Anita Franklin, PhD student, Flinders University (Australia)
As I clinical play therapist and mental health social worker, with a keen interest in non-human animals, I knew of Dr. Risë VanFleet’s work prior to the SCAS 2024 conference. Now that I have started my own PhD research, learning from disabled people and their pets about how home design and accessibility influence their experiences and interactions in shared household environments, I was excited to attend her workshop on ethical considerations in animal assistance. I think her work has implications in a lot of areas of human-companion animal research.
The human-companion animal bond is a multifaceted and evolving relationship that deserves careful ethical consideration, in all contexts. Dr. Risë VanFleet’s workshop on Ethical Considerations in Animal Assistance offered a deep exploration of this bond, emphasising the importance of respecting all animals, human and non-human, as sentient beings and collaborators in therapeutic settings. In this reflection, I aim to summarise key points from the workshop, alongside personal reflections and connections to my own work and PhD research, which examines inclusive and accessible environments in disabled households with pets through a crip animal studies perspective, focusing on space negotiation, decision-making, and balance.
Partners, Not Tools
One of the workshop’s most striking themes was the redefinition of the role of animals in therapeutic and supportive environments. Dr. VanFleet emphasised that animals should be viewed as partners, not tools, in the work we ask them to perform. This perspective challenges the outdated notion that animals are merely instruments for human benefit in therapeutic contexts. Instead, they are to be respected as sentient beings, capable of complex emotions, and deserving of autonomy and agency in their interactions with humans.
For many in the field, this may require a shift in thinking. We often focus on the needs of our human clients, sometimes neglecting the well-being and comfort of the non-human animals involved. Dr. VanFleet’s assertion that “we don’t use animals in therapy; we involve them” is a call to action. It encourages us to adopt a mindset that recognises non-human animals as active participants in the therapeutic process, with their own rights, wants and needs.
This redefinition aligns closely with my research on the experiences of disabled people who live with pets. In my work, I explore how pets are not just companions but key members of the household, influencing and being influenced by the space and environment around them. I examine how disabled people navigate caregiving, home organisation, sometimes conflicting needs, and decision-making with their pets as active participants. Like Dr. VanFleet, I advocate for a view of pets as integral to these dynamics, deserving of ethical consideration in both professional settings and everyday life.
Ethical Frameworks for Human-Animal Considerations
Dr. VanFleet also explored the ethical principles that should guide our work with non-human animals, drawing parallels between the ethical codes that govern human professional practices and those that should apply to our considerations of non-human animals. In professions such as psychology, social work, and education, ethical guidelines exist to ensure that professionals act in the best interests of their clients and the public. Dr. VanFleet suggested that similar principles should be applied to the non-human animals we work with, particularly in terms of ensuring their welfare and protecting them from harm.
One of the key ethical considerations raised was the importance of proper training—not just for the human professionals but for the non-human animals themselves. Both the human and non-human animal must undergo training to ensure they can navigate these environments safely and effectively. This concept of competency building echoes the approaches I am developing in my PhD research, where I investigate how disabled people negotiate space and prioritises with their pets to create supportive and accessible environments. Ethical considerations in my research extend to how pets, like humans, can be empowered to contribute to household decisions and how their agency can be respected within the caregiving dynamics of disabled households.
The Dangers of Objectification and Depersonalisation
A significant portion of the workshop focused on the risks of objectifying or depersonalising non-human animals in the context of therapeutic work. Dr. VanFleet warned against treating non-human animals as props or tools, noting that such behaviour can have detrimental effects on both the human and non-human animals involved. For example, when non-human animals are painted, dressed up, or forced into uncomfortable situations for the sake of human amusement or therapy, they are being stripped of their autonomy and dignity.
This objectification is always concerning, but particularly when it involves vulnerable populations, such as children or people with trauma, who may not fully understand the implications of their actions. Encouraging children to paint on horses or play with non-human animals in ways that disregard the animals’ comfort can inadvertently teach them that it is acceptable to disregard the feelings and autonomy of others. This mirrors some of the insights I am developing in my PhD, where I critique how pets in disabled households are sometimes commodified within caregiving dynamics. My research, like Dr VanFleet’s work, advocates for a relational approach that recognises the unique identities of pets and rejects their depersonalisation, focusing on how disabled people create environments where pets are respected and considered within everyday decision-making.
Voluntary Participation and Consent
Another critical point made during the workshop was the need for animals to be voluntary participants in any activity. One point that had me vigorously nodding my head in agreement, was that professionals need to know, deeply, how to do the therapeutic work without the companion animal first. This is a ‘back up’ in case the nonhuman animal does not want to participate, but also common sense! We become (or should become) therapists in our own fields – whether it be social work, psychology or counselling – before adding specific modalities like animal assisted therapy. Inconsistent regulations worldwide (and in Australia, between states and territories) when it comes to training (both human and nonhuman) need to be changed to recognise this and advocate for all. Animals shouldn’t be involved in animal assistant therapy without all participants having appropriate training, and just as human clients have the right to consent to or refuse certain treatments or interventions, non-human animals should have the opportunity to signal their willingness—or unwillingness—to participate. This requires us, as professionals, to develop a keen awareness of the subtle signals non-human animals use to communicate discomfort or stress.
