Therapeutic animal stress

Interacting with animals is known to be therapeutic, particularly in reducing stress. But do we consider sufficiently the effects this may have on the animals involved? We might assume that because it is calming for us, then it must be so for the therapeutic animals, but is this so? New research suggests that it isn't always without stress for the animals involved.

Positive human-animal interaction relates to changes in physiological variables both in humans and other animals, including a reduction of subjective psychological stress (fear, anxiety) and an increase of oxytocin levels in the brain. It also reduces the 'stress' hormone, cortisol. Indeed, these biological responses have measurable clinical benefits. Oxytocin has long been implicated in maternal bonding, sexual behaviour and social affiliation behaviours and in promoting a sense of well-being.

So far, so good. We humans often turn to animals for stress relief, companionship, and even therapy. We know from the intimate relationship we have with our pets, that this brings much joy to our lives.

New research published in Physiology & Behavior investigated whether guinea pig assisted therapy could actually be a stressful experience for our furry friends.

Researchers assessed the behaviour of 20 guinea pigs during animal-assisted therapy; in conditions including with and without places to retreat or with other guinea pigs nearby. Researchers found that across all therapy sessions, the guinea pigs reduced their eating behaviours, were more prone to startling and had an increased risk of freezing. Furthermore, the eye temperature of guinea pigs, a proxy indicator of stress, was positively correlated with the time spent being petted.

The study’s lead author, Sandra Wirth, Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich, says:

“Our research shows that being involved in animal-assisted therapy can be unpleasant for guinea pigs if not done appropriately. They should be given enough time to adapt to new settings, be given somewhere to retreat and have access to other guinea pigs to reduce the chances of stress.”

Dr Ray Noble is a Chartered Biologist and Fellow of the Royal Society of Biology, writing extensively on agency in living systems. He is also a novelist.

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'. The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different. It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to

The Thin End

Search This Blog