Some insights into Quebec’s recent Berger Blanc scandal
Dear Animal Advocates,
There's this perception in English Canada that French Canadians are more cruel with animals than most. Which is absolutely not the case.
Most animals that are produced in Quebec's puppy mills, for example, are sold in the US and Canada, notably Ontario. Quebec is trashed by the very people who are responsible for creating these outfits in the first place : Those that buy their products. It's a simple case of supply and demand.
As for the infamous Berger Blanc issue, which has been creating a storm all over Canada, ponds and shelters are overwhelmed by the quantity of animals consumed and thrown to the bin by people disillusioned by their newly bought furry panacea to their shallowness and vapidness. Hundreds of interest groups, foremost pet food companies, Big Pharma, veterinarians, zootherapists, animal welfare activists, and what not, several of them deeply embedded in small schools, are doing their utmost to convince kids, and their parents, that life without a pet is unthinkable. It’s a real scandal how money has become the root of all evil.
In truth, in most cases, as explained in the following article, animals are much more trouble than they're worth, especially in the city.
The claimed benefits of pets are bogus.
And unless it's said loud and clear, there’s no hope for change.
The ranting and raving of animal activists, who eat in the hand of their donators, pet owners and those aforementioned, only fuels the blaze by making the public believe that someone is taking care of business and that change is on the way. In the present context, animal welfare agents are without a doubt the most aggressive promoters of the status quo by never adressing the problem where it matters the most: the very concept of pet, a form of slavery immensely destructive for the natural world and the self. For some of these do-gooders, animal suffering is indeed their bread and butter, just like war is for so many of us.
Although I do my best to Blow the Whistle, I am gagged by mainstream media who refuse, for one reason or another, to give truth a voice. Where's the transparency? As journalists, aren’t they expected to expose injustice? Where’s the fortitude and independence? When will it stop? When will they find enough courage to do the job their readers expect of them, inform them? How else can they do the right thing if they are never given the facts?
Former long-time veterinarian
Nos substance to the claimed benefits of pets
According to a terminology study by French librarian Gaëlle Faure of the École national supérieure des sciences de l’information et des bibliothèques de France, zootherapy is a term “that can refer to institutionalized therapy sessions led by health professionals, or another such intermediary, as well as simply having an animal at home. The word ‘zootherapy’ is thus a generic term designating the positive impact of animals on people,” and to give you the full story, I will add the positive impact of people on animals, since it is generally agreed that the human-animal bond is as good for them as it is for us.
American psychiatrist Boris Levinson, who is considered the father of zootherapy, summarized the importance that animals could have in people’s lives in several beacon articles published in the 1960s and 1970s. His ideas, which have been accepted into pop culture offer justification for our present passion for animals. According to Levinson, an emotional relationship with an animal is in itself a physiological intervention comparable to a drug. Since the publication of his writings, this line of thinking has become so widely accepted that zootherapy is now a modern institution, with many such interventions being carried out as official treatments. They are “administered” by individuals and by organizations, all of whom aggressively promote the perceived benefits of companion animals. Here are just a few of the many praises zootherapy receives:
“The enhancive and stimulating presence of an animal, and particularly that of a dog, in a school setting can thus trigger good conduct, but can also serve as a behavior modifier for young people,” writes the veterinary chronicler Dr. François Lubrina. His article put the spotlight on Zoothérapie Québec, a group of specialized psychologists deeply embedded in small schools—much in the same way as are multinational corporations such as Coca Cola—with its program “Fudge.” The goal of the program is to create public awareness of the benefits of zootherapy.
French psychiatrist David Servan-Schreiber, author of the book Healing without Freud or Prozac, cannot say enough good things about zootherapy: “As for his depression, the most beneficial thing this patient could do would be to get himself a dog (a little dog, of course, to minimize the risk of falling). If the patient believes this to involve too much work, a cat, which won’t have to go outside, will do the job. If a cat is still too much, a bird, or even a fish will do. If the patient still refuses, then a nice apartment plant.”
American veterinarian Marty Becker summed up the vital role he believes animals play in people’s lives at a symposium on animal wellness: “Most important, veterinary medicine is embracing the bond as a vital force for not just happy, healthy pets...but happy, healthy people as well.”
