In the previous topic, you considered the fundamental principles of human rights and how concepts such as dignity, equality, autonomy, participation and non-discrimination can influence assistance-animal practice.

The next step is understanding where many of these principles come from and how they have been expressed internationally.

Following the Second World War, the international community increasingly sought to articulate fundamental rights and establish international standards for how people should be treated. The United Nations (UN) has subsequently developed a substantial body of human-rights treaties, conventions, declarations and other instruments.

For AAOT practice, the most immediately relevant is often the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

However, it is not the only international instrument that may matter.

An assistance-animal handler is not simply “a person with disability”. They may also be a child, parent, worker, student, refugee, migrant, older person, First Nations person, member of another cultural community, survivor of violence or exploitation, or someone experiencing poverty or homelessness.

Different rights and international frameworks may therefore intersect within the same person’s life.

The purpose of this topic is not to expect you to memorise international law.

Instead, we want you to understand the international human-rights architecture sitting behind contemporary rights-based disability practice, recognise some of the instruments and organisations you may encounter, and develop the professional habit of asking:

What rights are relevant here, and where should I look for authoritative information?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

One of the foundations of the modern international human-rights system is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948.

The UDHR articulates fundamental rights and freedoms including principles relating to:

• equality and dignity;
• freedom from discrimination;
• life, liberty and security;
• privacy;
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
• freedom of expression;
• work;
• education;
• social security;
• participation in cultural and community life; and
• an adequate standard of living.

The UDHR is a declaration rather than a treaty. Nevertheless, it has had enormous influence on subsequent international human-rights instruments and the development of human-rights law and policy internationally.

For AAOT participants, its importance is partly conceptual.

It provides a reminder that disability rights do not exist in a separate universe from other human rights.

A person with disability is entitled to the same fundamental recognition of their human dignity, freedom, equality and participation as anyone else.

From General Human Rights to Disability Rights

Historically, disability was frequently approached primarily through medical, charitable or welfare frameworks.

People with disability might be viewed as:

• patients requiring treatment;
• vulnerable people requiring protection;
• recipients of charity;
• people requiring institutional care;
• people unable to make their own decisions; or
• people who needed to adapt to society as it already existed.

International disability-rights movements increasingly challenged these assumptions.

A rights-based approach asks society to consider not only a person’s impairment but also the social, environmental, institutional and attitudinal barriers that restrict participation.

This development is central to understanding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) was adopted in 2006 and entered into force internationally in 2008. Australia ratified the Convention in 2008.

The CRPD does not establish a collection of entirely separate “special rights” available only to people with disability.

Instead, it seeks to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms by people with disability.

Its general principles include concepts particularly relevant to AAOT practice, such as:

• respect for inherent dignity;
• individual autonomy;
• freedom to make one’s own choices;
• independence;
• non-discrimination;
• full and effective participation and inclusion in society;
• respect for difference;
• equality of opportunity;
• accessibility;
• equality between men and women;
• respect for the evolving capacities of children with disability; and
• respect for the right of children with disability to preserve their identities.

These principles should sound familiar.

They connect directly with many of the ideas introduced in Topic 1 and will continue to appear throughout the AAOT Credential.

Thinking Beyond “What Is Wrong With the Person?”

One of the most important shifts encouraged by contemporary disability-rights frameworks is moving away from locating every difficulty solely within the individual.

Imagine two people with the same functional impairment.

One lives in an environment with accessible transport, inclusive employment, appropriate supports, accessible information and organisations willing to make reasonable adjustments.

The other encounters inaccessible transport, inflexible workplaces, inaccessible information, discriminatory attitudes and services designed without their needs in mind.

Their impairments may be similar.

Their opportunities for participation may be dramatically different.

For an Occupational Therapist, this should be particularly familiar because occupational performance is already understood in relation to interactions between the person, occupation and environment.

Human-rights frameworks provide another way of understanding why environmental and systemic barriers matter.

This becomes highly relevant when considering assistance animals.

What Does the CRPD Have to Do With Assistance Animals?

The CRPD is not an “assistance-animal convention”, and it should not be interpreted as though its purpose is to establish rules about assistance dogs.

Its relevance is broader.

Assistance animals can support people with disability to exercise choice and participate in areas of life addressed by the CRPD.

Depending upon the individual, an assistance animal might support participation in:

• community life;
• education;
• employment;
• healthcare;
• personal mobility;
• communication;
• family life;
• recreation;
• independent living; or
• other everyday occupations.

This means an apparently simple assistance-animal issue can sometimes involve much larger questions.

