@siniang - It might be worthwhile to consider reading more of the
Service Dog Handler Lobby thread to get a better sense of what active service dog handlers experience on a day to day level. Another good thread:
Service dog q&a
I'm already reading in those threads. :)
I do get what you're saying, I really do. I even pointed those disadvantages (or rather something to keep in mind) out, earlier :)
I also agree with others that there is an extreme over-reliance on SDs for psych issues in the US...
There is a point where an SD can become a crutch in a way that isn’t helpful. Sometimes people grow out of the crutch and the SD isn’t needed anymore... but the long term financial commitment, habit, and lifestyle changes have been made, so people keep using the SD crutch when they would be better served mental health wise by getting away from use of the dog to cope. Just like if someone used a physical crutch too long, there are downsides to mental health when using an SD as an SD when it’s not needed. It can increase avoidance of human contact without an SD and lead to greater symptoms without an SD than otherwise.
As opposed to pills... ?
Pet dogs are not perceived by the public like SDs are perceived, and SDs stand out significantly in part because they can go where dogs are not expected to be located. Many people in my city recognize me easily only because they know me as the girl with the service dog. Ugh. It’s not a good feeling.,
I get that, but this is still coming from an America-centric point of view. Not as obvious in other countries with less restricted public access where it's perfectly normal to see dogs (pet dogs, service dogs, ...) in most (public) places, at work, ... all the time.
Imagine if there was a “medication” out there that required a 15 year commitment, which would have to be repeated and renewed every 7-10 years (because dogs live up to 15 but usually don’t work past 8-9 years), costs around $20,000 - $25,000 (on the low end) and is *never* covered by insurance. And this “medication” affects and limits travel, employment, etc, and the “medication” ending (the dog dying) usually leads to a season of really painful grief, etc.... and there is no certainty it would work and in fact the “medication” May have to be canceled but not the commitment and expense (the dog “washes out” due to health or behavioral issues) and the person would still need to pursue other options for actual treatment even if the “medication” was used daily... and the first 18 months to 2 years of this “medication” are hours a day spent training the “medication” (dog) to be able to performs its tasks, with constant reinforcement work over the lifetime of the use of the “medication.”
Folks would naturally be hesitant to dive into that medication as lightly as other medication or therapies for PTSD. It would also be significant if those who had actually taken this “medication” (had an SD for many years) generally recommend it as a last resort of all the options they had tried in their efforts to manage PTSD.
Again, I totally get that. But what about people who already have a dog or would consider getting one either way (and yes I know that a SD is NOT a pet). Why not explore those options for them, only as a last resort?
A friend of mine is currently training the pet dog to become an assistance dog for PTSD.
I have another friend who only went to see a therapist to get a prescription for some antidepressants. No further therapy.
Yet another friend is mobility impaired. Most of the time she doesn't need anything, at all. Some days she needs crutches. Very rarely, but it does happen, she needs a wheelchair, with all the disadvantages and stigma that come with that. She doesn't need to rely on either crutches or wheelchair all the time, but she does have the options and tools, when she does. (taking examples away from SDs and more towards "crutches"). You wouldn't go ahead and say "hey, you don't need that wheelchair, your crutches are fine", now would you?
It is >one< tool in the toolbox, as Freida mentioned. It might be an option for some, but not everyone. But to discard it as a last resort is, in my observation, very limiting. I really get all what you mentioned and I totally agree. All the drawbacks and disadvantages and all the attachments that come with that. People who are pondering a SD should be completely aware of those. But still, some might be more willing - or able - to put up with that.
Look at OP who's getting a puppy, willing to make it a SD, eventually. If it was >only< a "medical device", wouldn't you think he would get an already trained SD instead?
if the expensive long haul commitment of an SD is something you should pursue.
I don't actually ponder getting a SD. :) Because I really don't think I >need< one and it wouldn't be honest.
What I do think, though, is that we're coming from completely different angles.
I used to have a dog. I will have a dog in my life, again. Because, just as you mentioned, it's good for my heart and mind. Animals make my life full. This is completely regardless of whether I need/want a SD or not. I'd be lying if I said I didn't find the prospect of training some tasks that would actually truly help with some of my symptoms tempting (and I absolutely don't have any doubt that stuff gets better, even without a SD, and I already only have episodic symptoms to begin with). Obviously public access would be very beneficial. But I don't think I would ever actually pursue it because, at the end of the day, a dog would be more emotional support for me than a real medical necessity (it would make some aspects of life easier, without doubt - see Sideway's comment earlier - and for me more GAD-related symptoms than PTSD, but still just not a necessity; I've obviously been coping somehow so far). And I don't want to game the system.