Zootherapy supposedly stimulates good conduct in children, contributes to better health, helps autistic and disabled children improve, redeems delinquents, facilitates social interactions, relieves loneliness, increases the survival rate of cancer patients, and helps animals improve their lot. But where is the proof to these claims?
In science, there are basically two approaches to conducting research:
1. Descriptive or hypothesis-generating studies. These are presented in the form of anecdotal reports. This kind of study is extremely useful in identifying novel phenomena. They help form a hypothesis, which must then be tested by more controlled studies. As stated by Emory University scientists Alan M. Beck and Aaron Honori Katcher, “they rarely demonstrate the value of a treatment or the existence of a causal relationship”. Anecdotal reports and expert opinions are the weakest form of medical evidence. Unless they are documented by hard facts, they do not make a science.
In other words, you may be billions to believe with all your heart that relationships with pets are healthy and beneficial, the sheer weight of the numbers does not make you right. Perception is not always a reflection of reality. Some opinions turn out to be true while others turn out to be false; thus, to say “all opinions are equal” is nonsensical. Taking for truth unexamined beliefs based on wishful thinking is an error of judgment laden with consequences. Not everyone can be right at the same time. There is an unfortunate confusion between an opinion and a fact. Objective and rational realities do exist. The world can certainly be interpreted in different ways, but it remains fundamentally the same for everyone nonetheless.
2. Studies designed to test a hypothesis. Newly discovered phenomena are tested with experimental studies or epidemiologic surveys that utilize carefully constructed control groups and allow for the possibility that the hypothesis being tested is false. In other words, it is not enough to “know” something is true; one must prove it by following standard protocols. These are devised to eliminate any biases, which could influence the results and conclusions of a study and thus lead us astray. The objective of good science is more about disproving a theory than proving it. Good science always leaves the door open to revision of accepted truths. But before yelling “Eureka!” one must consider the quality of the scientific methodology used, the source of financing, as well as the affiliations of the researchers.
Where Does Zootherapy Stand?
Almost all of the studies on the benefits of pets fit into the first category. The contributions of pioneers like New York psychiatrist Boris Levinson are merely simple anecdotal observations rather than scientific experiments. Yet, these are the type of studies that are used by the pet industry to promote the benefits of zootherapy.
In a beacon article published in 1984 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, Beck and Katcher, cited above, warned of the poor quality of research being conducted in the field of zootherapy. They debunked the claimed benefits of pets so thoroughly that it is a wonder that the pet industry bothers to continue “research” in this field with such unrelenting intensity.
In 1997, epidemiologist Dr. T. Allen reported in the above publication, “Most reports describing the effects of human-canine interactions fall into categories at the bottom of the hierarchy ladder [of scientific validity].” In 2006, Drs. K. A. Kruger and J. A. Serpell concluded:
“As demonstrated, animal-assisted interventions draw from an impressive variety of disciplines and perspectives (e.g., genetics, biology, developmental psychology, psychoanalytic theory, behaviorism). [...] While impressive in their variety and scope, not a single theory has been adequately tested empirically, and most studies have returned equivocal or conflicting results when the necessary testing has been attempted.”
Yet in spite of the evidence, the perceived therapeutic benefits of animals continue to be regarded as a statement of fact, no questions asked, with a surprising and curious lack of skepticism.
Alleged Educational Benefits
Parents buy animals for their children not only for the company, but also because they believe that having a pet will teach their kids to become better human beings—more loving, responsible, and respectful, not only towards their own kind, but also in regards to nature and other species in general. It is commonly thought that children who are raised with a pet have a greater sense of empathy and compassion.
None of these assertions is true.
The Nazis for instance were quite fond of pets and animals in general. Would you believe that they had the strictest animal protection laws ever written? One of their decrees, from February 15, 1942, prohibited Jewish people – ironically considered by the Nazis to be naturally cruel towards animals – from owning a pet, reports scholar Boris Sax in his highly acclaimed eye-opener book, Animals in the Third Reich: Pets, Scapegoats and the Holocaust. Continuum. 2000. Kosher slaughtering was banned for its cruelty. Vivisection was also outlawed. Any infringement was considered contrary to the spirit of the German people. Hitler and his entourage also believed that Germany’s future lay in vegetarianism; they thought that such a change would lead to spiritual growth for humankind. They might have been right on that, but it certainly didn’t stop them from committing the worst atrocities ever recorded.