For example:

A student is unable to participate in university because their assistance animal is excluded.

This is not necessarily only a question about an animal entering a building.

It may also involve education, accessibility, equality and occupational participation.

Similarly:

A worker is told they cannot bring their assistance animal to work.

The question may involve much more than workplace animal policy. It may affect employment, financial security, independence and participation.

An AAOT therefore needs to learn to look beyond the immediate presenting problem.

Some Particularly Relevant CRPD Areas

You will encounter the CRPD repeatedly throughout AAOT. You are encouraged to become familiar with the Convention itself rather than relying only upon summaries of it.

Several areas are particularly worth recognising.

Equality and Non-Discrimination

People with disability should not be denied opportunities simply because of disability.

In assistance-animal practice, discrimination may be obvious, but it can also be indirect.

A policy applied identically to everyone can still create a particular barrier for people with disability.

For example:

“Nobody is allowed to bring an animal.”

Applying the same rule to every person does not necessarily address the different function of an assistance animal.

Accessibility

Accessibility extends beyond physical access.

Barriers may be:

• physical;
• sensory;
• communication-related;
• informational;
• technological;
• procedural;
• organisational;
• social; or
• attitudinal.

An assistance-animal handler might technically be admitted to a service while still encountering an inaccessible process.

For example, a person could be allowed inside but subjected to repeated challenges, unnecessary medical questioning or procedures they cannot independently navigate.

An AAOT should therefore consider the whole participation experience, rather than simply whether a door ultimately opened.

Living Independently and Being Included in the Community

For some people, an assistance animal may support their ability to undertake activities independently or participate within their community.

However, independence should not be interpreted narrowly as:

doing everything without another person.

A person may exercise autonomy while choosing to use an assistance animal, support worker, mobility device, technology, family assistance or a combination of supports.

The important question is not whether a person performs every task without assistance.

It is whether they have meaningful opportunities for choice, control and participation.

Personal Mobility

The CRPD specifically addresses personal mobility.

For some people with disability, animals can form part of the supports that facilitate mobility and navigation.

Dog Guides are an obvious example, but assistance-animal roles can extend beyond visual impairment.

An AAOT considering mobility should nevertheless avoid assuming that an assistance animal is automatically preferable to another intervention.

The person’s preferences, environment, occupations, functional needs, available supports and the animal’s welfare all remain relevant.

Education

Children and adults with disability have rights relating to education and participation in learning.

Assistance-animal issues can arise within:

• schools;
• universities;
• vocational education;
• placements;
• laboratories;
• practical training environments;
• excursions; and
• other educational settings.

An AAOT may need to consider not only whether an animal can enter an educational environment but also whether the person can participate meaningfully and equitably in the educational experience.

Work and Employment

Employment can be an important area of assistance-animal practice.

An assistance animal may support someone to:

• travel to work;
• navigate a workplace;
• manage disability-related functional needs;
• perform particular activities;
• regulate sufficiently to remain at work; or
• participate in employment that might otherwise be inaccessible.

Workplace situations may also involve competing safety, operational or environmental considerations.

The appropriate response is not necessarily automatic admission or automatic exclusion.

Individual circumstances need to be assessed.

Health

People with disability have rights relating to access to healthcare.

Assistance-animal access can become particularly complex within healthcare environments because legitimate considerations may include:

• infection prevention;
• sterile environments;
• clinical procedures;
• other patients;
• allergies;
• animal welfare;
• emergency situations; and
• occupational health and safety.

A blanket statement that “animals are not permitted in hospitals” may fail to consider the individual circumstances.

Conversely, describing an animal as an assistance animal does not mean it can safely accompany its handler into every clinical environment.

Rights-based practice requires reasoned, proportionate and individualised consideration.

Autonomy and the Right to Make Choices

The CRPD places significant emphasis on autonomy and people’s ability to exercise choice.

This is highly relevant to AAOT.

Professionals may possess substantial knowledge about disability, occupational performance and intervention options.

That expertise should inform professional recommendations.

It should not automatically replace the person’s own preferences.

For example, a person might decide:

• they want to explore an assistance animal;
• they do not want an assistance animal;
• they want more information before deciding;
• they prefer another intervention;
• they want to train their own animal;
• they want to retire an animal;
• they are not ready for another animal; or
• they wish to combine an assistance animal with other supports.

Professional responsibility and client autonomy sometimes create complex questions.

A practitioner is not required to recommend an intervention they consider unsafe or professionally inappropriate.

However, disagreement should not automatically result in the person’s views being dismissed.

