Written by Tiffany Huggard-Lee for Day in Washington.
The use of service animals has been increasing, and as a result, service animals have been in the news a lot lately. Sometimes, this is a good thing, such as when the articles lead to an increased public awareness of the rights of service animal users, but unfortunately not all publicity is a good thing. One thing is certain though: no single type of accommodation used by people with disabilities has gotten this much attention in years. In light of this increased publicity, people with disabilities must consider how these images will affect the disability community as a whole.
Most people, if asked, would acknowledge that it is inappropriate to form an opinion of a minority group based on one or two media representations of that group. However, most people would also admit that seeing a minority group frequently portrayed in the media with a more or less consistent pattern of representation will cause them to form an opinion of that group based on the information presented. The media aren’t always the cause of this representation either. The statements made by service animal users, their families and their legal representation to the media likewise influence the general public and can be as equally ludicrous as the often misinformed statements of the press. So, what has the new wave of service animals taught the general public about people with disabilities?
People with disabilities appear DEPENDENT.
This comes from the mistaken notion that any particular adaptive methodology or device can provide independence. While I’ll go into the concepts of independence in more depth in a later post, saying that someone who does not have the use of a service animal readily available is not independent is simply laughable. For example:
This would imply that a person that needs assistance in the tasks listed that does not have a dog perform those tasks is not independent. This is quite simply not true. However, if an employer has the opinion that a service animal is necessary for a person with a disability to be independent, they may be less likely to hire a person with a disability who doesn’t have a service animal, mistakenly believing that person is incapable of functioning.
As an even more shocking example, take a look at the ACLU’s statement in this recent news article about a 5 year old with cerebral palsy whose family wants her service dog to go to school with her:
Let me be blunt. A 5 year old girl, regardless of disability status, is not independent by any definition. There is no service animal in the world that can make a 5 year old an independent person. Suggesting that the use or non-use of a service animal affects the independence of a small child is crediting service animals with a level of ability they simply do not have.
People with disabilities appear UNREASONABLE.
Service animal users have often presented themselves to the media as unreasonable and impossible to work with. A person claiming their vicious dog is a service animal is clearly unreasonable, they are jeopardizing the safety of the community. A person whose so-called “service monkey” runs loose in the lobby of a courthouse is unreasonable, the animal is obviously too poorly trained to be of any service. A person who demands access with a filthy “service dog” whose smell clears the room is unreasonable, they are causing completely avoidable distress to those around them. These cases are becoming more and more frequent, and the publicity they receive is equally concerning.
People with disabilities appear UNINFORMED.
When service animal users make outlandish and unsupported claims about the ability of their service animal it only makes this worse. For instance, in this quote, referring to service dogs for people with autism:
I have read all the available research I could find on service dogs for people with autism. I have summarized the research here. There is absolutely no proof that the presence of an autism service dog for children improves any of these things listed above, and no research at all has been done on autism service dogs for adults. This statement is simply false.
Now, some people may read the above statement and not see anything unusual about it. Try this one:
“Unlike other assistance dogs, which are trained to respond to commands, Taylor’s dogs must be trained to a higher level of intelligence because their autistic handlers may not be able to give hand signals or verbal commands.”
Taylor says his dogs can sense changes in people’s brainwaves. “According to Taylor, service dogs are trained to focus and react to people’s brainwaves. Rocko’s brainwaves balance out Kevin’s, and that’s how Kevin gets stabilized physically and emotionally.”
In both of these articles, a dog’s ability to sense a person’s brainwaves and to respond with other brainwaves to mitigate a disability are not even questioned. They are simply provided, both by the media and the families involved, as fact. I think most people would realize this is, quite simply, bull.
The general goal of the disability rights movement is to show that a person with a disability is fundamentally the same as a person without a disability, and can participate in most if not all of the same life activities with reasonable accommodation. If service animal users and people with disabilities are portrayed as unreasonable, uninformed and completely unable to function without the presence of an animal, people with disabilities no longer look like potential employees, customers, or friends. If the current trend in service animal use continues unchecked, and the media coverage we are seeing now keeps pace, this new and undesirable image of people with disabilities may become instilled in the general public and essentially negate the social progress the disability community has made in the past 20 years.