If you think having a pet makes children more loving and respectful of other species and nature, think again. The problem is in the very concept of pet. Sometimes it is indeed cruel to be kind.
Every species has an essence, an innate core that includes a compulsion to engage in a series of intrinsic activities and to meet specific needs that were formed over millions of years of evolution. No animal in captivity can incarnate its essence. Although they have lived by man’s side for thousands of years, today’s pets carry with them all the instincts of their wild predecessors; however, in the interest of survival under domestication, these must be kept in check. The dog will always be a denatured wolf deprived of satisfying its pack instincts; the domestic cat will always be a carnivorous predator in a permanent state of inhibition; the bird in a cage, like the others, will remain a creature deprived of its most fundamental prerogatives: to come and go freely, to explore its territory, to socialize with others of its kind, to reproduce, to eat the right foods.
An animal constrained to life in an environment that is not its own is subjected to an almost constant disequilibrium. Impoverished by captivity, bored by inactivity, it necessarily develops a host of neurotic behaviors due to the emotional ties of total dependence and to the lack of factors that it needs to incarnate its true nature. Says psychiatrist Hubert Montagner in a speech given in 1998 at the French Information Center on Pets:
“Man does not hesitate to control every aspect of his animals’ existence. He tampers with his appearance. He confines it to spaces under his control, imposing exclusive or near-exclusive proximity. He limits his communication with others like it. He selects for behaviors that meet his expectations and conditions his animal to follow rituals. He imposes his whims and self-serving decisions. He encloses it within his own emotions and projections.”
Such violation of any being’s essence is the negation of true love and empathy.
And various shows of affection, like hiring a professional dog-walker, getting your pet vaccinated each year, having it treated for cancer, defending it, putting boots and a coat on it, decorating it with jewels or a 1000 $ wig, giving it rights, lifting it onto the podium of humanity whether he likes it or not, do not make things right. Professor Yi-Fu Tuan of Yale University shows in his book Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets how affection, a latent form of violence, is used as an instrument of power:
“Love is not what makes the world go around. […] There remains affection. However, affection is not the opposite of dominance: rather it is dominance’s anodyne – it is dominance with a human face. Dominance may be cruel and exploitative, with no hint of affection in it. What it produces is the victim. On the other hand, dominance may be combined with affection, and what it produces is the pet. […] Affection mitigates domination, making it softer and more acceptable, but affection itself is possible only in relationships of inequality. It is the warm and superior feeling one has towards things that one can care for and patronize. The word care so exudes humaneness that we tend to forget its almost inevitable tainting by patronage and condescension.”
What children are most likely to learn through a pet and through zootherapy in general are self-centeredness and a deep disrespect for animals. These traits of character will become the ground rules for all of their future relationships. More or less, we interact the same way with other animals as we do with human animals – and not always in accordance with safeguards like laws, rules, and principles. According to several sociologists, the animal condition is essentially a reflection of the human condition, “the duplicate in positive and negative of our relationships with our own kind, ” says French sociologist Jean Pierre Diggard. Thus, we treat our own children, spouses, employees, friends, citizens, and on a larger scale, nations, and the environment, like animals, and that is precisely the problem. The damaging nature of our relationship with animals stays out of focus simply because there is no other behavioral point of reference with which to compare it.
Alleged General Health Benefits
If you think walking the dog keeps you fit, think again. In a comparative study, professor Mike Kelly of Greenwich University showed that walking without a dog is far healthier than walking with one. Because of the dog’s numerous “pit stops” along the way—which the researchers called “lamppost syndrome”—the owner’s heart is never sufficiently stimulated to benefit. After only 14 weeks, the weight, cholesterol levels, and blood pressures of the non-owners were much lower than of those of the group that owned dogs. Overall, the general health of the group without four-legged companions was much better than that of the group saddled with canine company.
