No evidence pets as therapy works says academic

I’m all for this. I have worked on several wards where ‘PAT’ (Pets As Therapy) dogs visited, and seen the change they can bring.

It’s remarkable how patients suddenly come out of themselves, smile and laugh when a dog nuzzles them. It’s more effective than any antidepressant and encourages people out of their seats better than any physiotherapist. Imagine the benefits, after a lengthy hospital stay, if it were your own dog that visited.

I’m not suggesting hospital wards should be full of mutts running amok, nor that dogs should be allowed in intensive care. But it’s quite reasonable, especially on rehab and long-stay wards, to let visitors bring patients’ pets in, if those pets are well behaved.

Yes, I know: health and safety. But this argument is the refuge of the terminally unimaginative. And trust me, on a ward there are more things that pose a risk to your health than a dog – the MRSA on a nurse’s hands, for example.

There is not a scrap of evidence that a dog would be an infection risk, and plenty of evidence of health benefits.

A review of all the research, conducted by Queen’s University Belfast, found that pet owners tended to be healthier, including having lower blood pressure. Dog owners, in particular, were found to have fewer minor ailments and serious medical problems.

The researchers found that pets are often ‘vital to elderly people’s quality of life’ and having to move to accommodation without their pet was highly traumatic.

One has to ask how healthy and safe it is to put residents through that. We would never consider denying people human visits, so why ban canine ones?

The US, France, Norway and Switzerland have laws forcing housing providers to accept elderly residents’ pets; in the UK 70 per cent of care homes ban them. Humanity, not misguided health and safety, should prevail.