This tension will be explored much more deeply in the later Supported Decision-Making Practice Framework topic.

Children With Disability

Children are rights-holders too.

Where an assistance animal is being considered for a child, it can be tempting for professional discussions to occur almost entirely between adults:

parents → therapist → trainer → school → funding body

The child’s own perspective can become lost.

The child’s age, maturity, communication needs and evolving capacity will influence how they participate in decision-making, but participation should not simply be assumed to be impossible.

Questions may include:

• Does the child actually want the animal?
• How does the child understand the proposed role?
• What relationship exists between the child and animal?
• How can information be made accessible?
• How can the child’s views be sought?
• Are adult expectations being placed upon either the child or animal?
• Who will actually be responsible for the animal’s care?
• What happens as the child develops?

This illustrates how multiple human-rights frameworks may intersect within assistance-animal practice.

A child with disability is simultaneously protected by disability-rights and children’s-rights frameworks.

Intersectionality — People Are More Than One Characteristic

An assistance-animal handler does not stop being everything else they are when they enter an OT assessment.

A person may simultaneously experience issues associated with disability and:

• age;
• gender;
• race;
• culture;
• language;
• migration;
• refugee experiences;
• socioeconomic disadvantage;
• homelessness;
• family responsibilities;
• religion;
• sexuality;
• gender identity; or
• other circumstances.

These factors may interact rather than operate independently.

For example, consider:

a young refugee with disability who is learning English, has limited knowledge of Australian disability systems and is considering an assistance animal while beginning university.

Looking only at disability may miss substantial parts of that person’s experience.

This is one reason AAOT asks participants to learn about multiple international human-rights frameworks, rather than studying the CRPD in isolation.

The CRPD Is Not the Only Relevant International Instrument

Depending upon the person and situation, other international instruments may also be relevant.

These can concern matters such as:

• children’s rights;
• racial discrimination;
• gender discrimination;
• civil and political rights;
• economic, social and cultural rights;
• refugees;
• torture and degrading treatment;
• Indigenous peoples;
• employment;
• education;
• trafficking and exploitation; and
• other areas of human rights.

You do not need to memorise every international convention.

What matters is developing the professional awareness to recognise:

There may be another rights framework relevant here. I should investigate it.

This is one of the research skills you will practise in the accompanying workbook.

Key International Organisations and Frameworks

International disability and human-rights practice is informed by a range of international organisations, instruments and professional frameworks.

The purpose of this table is not to provide an exhaustive list. It gives you some starting points for further research.

International body	Example relevant instrument, framework or organisations	Example relevance to AAOT
United Nations (UN), including its agencies and bodies (e.g. UNICEF, FAO)	Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); other UN conventions, covenants and declarations	Human rights, disability, children, refugees, education, equality, accessibility, autonomy and participation
World Health Organization (WHO)	International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and disability/health frameworks	Health, functioning, disability, environmental factors, rehabilitation and participation
World Bank (WB)	Disability inclusion frameworks and guidance	Disability inclusion, accessibility, development and social and economic participation
International Organization for Migration (IOM)	Migrant-health and disability-inclusion frameworks and guidance	Migration, displacement, disability, health, accessibility and participation
International Labour Organization (ILO)	Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention, 1983 (No. 159)	Employment, vocational rehabilitation, workplace participation and disability inclusion
Other relevant international or regional bodies	Examples include the Council of Europe, European Union (EU), Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), International Disability Alliance (IDA), World Federation of Occupational Therapists (WFOT) and other relevant international professional, disability, humanitarian or human-rights organisations	May provide regional human-rights instruments, disability and inclusion frameworks, professional guidance, humanitarian standards, research, policy guidance or perspectives relevant to health, disability, safeguarding, education, employment, accessibility and participation

These sources do not all have the same legal status or authority.

A treaty is not the same thing as a professional guideline.

A declaration is not necessarily the same thing as binding domestic legislation.

A research report is not the same thing as a convention.

An advocacy organisation’s position is not automatically an authoritative interpretation of law.

As you undertake research throughout AAOT, develop the habit of asking:

Who produced this information?

What type of document is it?

What authority does it have?

Is it binding, interpretive, advisory, professional, research-based or advocacy material?

How current is it?

Does it apply to Australia?

How does it relate to my professional role?

These questions will become increasingly important as you progress toward your Capstone work.

International Human Rights and Australian Law

There is an important distinction between an international human-rights obligation or framework and the law that can be directly applied in a particular Australian situation.

Australia’s ratification of an international treaty is significant, but participants should not assume that every treaty provision can simply be quoted as though it were itself an Australian statutory provision governing an individual dispute.

