Article Text
Abstract
Many philosophers have argued that prosthetic limbs are the subjects of some of the same rights as traditional body parts. This is a strong argument in favour of respecting the rights of users of prosthetics. I argue that all of the reasons to consider paradigm prosthetics the subjects of body-like rights apply to the relationship between some emotional support animals (ESAs) and their handlers. ESAs are integrated into the functioning of their handlers in ways that parallel the ways that paradigm prosthetics are integrated into the functioning of their users. ESAs are also phenomenologically integrated into their handler’s lives in ways that parallel the phenomenological integration that prosthetic users experience. These parallels provide a strong reason to take the rights of ESA handlers much more seriously than we do now. I will highlight that the current treatment of ESA handlers presumes that they have no rights to ESAs at all. Even if ESAs are the subject of very minimal body-like rights, ESA handlers are having their rights violated. There are of course disanalogies between ESAs and paradigm prosthetics. Most notably, ESAs are alive and separate from their handlers. However, none of these disanalogies are relevant to the question of body-like rights. The differences between ESAs and paradigm prosthetics are in terms of what treatment is owed to them, not in terms of what rights their handlers and users should have. ESAs are not prosthetics, but they deserve some of the rights prosthetics do.
- ethics
- philosophical ethics
- rights
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors SK is responsible for all aspects of this paper—she came up with the concept, drafted, edited and is accountable for all aspects of this paper. No one else fulfils the criteria for being an author of this paper.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Linked Articles
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Emotional support animals are not like prosthetics: a response to Sara Kolmes
- When pigs fly: emotional support animals, service dogs and the politics of legitimacy across species boundaries
- Words
- Being well together? Promoting health and well-being through more than human collaboration and companionship
- Parroting patriots: interspecies trauma and becoming-well-together
- Prosthesis and the engineered imagination: reading augmentation and disability across cultural theory, representation and product design
- ‘Limbitless Solutions’: the Prosthetic Arm, Iron Man and the Science Fiction of Technoscience
- Virtual volunteers: the importance of restructuring medical volunteering during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Pistorius ineligible for the Olympic Games: the right decision
- Phenomenological physiotherapy: extending the concept of bodily intentionality