Occupational therapy is founded on the principle that all people have the right to participate in meaningful occupations that support their health, identity, wellbeing and quality of life.

However, access to meaningful occupations is not equally available to everyone.

Social, economic, environmental and systemic barriers can influence whether a person is able to access the supports they need.

Assistance animals have the potential to significantly enhance participation by supporting:

• independence,
• community access,
• safety,
• routines,
• relationships,
• meaningful activities,
• identity and confidence.

However, assistance animals are not equally accessible to all people who may benefit from them.

An ethical assistance animal sector must therefore consider not only:

“Who is suitable for an assistance animal?”

but also:

“What barriers prevent suitable people from accessing this intervention?”

Occupational justice requires consideration of both individual needs and the broader systems that shape opportunity.

Understanding Occupational Justice in Assistance Animal Practice

Occupational justice refers to the right of all people to have equitable opportunities to participate in meaningful occupations.

This does not mean that every person receives identical supports.

Rather, it recognises that people may require different supports because of differences in:

• disability,
• environment,
• resources,
• social circumstances,
• systemic barriers.

Within assistance animal practice, occupational justice requires consideration of whether people have genuine opportunities to access and sustain assistance animal partnerships.

For example, two people may have similar disability-related functional needs.

However, one person may have:

• financial resources,
• stable housing,
• nearby providers,
• family support,
• transport options.

The other person may experience:

• poverty,
• unstable housing,
• geographic isolation,
• limited services,
• lack of social support.

The difference may not be the person’s level of need.

The difference may be the barriers surrounding them.

Access Does Not Equal Availability

A common misconception is that assistance animals are equally available because programs, trainers or organisations exist.

However, availability does not necessarily equal accessibility.

A service may technically exist while still being inaccessible because of:

• cost,
• location,
• wait times,
• eligibility requirements,
• communication barriers,
• cultural barriers,
• physical accessibility issues.

For example:

A person living in a metropolitan area may have access to:

• multiple providers,
• trainers,
• assessors,
• veterinary specialists,
• support services.

A person living in a rural or remote area may face:

• long travel distances,
• fewer professionals,
• additional accommodation costs,
• reduced opportunities for assessment and training.

The existence of a pathway does not guarantee equitable access.

Financial Barriers and Assistance Animal Access

Assistance animals involve significant financial responsibilities.

Costs may include:

• acquisition or adoption,
• assessment,
• training,
• veterinary care,
• preventative healthcare,
• food,
• grooming,
• equipment,
• insurance,
• emergency expenses,
• retirement planning.

These costs create significant barriers for many people.

Financial disadvantage does not necessarily mean a person would be unable to responsibly care for an animal.

However, ethical assessment must consider whether sufficient supports and planning exist to maintain animal welfare.

The question is not:

“Does this person have unlimited financial resources?”

Few people do.

The question is:

“Is there a realistic and sustainable plan to meet the animal’s needs across their lifespan?”

This requires consideration of:

• current resources,
• available supports,
• contingency planning,
• changing circumstances.

Housing, Stability and Environmental Barriers

Housing is often considered when assessing assistance animal suitability.

However, ethical practice requires avoiding simplistic assumptions.

For example:

“Unstable housing” does not automatically mean a person cannot have an assistance animal.

Similarly:

“Not owning a home” does not automatically mean a person cannot provide appropriate care.

The important consideration is whether the animal’s welfare and needs can be sustainably supported.

Assessment should consider:

• safety,
• access to food and water,
• veterinary care,
• appropriate rest,
• ability to manage toileting,
• environmental risks,
• support networks.

A person experiencing housing instability may still be able to provide appropriate care if appropriate planning and supports are in place.

Conversely, a person with stable housing may still be unable to meet the responsibilities of an assistance animal partnership.

Housing status alone does not determine suitability.

Homelessness and Assistance Animals

People experiencing homelessness are often excluded from conversations about assistance animals due to assumptions about stability, responsibility or capacity.

Ethical practice requires avoiding automatic exclusion.

A person experiencing homelessness may still have a meaningful and appropriate partnership with an assistance animal where:

• the animal’s welfare can be protected,
• food and water are available,
• veterinary care is planned,
• safe sleeping arrangements exist,
• environmental risks are managed,
• appropriate supports are available.