A Finnish study published in 2006, which surveyed 21,000 Finnish adults aged 20 to 54, is one of the few independent large-scale studies that has looked at the effects of pets on the general population. In this study, scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva showed that pet owners are sick more often and do a below-average amount of exercise: 26% of the pet owners in the study were overweight, compared with 21% for those who did not have pets; 16% of the pet owners exercised less than once a month in comparison to 2% for those without pets. The risk of having health problems is from 10% to 20% higher in pet owners than in non-pet owners, even when factors such as age and socio-economic level are considered. This is comparable to the risk in bachelors, widowers, and divorcees. Overall, this study associated pet ownership with poor, rather than good, health.
Alleged Benefits for Disabled and Autistic Children
In 2007, in a paper entitled “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions,” Emory University psychologists Lori Marino and Scott Lilienfeld concluded:
“Nearly a decade following our initial review, there remains no compelling evidence that Dolphin-Assisted therapy (DAT) is a legitimate therapy, or that it affords any more than a fleeting improvement in mood. [...] The claims for efficacy of DAT remain invalid. [...] The studies [reviewed] were either too small, prone to some obvious bias, or offered no long-term perspective. [...] The evidence that it [DAT] produces enduring improvement in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil. […]”
What Marino and Lilienfeld have found about dolphin-assisted therapy is true for any type of animal-assisted therapy. After more than 50 years of intense “research” and countless articles published there is no evidence to this day that animal therapy works to combat any form of disability, disease, or condition, psychological or otherwise.
Alleged Redeeming Benefits for Prisoners
For reasons that have been previously specified, pets don’t make us more human. Some of the most influential studies on the redeeming qualities of pets, like the prison study of David Lee, were never published in scientific journals. These “studies”, were never pier reviewed, according to scientists Beck and Katcher, “they were taken from published proceedings, documentary films, personal communications, or internal documents. There were also frequent citations from articles in the popular press and newsletters.” There is no proof to this day that pets can actually redeem criminals.
Alleged Social Benefits
Despite the commonplace belief that pets offer their owners an opportunity for increased contact with other people, French sociologist Jean Yonnet explains that the opposite is more likely true:
“The twice-daily obligation of taking one’s dog for a walk appears to be insufficient to promote the social interactions attributed to zootherapy, and all the more so for cats, which are more popular than dogs and hardly ever leave their apartments. In addition, the presence of an animal on the street can be just as easily an obstacle to haphazard social interaction as a facilitator of it. In reality, the dog walker often has to keep far away from others because of the fear he arouses (in children, in the presence of other, incompatible dogs, out of fear of allergies or of dogs in general).”
People whose lives are socially unsatisfactory often try to spice things up by acquiring an animal, but according to a study by American psychologist Andrew Gilbey, there is no evidence to this day that having a pet truly relieves loneliness. In fact, some scientists like Finish scientists Leena K. Koivusilta and Ansa Ojanlatva believe that a pet is more likely to exacerbate underlying problems, which remain unaddressed.
Sharing thoughts and feelings with a person, animal, or object that cannot challenge you may lead to emotional hyper-dependence. Children, as well as immature adults, are particularly vulnerable to the trap. This phenomenon of psychological transference is well known to psychologists. In other words, the contemplation of self through the distorting prism of an object or an animal that will not or cannot set you straight is both a shelter and a danger. The systematic escape from existential problems short-circuits one of nature’s most potent agents of change: sorrow. Only sorrow can make us appreciate the urgent need of change. Those who avoid it at all costs suffer countless negative effects on their relationships and on life in general. Escapism has become a way of life in our consumer society.
Alleged Effects on Cancer Patients
Some children undergoing chemotherapy are said to be calmer and to have a better attitude in the presence of an animal, as shown by a lower-than-normal cortisol level in their blood. This is an empirical measure of their psychological state, but the observation says little about the effectiveness of the treatment. Also in question is the link of the animal itself to the observed decrease in anxiety. It could have more to do with the novelty of the situation, the demonstration of interest in the child, or the presence of a reassuring person close by. A game, a clown, a parent, or a friend might be just as effective if not more so, as many children are uncomfortable with animals.
