Person-centred occupational therapy requires respecting an individual’s goals, preferences, values and lived experience. People seeking assistance animals often have strong personal reasons for wanting a partnership and may have carefully considered how an animal could improve their lives.

These perspectives are essential.

However, occupational therapy assessment requires a distinction between:

• a person’s preference for an assistance animal; and
• an identified functional need that may be appropriately addressed through an assistance animal partnership.

A person’s preference is an important starting point for assessment.

It is not, however, the conclusion of assessment.

The occupational therapist’s role is not to simply approve a requested intervention. The role is to explore whether the intervention is appropriate, beneficial, evidence-informed and sustainable.

The clinical question is:

“Does an assistance animal address an identified occupational barrier in a way that is likely to improve meaningful participation?”

Respecting Choice Without Becoming Request-Driven

Person-centred practice is sometimes misunderstood as meaning that professionals should provide whatever intervention a person requests.

This is not the purpose of person-centred care.

True person-centred practice involves:

• listening to the person’s goals;
• understanding their priorities;
• providing information;
• discussing options;
• supporting informed decision-making.

A person may strongly believe an assistance animal is the best solution.

The occupational therapist respects that belief while also exploring:

• what problem the person is trying to solve;
• whether an assistance animal is the most appropriate option;
• whether alternative interventions may be more effective;
• whether the partnership is sustainable.

Shared decision-making does not remove professional reasoning.

Understanding Why Someone Wants an Assistance Animal

A request for an assistance animal often represents a deeper occupational goal.

The occupational therapist should explore the meaning behind the request.

For example:

A person may say:

“I need an assistance dog because I cannot leave the house.”

The occupational therapist explores:

• What prevents leaving the house?
• What occupations are affected?
• What situations create barriers?
• What has already been tried?
• What role could an assistance animal realistically play?

The underlying goal may be:

• attending university;
• returning to employment;
• reconnecting socially;
• accessing healthcare;
• participating in community life.

The assistance animal is one possible intervention, not the goal itself.

Preference Alone Does Not Establish Functional Need

A person may have a genuine desire for an assistance animal for many understandable reasons, including:

• companionship;
• emotional connection;
• motivation;
• routine;
• comfort;
• enjoyment.

These benefits may be meaningful.

However, assistance animals are a specific type of disability support involving:

• trained disability-related tasks;
• responsibilities;
• public access considerations;
• long-term animal welfare requirements.

The question is not:

“Would this person enjoy having an animal?”

Many people would.

The question is:

“Is an assistance animal the appropriate intervention for this person’s identified occupational needs?”

The Difference Between Wanting an Animal and Needing an Assistance Animal

It is important to distinguish between:

A desire for an animal relationship

This may involve:

• companionship;
• emotional support;
• enjoyment;
• general wellbeing.

These are valid and meaningful benefits.

However, they do not automatically require assistance animal status.

A need for an assistance animal

This involves:

• disability-related functional barriers;
• trained assistance;
• meaningful occupational outcomes;
• appropriate suitability.

An assistance animal recommendation requires consideration of the full context.

Examples of Preference Versus Functional Need

Example 1: Companionship

A person experiences loneliness and believes a dog would improve their wellbeing.

This may be a valuable goal.

However, the occupational therapist explores whether other interventions may be more appropriate, such as:

• community connection;
• social groups;
• therapy;
• companion animal ownership without assistance animal status.

The benefit of an animal does not automatically mean an assistance animal is required.

Example 2: Community Participation

A person wants an assistance dog because they find crowded environments difficult.

Assessment explores:

• what barriers occur;
• what occupations are affected;
• whether the dog would perform trained tasks;
• whether other strategies have been effective.

The focus is participation, not simply obtaining the animal.

Example 3: Physical Assistance

A person wants an assistance dog because they have difficulty completing household tasks.

Assessment explores:

• which tasks are affected;
• whether the animal can safely perform them;
• whether alternative assistive technology would be more appropriate.

The Principle of Least Necessary Intervention

Occupational therapy requires consideration of the least restrictive and most appropriate intervention.

An assistance animal is a significant commitment.

Before recommending one, the occupational therapist should consider whether the same occupational outcomes could be achieved through:

• assistive technology;
• environmental modification;
• skills development;
• therapy;
• human supports;
• workplace or education adjustments.

This does not mean assistance animals should only be considered after all other options fail.

It means the intervention should be selected because it is the right intervention, not because it is the requested intervention.

Avoiding Gatekeeping While Maintaining Standards

There is an important balance between avoiding unnecessary barriers and maintaining professional standards.

Occupational therapists should not:

• dismiss a person’s lived experience;
• assume they know what is best without assessment;
• prevent access based on stereotypes.

However, they must also not:

• recommend assistance animals without assessment;
• rely only on diagnosis;
• complete documentation without clinical reasoning;
• overlook animal welfare.

The purpose of assessment is not to deny support.

It is to ensure the support is appropriate.

Considering the Animal Within the Decision

Functional need must always be considered alongside animal suitability.

A recommendation should consider:

• whether the animal role is realistic;
• whether the animal’s welfare can be maintained;
• whether expectations are appropriate.

An animal should not be placed into a role simply because a person wants or needs support.

The partnership must be suitable for both members.

Functional Need and Public Access Considerations

The distinction between preference and need is particularly important when considering public access.

A person may benefit significantly from having an animal at home.

However, public access rights require consideration of:

• whether the animal performs disability-related functions outside the home;
• whether access is necessary for participation;
• whether the animal can safely work in public environments.

Public access is not simply an extension of wanting the animal present everywhere.

It exists because the animal provides necessary disability-related assistance.

The Occupational Therapist’s Role

The occupational therapist supports the person by helping answer:

• What occupational problem are we addressing?
• What outcome is desired?
• Why might an assistance animal be appropriate?
• Are there alternative interventions?
• Can this partnership be sustained?

The OT does not decide whether a person is “worthy” of an assistance animal.

The OT applies professional reasoning to determine whether an assistance animal is an appropriate intervention.

Key Practice Principles

1. Person-Centred Does Not Mean Request-Driven

The person’s goals guide assessment, but clinical reasoning guides recommendations.

2. Preference Is Important Information, Not the Final Decision

A person’s desire for an assistance animal should be explored, not automatically approved.

3. Functional Need Must Be Identified

Assistance animals should address meaningful occupational barriers.

4. The Goal Is Participation, Not Ownership

The outcome being pursued is improved participation, not simply obtaining an animal.

5. Consider Alternatives

The best intervention may involve an assistance animal, another support, or a combination of approaches.

6. Human Benefit and Animal Welfare Must Both Be Considered

A suitable partnership must work for both the person and the animal.

Functional assessment requires occupational therapists to balance respect for personal choice with professional responsibility. An assistance animal recommendation should arise from a clear understanding of occupational needs, functional barriers and meaningful goals rather than from diagnosis, preference or the desire to obtain an animal alone. This approach supports ethical decision-making and sustainable partnerships between people and assistance animals.