To clarify: I'm not talking about if pets in general can give emotional support to their owners, of course they can.
I mean should the concept of Emotional Support Animals get treated with the same level of respect and seriousness as that of regular Service Animals for the physically disabled.
Just because you can't see a disability doesn't mean it isn't there. People suffering from mental health hardship have enough people telling them they're faking it, they don't need scepticism from people who are supposed to be allies on top of that.
Often times however the loose rules regarding ESAs are exploited by people that definitely do not need them. I used to work in a grocery store where one lady had her service dog attacked multiple times by untrained dogs that their owners were clearly lying about being support animals.
Also people trying to pull that argument to take birds into the bulk foods department or the food bar.
It's not quite so cut and dry.
Found the good comment.
I'm fully aware, I don't have the best mental health myself.
I was just wondering what the consensus here was on this specific facet, since there is some controversy over it.
Most skepticism comes from rich people being able to use their wealth to certify or make a "convincing" fake of an emotional support animal (usually poorly trained) that they don't actually need. But someone with a phobic or anxiety disorder would absolutely benefit from having a way to redirect their reactions to stress-inducing stimuli in a way that doesn't make the situation worse.
I think the ideal is to have a support person, but in our alienated society, an animal trained to watch for and respond to stress reactions is a close second.