One dimensional thought
It is seldom said, but the claimed benefits of pets and animals in general are a result of one-dimensional thought or positive thinking, an approach to thinking that dates back at least to the Ancient Greeks. Most monotheistic religions, notably Christianity, were constructed around this mental template. In this logic, skepticism and doubt are eliminated from our reasoning skills; what lies underneath, in the shadows, is thought to be an invitation to chaos, disease, and ill fate, to be avoided at all costs; only positive thoughts, words, and deeds that generate gratifying actions and feelings that booster self-esteem are encouraged. Although short-lived, self-esteem is a well-documented tranquilizer.
More recently, in the 19th century, American pragmatist Charles Pierce played a vital role in promoting this one-sided approach to reality. The purpose was to eliminate any thought or action that could hinder progress and the flow of business. Thanks to compulsory schooling, a Prussian invention of that epoch, obedience and respect for experts and arbitrary authority became second nature. The hold of this mindset took another turn in the fifties during the witch-hunting era of McCarthyism. Because of the threat of communism, the teaching of efficient critical thought was eliminated from most university curricula in the West with the intent of curbing dissension.
Like hope and faith, zootherapy is a bogus quick-fix, an unfruitful attempt to flee from the harsh realities of the human condition.
When brief psychotherapies were introduced in the 1960s, positive thinking was popularized almost to the point of becoming a religion. These therapeutic methods were not conceived to cure, but rather to soothe patients just enough so they could go back to work and lead a so-called normal life. Zootherapy, or animal-assisted therapy, which became trendy at that time, is an offshoot of this line of thinking, as the following quote from Dr. Levinson clearly establishes:
“The magnitude of the problem [troubled children] is so great that, within the foreseeable future, it will be impossible to meet these mental hygiene needs through conventional psychiatric channels. Some other resource must be found to alleviate distress, even if only temporarily. Such results can be achieved through the use of pets—as therapeutic agents.”
The word “therapeutic” used by Dr. Levinson is misleading, though. While a session with a pet can elicit positive feelings and enthusiasm, so can travel, movies, friends, children, clowns, and ice cream. The effect is anything but therapeutic in the true medical sense of the word, meaning “curative.” The words “quick-fix” or “recreational” are more appropriate. This distinction is vital because most people active in the field of pet-assisted therapy, or psychotherapy for that matter, use the word “therapy” to rationalize its edification in science, and by the same token, increase its perceived value.
Scientific language alone does not make a science. In fact, one of the hallmarks of pseudoscience is the use of such language—along with sensationalism—to cover its failures. The therapeutic value of zootherapy is of the same nature as that of gambling, binge eating, and drinking: it provides a transient, feel-good experience, but at a high cost not only to people but to animals.
According to a 2008 survey by Léger marketing, in 2007, 575 000 dogs and cats, or 25 % of a population of 2.3 million, were destroyed in shelters and ponds such as the infamous Berger Blanc (these numbers are much higher as they do not include less familiar species like pocket pets, birds, and horses, which are just as numerous as the above species. Pets destroyed by veterinarians on a first come first served basis and those that die naturally are not included either). In comparison, in Quebec, in 1998, there were a total of 55 000 human deaths, or 0.78 % of the total population, a number 32 times lower than the number of four-legged children abandoned by their adoptive parents to be put down.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of abuses that are routinely inflicted on animals for the most trivial reasons.
In short, the human-pet bond is far from being the therapeutic panacea claimed by advocates of responsible animal stewardship. On the contrary, it is both self-destructive and destructive to the natural world.
Note: this article was revised and translated by Erin Lestrade
1Faure, Gaëlle. “La représentation de l’animal de compagnie dans la vie psycho- affective de l’Homme adulte. Rapport de recherche bibliographique.” École national supérieure des sciences de l’information et des bibliothèques. 2004. 47.