Australian assistance-animal practice may involve:

• Commonwealth legislation;
• state or territory legislation;
• regulations;
• professional regulatory requirements;
• anti-discrimination law;
• workplace requirements;
• education requirements;
• health legislation;
• animal-management legislation;
• animal-welfare legislation;
• policies; and
• relevant case law.

Which rules apply will depend upon the circumstances.

International human-rights frameworks can nevertheless provide an important foundation for understanding why concepts such as accessibility, equality, autonomy and participation matter.

Throughout AAOT, therefore, distinguish between:

What human-rights principle is relevant?

and:

What law actually applies to this situation?

Both questions can be important.

They are not interchangeable.

International Frameworks and Animal Welfare

Human-rights instruments such as the CRPD are concerned with human rights.

They should not be misrepresented as establishing equivalent legal rights for assistance animals.

However, AAOT practice requires human-rights reasoning to sit alongside professional responsibilities concerning animal welfare.

An assistance animal is a living, sentient participant in the intervention.

An AAOT may therefore encounter a situation where an intervention could significantly increase a person’s occupational participation but create concerns about the animal’s health, behaviour, safety or welfare.

Neither consideration should simply disappear.

Instead, the practitioner may need to explore:

• whether the task can be modified;
• whether environmental changes could reduce risk;
• whether working hours should change;
• whether additional training or veterinary assessment is required;
• whether another animal or intervention should be considered;
• whether additional human supports are needed;
• whether the animal requires retirement; or
• whether the proposed intervention is currently appropriate.

This is one reason assistance-animal practice requires integrated professional reasoning.

Human Rights Do Not Provide Every Answer

Human-rights frameworks are powerful tools for professional reasoning, but they do not provide an automatic answer to every assistance-animal question.

You will encounter situations throughout AAOT where there are:

• competing rights;
• competing professional obligations;
• uncertainty;
• incomplete evidence;
• legitimate safety concerns;
• animal-welfare considerations;
• different interpretations of legislation;
• disagreement between professionals;
• disagreement between the practitioner and client; or
• circumstances not neatly addressed by existing policy.

In these situations, the appropriate professional response may be to:

investigate → consult → seek evidence → discuss → reassess → document your reasoning.

Sometimes the most professionally responsible statement is:

I don’t know yet. I need more information.

Knowing where to look and whom to ask is part of professional competence.

Bringing This Back to AAOT Practice

When an assistance-animal issue arises, begin developing the habit of considering several levels of the problem:

The person
What does the person want? What are their occupations, goals, preferences and circumstances?

The participation issue
What are they currently unable to do or at risk of losing?

The environment
What physical, social, institutional, procedural or attitudinal barriers exist?

Human rights
Which rights and principles may be relevant?

The animal
What are the animal’s needs, abilities, limitations and welfare considerations?

Australian law
What legislation or regulation actually applies?

Professional scope
What can the OT appropriately assess, recommend or communicate?

Other expertise
Who else may need to contribute?

This broader approach helps prevent assistance-animal practice from becoming narrowly focused upon whether an animal can perform a particular task.

The ultimate question is much larger:

How can we support safe, ethical and sustainable occupational participation while respecting the person’s rights, choices and dignity and appropriately safeguarding the animal’s welfare?

Continue This Topic in Your Reflective Workbook

You have now completed the learning material for:

Foundation Topic 2 — United Nations Human Rights Frameworks

Please now refer to the corresponding section of your AAOT Foundation Learning Reflective Workbook.

The workbook will ask you to explore the CRPD and wider international human-rights system in greater depth, including identifying other United Nations conventions, covenants, declarations and instruments that may be relevant to assistance-animal practice.

You will also be asked to investigate other international organisations and frameworks, consider how multiple rights may intersect within the same person’s circumstances, and apply human-rights reasoning to realistic assistance-animal scenarios.

The workbook activities are intended to move you from:

knowing that a framework exists

toward:

recognising when it might matter, knowing where to find reliable information, and considering how it informs professional reasoning.

You may complete the activities now and return to them later in the credential.

Retain your earlier responses where possible. If your position changes after further AAOT learning, research, professional discussion, supervision or practical experience, record what changed and why.

The issues you identify here may also provide useful starting points for later assessments, your Capstone Portfolio and Capstone projects.

You are not expected to work through difficult questions alone. Where appropriate, discuss them with your AAOT trainer, WAFA, relevant professionals or the AAOT Community of Practice.

Once you have completed the corresponding workbook activities, continue to Topic 3 — Human Rights Model of Disability.