so concerned maybe there should be a certain legal channel a person has to go through before utilizing a service animal. Just like a person has a license to drive, there could be a license to have a service animal explaining why they have it. When you think about it having a miniature horse or monkey be able to perform everyday task for a person is rather remarkable.