2 Levinson, Boris. “The Dog as a Co-therapist.” Mental Hygiene, vol. 46. 1962. 59- 65. “Pets: A Special Technique in Psychotherapy.” Mental Hygiene, vol. 48. 1964. 242-248; “Pet Psychotherapy: Use of Household Pets in the Treatment of Behaviour Disorders in Childhood.” Psychological Reports, vol. 17. 1965. 695-608; “The Veterinarian and Mental Hygiene.” Mental Hygiene, vol. 49. 1965. 320-323; “Pets and Personality Development.” Psychological Reports, vol. 42. 1978. 1031-1038; “Pets, Child Development, and Mental Illness.” Journal of the American Veterinary Association, vol. 157, no11. 1976. 1759; “Psychology of Pet Ownership.” Proceedings of the National Conference on the Ecology of the Surplus Dog and Cat. Chicago, IL. Conference: 1974.18-31; Pet-Oriented Child Psychotherapy. 2e ed. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas. 1997.
3Servan-Schreiber, David. Guérir. France: Éditions Robert Laffont. 2003. 194.
4Becker, Marty. “Celebrating the Relationship between People, Pets, and Their Veterinarians.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 210, no 8. 1997.
5Wilson, C.C. and S.B. Barker. “Challenges in Designing Human-Animal Interaction Research.” American Behaviour Scientist, 47 (1). 2003. 16-23; Guide to Clinical Preventive Services. “Evaluating Quality of the Evidence.” 3rd Edition, XIXVIII. 2000- 2002.
6Michaels, David. Doubt is Their Product. How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens your Health. Oxford University Press. 2008; Psaty, Bruce. “Recent trials in hypertension: Compelling science or commercial speech ?” Journal of the American Medical Association. April 12, 2006; Smith, Richard. “Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies.” May 2005 : www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138PLoSMed (site consulted in January 2010). For an insider look at the mind-boggling world of “research” in zootherapy see: Lana Kaiser et al. “Can a week of therapeutic riding make a difference? A pilot study.” Anthrozoös, 17 (1) p. 63-72. 2004.
7 Beck, A.M. and Katcher, A.H. “A New Look at Pet-Facilitated Therapy.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 184, no 4. 1984. P.15
8 Ibid; Digard, Jean-Pierre. Les Français et leurs animaux: Ethnologie d’un phénomène de société. Paris: Hachette littératures, Pluriel: ethnologie. 2005. P.41; Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell. “Animal-Assisted Interventions in Mental Health: Definitions and Theoretical Foundations.” In: Fine, A.H. (Ed.) Handbook on Animal- Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines for Practice, 2nd Edition. New York: Academic Press. 2006. P. 21-38.
9 Allen, David T. “Effects of Dogs on Human Health.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, vol. 210, no 7. 1997.
10 Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell. Art. cited.
11 Dobson, Roger. “Walking the Dog Not as Good as Walking Alone.” The Independent (London) 3/5/1998.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19980503/ai_n14154858 (consulted in may 2010).
12 Koivusilta, Leena K. and Ansa Ojanlatva. “To Have or Not to Have a Pet for Better Health?” PLoS One1(1): e109.doi:10.137/journal.pone.0000109. 2006; Pachana, Nancy et al. “Relations between Companion Animals and Self-Reported Health in Older Women: Cause, Effect or Artifact?” International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, vol. 2, no 2. 2005. 103-110; Marino, Lori and Scott, Lilienfeld. “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions.” 2007; Kruger, K.A. & J.A. Serpell. “Animal-Assisted Interventions in Mental Health.” 2006.
13 Daly, Beth and L.L. Morton. “Children with Pets Do Not Show Higher Empathy: A Challenge to Current Views.” Anthrozoös, 16(4). 2003. 298; French ethnologist André G. Haudricourt wrote a very interesting article on this topic: “Domestication des animaux, culture des plantes et traitement d’autrui.” L’Homme (2), no1. 1962. 40-50; Vilmer Jean-Baptiste Jeangène. Éthique Animale. Presses Universitaires de France (PUF) 2008; Stuart Spencer. "History and Ethics of Keeping Pets: Comparison with Farm Animals.” Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, vol. 19. 2006. 17-25; Sztybel David. “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” Ethics and the environment, 11(1). 2006; Irvine Leslie. “Pampered or Enslaved? The Moral Dilemmas of Pets.” International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, vol. 24, no 4. 2004. 5-16; West, Patrick. Conspicuous Compassion: Why Sometimes It Is Really Cruel to Be Kind. Civitas, 2004; Nibert D. Animal Rights/Human Rights. Entanglement of Oppression and Liberation. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. 2002; Tuan, Yi-Fu. Dominance and affection. The making of pets. Yale University Press. 1984; Spiegel, Marjory. The dreaded comparison: human and animal slavery. Mirror books. 1996; Canto-Sperber. Dictionnaire d’Éthique. PUF. 1997; Swabe Joanna. Animals as a Natural Resource: Ambivalence in the Human-Animal Relationship in a Veterinary Practice. 1996; Wolfensohn S. “The Things We Do to Dogs.” New Scientist. 1981. 404-407.