For example, a person who chooses a particular lifestyle and can safely care for an assistance animal within that context should not automatically be considered unsuitable.

The assessment must focus on:

• animal welfare,
• sustainability,
• safety,
• functional benefit,

rather than assumptions about a person’s circumstances.

At the same time, professionals must ensure that an animal is not placed into a situation where their basic welfare needs cannot realistically be met.

The ethical question is not:

“Does this person’s life look like mine?”

The question is:

“Can this animal have a safe, healthy and fulfilling life within this person’s circumstances?”

Geographic Inequity: Rural, Remote and Regional Access

Geography creates significant barriers to assistance animal access.

People living outside major cities may experience:

• fewer qualified trainers,
• fewer assessors,
• limited veterinary specialists,
• increased travel requirements,
• additional accommodation costs,
• reduced access to ongoing support.

This creates an important equity issue.

A person should not have reduced access simply because of where they live.

However, rural and remote practice may require different models, including:

• telehealth support,
• local professional collaboration,
• outreach services,
• regional assessor networks,
• flexible training approaches.

Professionals must balance accessibility with maintaining quality and safety standards.

Equity does not mean removing standards.

It means finding fair ways for people to access appropriate standards.

Cultural Safety and Inclusive Access

Assistance animal practice must also consider cultural safety.

Different communities may have different:

• relationships with animals,
• experiences with disability services,
• understandings of support,
• communication preferences.

Professionals should avoid assuming that one pathway suits everyone.

Inclusive practice requires:

• listening to lived experience,
• recognising cultural contexts,
• adapting communication,
• avoiding judgement,
• building trust.

A person should not face additional barriers because professionals fail to understand their background or circumstances.

The Role of Occupational Therapists in Reducing Inequity

Occupational therapists have an important role in identifying barriers and supporting equitable access.

This may include:

• advocating for reasonable adjustments,
• identifying environmental barriers,
• connecting people with supports,
• considering alternative pathways,
• supporting funding applications,
• collaborating with multidisciplinary teams.

However, occupational therapists must also maintain professional responsibility.

Advocacy does not mean recommending an assistance animal when it is unlikely to be appropriate.

Instead, advocacy means supporting the person to access the most suitable intervention.

Avoiding Bias in Assistance Animal Assessment

Professionals must be aware of assumptions that may influence decision-making.

Potential biases may include assumptions that:

• people with limited income cannot responsibly own animals,
• people with complex lives cannot provide good care,
• people without traditional housing cannot have successful partnerships,
• people with invisible disabilities do not require support,
• people who communicate differently are less capable handlers.

These assumptions can create inequity.

Assessment should focus on:

• functional needs,
• capacity,
• supports,
• planning,
• animal welfare.

Not stereotypes.

Equity Does Not Mean Ignoring Animal Welfare

A critical ethical balance is recognising that improving access cannot come at the expense of animal welfare.

Occupational justice applies to humans.

Animal welfare applies to animals.

Both matter.

The solution to inequity is not placing animals into unsuitable situations.

Instead, the goal is to:

• reduce unnecessary barriers,
• improve support systems,
• create accessible pathways,
• maintain welfare standards.

A high-quality assistance animal sector protects both disability rights and animal wellbeing.

The Ethical Goal: Sustainable Access

The goal of occupational justice in assistance animal practice is not simply increasing the number of assistance animals.

The goal is increasing access to appropriate, sustainable and ethical partnerships.

A successful system is one where:

• people who need assistance animals can access them,
• barriers are recognised and addressed,
• assessments are fair and unbiased,
• animals are protected,
• partnerships can succeed long term.

Summary

Occupational justice requires assistance animal professionals to look beyond individual circumstances and consider the broader systems that influence access.

People may face barriers related to:

• finances,
• housing,
• geography,
• culture,
• service availability,
• social support.

Ethical practice requires recognising these barriers without making assumptions about a person’s suitability.

At the same time, equity must always be balanced with animal welfare.

The goal is not simply:

“Who wants an assistance animal?”

or:

“Who can easily access one?”

The goal is:

“How can we create fair opportunities for appropriate, sustainable human–animal partnerships while protecting the welfare of the animal?”

An equitable assistance animal sector is one that removes unnecessary barriers while maintaining the standards necessary to protect both people and animals.