In my own research, I examine how pets in disabled households are active decision-makers, particularly when they are involved in caregiving or support roles. This notion of voluntary participation is a core principle in my analysis. The relationship between disabled people and their pets should respect the pets’ autonomy, providing them with the opportunity to make choices about their engagement within the household. This aligns with Dr. VanFleet’s call for recognising non-human animals as partners and highlights the need for creating inclusive spaces that honour the agency of all, regardless of species.
Human Well-Being Tied to Animal Welfare
Dr. VanFleet argued that the way we treat non-human animals has profound implications for human well-being as well. When we treat non-human animals with kindness, respect, and empathy, we reinforce those values in ourselves and our clients. Conversely, when we objectify or mistreat animals, we may inadvertently foster attitudes that allow for the mistreatment of others, including vulnerable human populations.
This connection between animal welfare and human well-being is central to my research, which is situated at the intersection of crip animal studies – exploring some of the ways that the oppression of nonhuman animals and disability are interconnected – and the sociology of home. My work examines how home design and accessibility impact the lived experiences of pets and disabled people within shared household environments, and reflects broader social attitudes towards care, support, inclusion and accessibility for all. Dr. VanFleet’s insights reaffirm the importance of seeing the human-animal relationship as one that must be ethically and empathetically managed for the benefit of all species involved.
Conclusion: A Call for Continued Education and Ethical Practice
The workshop highlighted the complexity of ethical considerations in animal-assisted services and the need for ongoing education and reflection in this field. As Dr. VanFleet pointed out, working with non-human animals requires us to develop a wide range of competencies, from understanding animal behaviour to navigating the ethical challenges that arise in our professional practice.
The human-companion animal bond is a powerful and transformative relationship, but it is one that must be approached with care and ethical consideration. As we continue to explore and expand the ways in which animals can support human well-being, let us remain mindful of our ethical obligations to these sentient beings who share our lives and our work. We should also be continuing to explore and expand the ways in which humans can support non-human wellbeing. For those of us involved in human-animal studies and work, whether as academics, researchers, students, professionals or volunteers, the workshop served as a reminder that our responsibility extends beyond our human clients and participants. We must also advocate for the animals who assist us and partner with us, ensuring that they are treated with the respect, empathy, and care they deserve.
More information on Risë VanFleet and her work can be found at https://risevanfleet.com.
A selection of further reading:
Arathoon, J. (2024). Towards a research agenda for animal and disability geographies: ableism, speciesism, care, space, and place. Social & Cultural Geography, 25(2), 199–217.
Griffin, K. (2021). Making Scents: Multispecies Partnership, Security, and Affect Among Canine Search and Rescue Teams.
Jenkins, S., Montford, K. S., & Taylor, C. (2020). Disability and animality: Crip perspectives in critical animal studies. Routledge.
Lundblad, M. (2020). Disanimality: Disability Studies and Animal Advocacy. New literary history, 51(4), 765–795. https://doi.org/10.1353/NLH.2020.0048
Sutton, Z., & Taylor, N. (2022). Between Force and Freedom: Place, Space, and Animals-as-Pet-Commodities. In Vegan Geographies: Spaces beyond violence, ethics beyond speciesism (pp. 177-198). Lantern Books.
Taylor, S. (2017). Beasts of burden: Animal and disability liberation. The New Press.
Vetlesen, A. J. (2023). Animal lives and why they matter. Routledge.
Anita Franklin
Flinders University, Australia, PhD student in Sociology (my PhD is exploring how multispecies families with lived experience of disability or chronic illness navigate life)
About me:
I am a PhD student in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and a casual academic in the College of Nursing and Health Sciences at Flinders University, South Australia. My research interests include multispecies families, crip animal studies and the intersection of multispecies families and human-animal relationships, education and health. I have a strong interest in promoting multispecies and disability inclusive spaces, communities, education and healthcare. I am a mental health social worker and clinical play therapist with my own practice in regional South Australia.
I am the human member of a multispecies family, including my former Beijing-street-dog, Pepper, who sparked my interest in multispecies families. I am an ethical vegan committed to environmental sustainability and animal welfare, integrating these values into both my personal and professional life. In my practice, I incorporate sustainable approaches and educate families on the importance of nurturing respectful relationships with all living beings. My holistic perspective ensures that my work contributes to the broader goal of a more sustainable and compassionate world.