14 Montagner, Hubert. “Un élément de qualité de vie.” Rencontres � Nantes, éditions AFIRAC, 1998. 5. In: Talin, Christian. Anthropologie de l’animal de compagnie: L’animal autre figure de l’altérité. Paris: L’Atelier de L’Archet. 2000.
15 Marino, Lori and Scott Lilienfeld. “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: More Flawed Data and More Flawed Conclusions.” Anthrozoös, vol. 20, issue 3. 2007. 239-249; “Dolphin-Assisted Therapy: Flawed Data, Flawed Conclusions.” Anthrozoös, vol. 11, issue 4. 1998; see also two other reviews of DAT: Baverstock, A and F. Finlay. “Archives of Disease in Childhood.” 93 (11). 2008. 994-995; Humphries, Tracy L. “Effectiveness of Dolphin-Assisted Therapy as a Behavioural Intervention for Young Children with Disabilities.” Bridges, vol. 1, no 6. 2003.
16 Beck, A.M. and Katcher, A.H. Article cited.
17 Yonnet, Paul. Jeux, modes et masses, La société française et le moderne, 1945- 1985. Éditions Gallimard, 1985; see also Kruger, K.A. and J.A. Serpell. “Animal- Assisted Interventions in Mental Health.” 2006.
18 Gilbey, Andrew et al. “A longitudinal Test of the Belief that Companion Animal Ownership Can Help Reduce Loneliness. Anthrozoos, vol. 20, no 4. 2007. 345-353
19 Koivusilta, Leena K. and Ansa Ojanlatva. Art. cited.
20 Anderson, Digby and Peter Mullen, ed. Faking it: The Sentimentalisation of Modern Society. Social Affair Unit. 1998; Charlton, Bruce. “The Moral Case against Psychotherapy.” Psychiatric Bulletin 15. 1991. 490-492.
21 Fromm, Erich. Escape from Freedom. London: Routledge, 1941
22 Schwarts, Angela and Patronek Gary. “Methodological Issues in Studying the Anxiety-Reducing Effects of Animals: Reflections from a Pediatric Dental Study. Anthrozoös, 15(4). 2002.
23 Marcuse, Herbert. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon Press. 1964.
24 Wilson, Floyd B. “The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.” Paths to Power. 1899. Available from Kessinger Publishing. ISBN 0766103137
25 Greenberg, Jeff et al. “Why Do People Need Self-esteem? Converging Evidence That Self-Esteem Serves an Anxiety-Buffering Function.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 63, issue 6. 1992. 913.
26 Gatto John Taylor. Dumbing Us Down: The hidden curricula of compulsory schooling. New Society Publishers; 2002; The Underground History of American Education: A school Teacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling; Weapons of Mass Instruction. New Society Publishers. 2009; www.johntaylorgatto.com/bookstore/; Melton James Van Horne. Absolutism and the eighteenth-century origins of compulsory schooling in Prussia and Austria. Cambridge University Press. 1988.
27 Levinson, Boris. “Pets: A Special Technique in Child Psychotherapy.” Mental Hygiene, vol. 48. 1964. 243.
28 Shermer, Michael. Why People Believe Weird Things. Forward by Stephen Jay Gould. W.H. Freeman, 2002; Paul, Richard W. and Linda Elder. Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Professional and Personal Life. Prentice Hall. 2002; Schick, Theodore and Lewis Vaughn. How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. Forward by Martin Gardner. Mayfield Publishing Company. 2000.