I recently read that because of the economic downturn, RSPCA and other animal shelters have been inundated with pets that’s have been abandoned because people have no choice but to do so due to expensive vet costs or simply because owners can no longer afford to feed and care for their pets! Another source of letting pets go is the old/sick having to go into short or long term care or care homes.
Retirees are considered the most vulnerable social groups. This is because of the changes they have had to make in their lives both social and economic. I think sometimes we don’t take into consideration the importance of a pet’s companionship to their owners under these conditions. In general, the pets will spend more time with the owner than some members of their family, even their spouse. The loss of a pet to these socially vulnerable individuals would be extremely detrimental to their well being if they needed to give up their pet if moving into a care home became necessary. It has been considered traumatic in fact.
Currently three quarters of the elderly own a pet. I have learned that only about 35% of care homes actually have written policies that allow their residents to have and keep pets. There are many care homes with an ‘open door’ policy but with the high turn over of managers and staff in care homes unsympathetic to pets who can often change their policy making it very ad hoc and fragile. There have been more and more calls for care homes to have a written policy.
My Grand Mother is in a care home which has recently homed two kittens as therapy pets. It was pleasing to see how well received these kittens were by the residents, fussing and playing with them. If maintained properly, the benefits of having these pets easily out weighs a few additional cleaning duties and the additional costs of feeding these animals.
I was very pleased when I noticed a recent website called Compare Care Homes actually has filters that allow people to search for care homes that allow pets. Such a simple feature that can greatly affect a potential resident of a care home. For more information visit:
www.comparecarehomes.com
"It is our choices, far more than our abilities, that show what we truly are" "Worry does not equal control"
If it is any help, Community Care has featured an article about care homes that take pets. All the information is embedded in this blog, which also carries some useful responses http://tinyurl.com/yfgahn6
Just to broaden the question slightly, social housing and in particular supported housing often have blanket bans on pets. The major manifestation of this is rough sleepers who often have dogs with them on the street not only for companionship but for safety issues. A hostel or night shelter often the presents the dilemma you can come in but your dog cant.
As these dogs have often saved the persons lives the extent of this dilemma becoms apparent. Many refuse to enter such emergency accomodation as the will not give up their pet.
In general needs social housing there is also a 'direction of travel' to ban pets in shared accommodation such as flats and so the issue of pets in any accommodation is becoming scarcer as an option
as a great animal lover it literally breaks my heart to think of this. an old isolated man and his only company and friendship is his old dog. the dog's love of his life is the old man. and some choose to break that up.
just utterly heartbreaking.
I completely agree with what others have said. It's heartbreaking to think that loved animals are taken away from their owners just like that. It's not fair on the pet or the owner, and is a lot more destructive than I'm sure the animal would be if taken into the care home.
Medwin
Care Home Manchester
This does make me wonder as there has been scientific studies on the teraputic application of pets.
I work with 16 to 25 year olds in supported lodgings and one of the most common things asked when a young person moves in is 'can I have a cat' unfortunately due to the high turn over of service users we sometimes have its a difficult issue.
Although it is up to the managers discretion. Its generally said that caged pets are ok but cats and dogs are a no no. Yes I have issue with this but I'm not the Manager.
We need some form of legislation for housing law. Anything to be able to sort this problem out.
In the situation I work the young people don't come with pets, but in a hostel or night shelter there should be some sort of provision and as for sheltered accomadation for older people I still can not believe they say no.
I work in an Independent living accomodation: the tenants can have certain pets (birds, fish) but no others (cat , dog). I do think is not fair for the tenants to not be able to have a pet of their choice, this is due to costs and taking staff time to care for this pets when we should be supporting tenants, no pets.
Ok i think we all agree that there are benefits from letting older people keep their pets, but lets just think about why they would be stopped. Pets can be loud and disturbing. They can cause damage to property. They can be messy and foul areas. They can smell (i constantly point out that all dogs seem to have a strong smell, even clean ones, but dog owners never notice having spent so much time with them) They can also be dangerous. What about the right of other tenants to not live with a pet? What if they are alergic? i've got a horrid little rabbit hair alergy that makes my throat close up. This just comes down to choice, just like everything else. if i dont want to live with pets am i going to have them forced on me because other people have the right to have them? Ive just pointed out a number of factors that are pretty good reasons to not like pets. There is an awful lot of 'oh i cant belive they dont allow pets" but isnt that a good thing for some people? Isnt the fact that you have some places that except pets and some that dont just as it should be? i will except that a blanket ban is too much as that leaves no room for choice, but sorry to all you animal lovers out there (im one myself) but choice goes both ways.
"We speak, and the word goes out beyond us, to consequences and ends which we had not conceived of." - Gadamer
Pets are greatly therapuetic and registered residential care homes which I have visited who allow them are a better place for it. However I am biased as I am fond of pets. I agree that a blanket ban should not be the policy but careful assessment of the appropriatness of the accommodation should be taken into account. Pets are a great responsiblity for the duration of the pets life, in some cases we do need to support people to consider the implications. For example two service users with learning disabilities living in a shared flat requested a dog. They were supported to care for somebody else's dog to see what it was really like. They no longer want a dog, they want a cat!
Darren
The likelihhod is that more bas on pets will be likely in accommodation-based services - this is a hot topic in housing circles and on housing discussion sites.
The hot topic is due largely to the case in Liverpool last month where a dog on the banned list mauled a child to death. The property was a social one and the housing officer had informed the police about six months earlier but the police failed to investigate the matter.
Social housing landlords received a lot of flak for this (even though the fault clearly lay with police inaction) and the likelihood id they will err on side of caution and attempt to prevent pets in tenancy contracts rather than lobby the police to do their job.
Many discussions in housing have centred on a ban on pets in all communal accommodation, sheltered housign, extra care and even blocks of general needs flats. I can envisage policy creep here with pets being banned in all communal housing that will undoubtedly have a knock-on effect on care homes as this absence of pets becomes the norm
Yes this is correct but a pet in a home impacts on everyone, not the the person who ownes the animal.
http://www.findacarehome.com