The Absurdity and Selfishness of People with Emotional Animals

The Absurdity and Selfishness of People with Emotional Animals

Emotional animals were intended to benefit people who have genuine needs. However, selfish and absurd individuals hijack the loophole to travel with their pets.  Such a practice is on a sharp rise in the United States. Patricia Marx in the article “Pets allowed” skillfully articulates her observations to debunk the truth on the subject matter. While Marx is right that a section of pet owners are absurd, it is worth noting that the majority of emotional animal owners are indeed in need due to their mental condition and other verifiable reasons.

Pet owners are convinced that stressful travel environment and high ticket price justify them to bend rules of air travel. As such, they fake their conditions as mentally ill individuals to obtain doctor licenses. Marx (1) reveals that other travelers game the system by purchasing readily available doctor’s letters from the internet. In the United States, the rules regarding ownership of emotional animals are yet to develop fully.  Selfish pet owners are aware of this, thus they seek to capitalize and take advantage of the system. As the worrying trend gains momentum, attention seekers exploit the opportunity to gain cheap fame by travelling with ‘emotional support animals.’ what they fail to realize is that some pets such as pigs can be a source of discomfort to other passengers during air travel.

It is absurd that people regard their emotional animals as ‘mom’ or ‘dad’. As Marx state, upgrading the status of a dumb animal to a human child is a selfish act that should be rebuked. Others even celebrate birthdays for their animals but can hardly do so for members of their own species.  Such a move is a testament to the extent at which the American society is losing touch with human values.

 Self-centered individuals are mostly unwilling to spend on animal care while they are away for business or pleasure. As a result, they hatch plans to travel with animals.  Others apply for fake support papers to avert payment of airline pet fee. It is becoming a common phenomenon for pet owners to confuse the authorities on the distinction between a service animal, a pet, or an emotional assistant.

Fake owners of emotional animals abuse the rights of their pets. They use the animal to shield their dark behaviors in the face of law enforcement. In itself, this demonstrates absurdity and selfishness towards the same pets claimed to be companions. It is undeniable that a strong bond between such owners and the pets do not exist, especially if innocent animals are exploited to implement hidden agendas. Marx points out that selfish individuals fail to distinguish between a public and a private lifestyle as evidenced by their inability to part with domesticated animals. Pets have needs—lengthy air travel with pets prompts them to do “… what animals do’ thus leading to discomfort and potential sickness to other travelers.

In summary, Marx (1) argues that the United States has porous rules and regulations protecting pets from owner’s abuse. Unfortunately, selfish and absurd people employ cunning tricks to board plains, attend meetings, or gain an entry to restricted locations with their “emotional support” animals. On the other hand, online doctors provide fake documents to aid pet owners in their mission, hence popularizing the illegal practice.  However, the author does not factor in genuine need of people with disabilities for emotional support animals.

Works Cited

Marx, Patricia. "Pets Allowed". The New Yorker 2014: 1. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.