Emotional Support Animal Requests By Leslie Stewart: Article Analysis

In the article “Using Holistic and Ethical Practices with Emotional Support Animal Requests” written by Leslie Stewart, Timothy Hakenewerth, Peter Rabinowitz, and Heather Fowler, although the guidelines and differentiating factors between service animals and emotional support animals are unclear, the text in which you receive these facts, should be incredibly clear. In this case, the article proposes that emotional support animals should not be considered service animals and should be prohibited in public areas. Whether the text promotes or degrades ESAs (Emotional Support Animals), the text should be reliable, credible, accurate, current, and have a purpose in its preaching. Stewart is clear when she says “ESAs are not service animals and

These animals only provide comfort, they do not perform an act of service, and cannot be called a Service Animal. The author goes on to display this idea very clearly and precisely, checking the clarity of the analysis. Throughout the article, the author establishes authority and reliability. Furthermore, all four authors went to accredited institutions including Idaho State, Illinois, Washington, and Iowa State. At these institutions, they studied counseling, animal-assisted intervention, public health, and health sciences, and all four went on to conduct research and journaling on the topic of animals in counseling. Not only are the authors reliable, but the research they conduct gives them reliable facts to convey in their writing. The author quotes “The term companion animal refers to animals whose primary role is to provide companionship to an individual or family, rather than to fulfill a working role.” (Stewart 410). The author then uses proper citations “(American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2019; Murphy, 2013).” (Stewart 410). On top of that, Stewart properly cites the source at the end of the article in the Works