Introduction
When one group of people obtains several rights regarding their health disabilities, social status, or financial aspect, the crowd is not always able to understand the idea of such a gesture. Some individuals start comparing their opportunities and demand from the government or particular organizations to expand their options as well. One of the examples is perfectly described by David Leonhardt in his article “It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets” for The New York Times in 2018. The author discusses Dexter the Peacock case as a “bizarre situation” when “trust matters so much to a well-functioning society” (Leonhardt, 2018, para. 13). The main idea of this article is to show how people distort the truth and make selfish decisions just because they can do it. Modern America is aware of the emotional support animals’ concept, but its essence goes far beyond its planned outcome. In this essay, the goal is to compare the conditions when people have to use animals to improve their quality of life, and when people want to use animals for their benefit.
Position in the Article
There are situations when people ask to carry on their pets in the cabin and introduce enough reasons to prove the appropriateness of their decision. They buy special equipment and follow the instructions because it is the only opportunity to make flying with pets possible. However, Leonhardt’s story is not about specially trained seeing-eye dogs but a peacock named Dexter. A woman described Dexter as an “emotional-support animal,” but without certain “therapeutic benefits” (Leonhardt, 2018, para. 2). As soon as United Airlines declined her request, social media began discussing the situation, offering several for and against statements. Within a short period, the problem of boarding a peacock became a serious theme for discussion in the United States. Leonhardt (2018) demonstrates his concerns about “a modern culture that too often values individual preference over communal well-being” (para. 6). When people want to board with animals, they cannot recognize the existing positive and negative aspects.
Reasons to Support Leonhardt
The article under analysis contains several strong ideas to prove that flying with pets turns out to be an urgent social issue. Leonhardt (2018) correctly admits that certain problems occurred as soon as people “realized that they could game the system” (para. 8). Instead of following the rules established by the Department of Transportation, cheating was developed, provoking new damage to society. According to the Air Carrier Access Act of 2003, service animals and emotional support animals are allowed to accompany their handlers in the cabin (Younggren et al., 2016, p. 256). However, with time, people learn how to find or buy fake evidence and have their pets on board without any serious reasons, just a personal whim. It was also properly stated that some passengers could have allergies and want to be sure that their traveling is not spoiled by the presence of allergens around. It is hard to imagine how a huge peacock, as an innocent emotional support animal, could be placed in the cabin without causing discomfort among passengers.
Arguments Against Leonhardt
At the same time, some aspects of Leonhardt’s discussion could lead to ambiguous thoughts. He uses such facts as animal urination, defecation, barking, and biting as the reasons for not allowing pets on board (Leonhardt, 2018). Still, today, people are free to develop their principles and positions and appreciate pet love more than the child’s care. There is a “licensed mental health professional” opinion about animal support for disabled individuals (Younggren et al., 2016, p.257). From this perspective, pets supporters could say that the presence of a child on board may be characterized by similar discontent when a child cries, pees, spits up or kicks a chair. The line between human and animal rights is weak, and it is easy to find drawbacks in any position. The point is that the law was officially approved, and it is the responsibility of people to follow it or cheat on it. People make decisions that are not always fair or ethically correct, and such mistakes are observed in every area of human life. It seems that society needs the law to start thinking about new ways of how to get around restrictions.
Conclusion
In general, the chosen article and the idea of flying pets continue attracting attention because of the impossibility to choose one definite position and prove its correctness. The problem lies not in the weakness of the law or the haziness of a situation with a peacock but in people’s intention to use facts, cheat, and demonstrate their selfishness to its full extent. Dishonest behavior becomes a norm that influences human consciousness and provokes decisions that are not always easy to understand and accept. The author of the article does not want to blame or support airline companies or passengers but to show how one event could change the whole legal aspect and its appropriateness for society. Using pets as an excuse for personal desires and using pets for help are two different things that reveal true human nature.
References
Leonhardt, D. (2018). It’s time to end the scam of flying pets. The New York Times. Web.
Younggren, J. N., Boisvert, J. A., & Boness, C. L. (2016). Examining emotional support animals and role conflicts in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(4), 255-260.