The Moral Ambiguity of Animal-Assisted Therapy and the Conflicts of Medicalizing Another Social Species

Abstract The social relationships between humans and our closest nonhuman species (e.g., dogs, cats, and horses) are complex and subject to change. This complexity contradicts the popular phenomenon of using these animals in medical interventions for mental health (i.e., animal assisted therapy). This article uses anthropological research and ethnographic examples from the Central Coast, Australia, to exemplify the conflicts, contradictions, and realities of our companion animals’ relationship to human mental health. Using a phenomenological perspective, the article examines the complex realities in which companion animals (being living, fluctuating, mortal creatures) experience trauma, respond to human behaviors, and ultimately change throughout their lives, making them less “manageable” as mental health support while still valuable as a longer-term relationship. Companion animals maintain an extremely important position in the emotional lives of their human companions. However, their position in human worlds has purpose beyond therapeutic utility. Future research and use of companion animals for mental health purposes should carefully reconsider the implications of using living creatures in medical models and instead seek to better understand how our companion animals allow humans to access alternate ways of thinking throughout their lives.