You may initially wonder why a credential concerned with Occupational Therapy and assistance animals asks you to undertake foundation learning in human rights.

The answer is that assistance-animal practice is fundamentally connected with people’s ability to participate in everyday life.

People may use assistance animals to support occupations involving:

• personal care and daily living;
• mobility and community access;
• communication;
• education;
• employment;
• parenting and family life;
• healthcare;
• shopping and accessing services;
• recreation and leisure;
• social relationships;
• cultural and community participation; and
• living independently and exercising choice and control.

When a person is prevented from participating because of disability, inaccessible environments, discriminatory attitudes or barriers associated with their assistance animal, the issue may extend well beyond whether an animal is permitted to enter a particular space.

It may concern dignity, equality, autonomy, accessibility, inclusion, non-discrimination and participation.

These are human-rights issues.

Occupational Therapists already work within professional frameworks that emphasise person-centred practice, autonomy, participation and occupational justice. Assistance-animal practice adds another dimension because an AAOT may be asked to assess, recommend, support or provide professional evidence about an intervention that affects how a person exercises these rights in everyday environments.

Human-rights knowledge therefore provides an important foundation for the professional reasoning you will develop throughout AAOT.

The purpose of asking you to undertake introductory human-rights learning is not to turn you into a human-rights lawyer.

Rather, we want you to develop the ability to recognise when a human-rights issue may be present, understand how rights-based principles influence professional practice, recognise potential barriers or discrimination, and know when further investigation, advocacy, consultation or specialist advice may be required.

What Are Human Rights?

Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that belong to people because they are human.

They are based upon principles including:

dignity • equality • respect • autonomy • participation • inclusion • non-discrimination

Human rights apply to everyone.

A person’s disability does not reduce their entitlement to dignity, autonomy, privacy, participation, equality or respect.

This may seem obvious. However, the history of disability demonstrates that people with disability have frequently been treated as objects of charity, protection, treatment or professional decision-making rather than as people with rights and agency.

Rights-based practice asks professionals to consider the person as a rights-holder.

This can change the questions we ask.

Instead of:

What can this person manage?

we might also ask:

What environmental barriers are preventing participation?

Instead of:

What do I think would be best for this person?

we should also ask:

What does this person want? Have they been provided with accessible information and a meaningful opportunity to make decisions?

Instead of:

Why can’t this person access the service?

we might ask:

What is it about the service, policy or environment that is preventing access?

This shift is particularly important in assistance-animal practice.

Human Rights and Occupational Therapy

Occupational Therapy is concerned with people’s ability to engage in meaningful occupations and participate in everyday life.

Human rights and occupational participation therefore frequently intersect.

Consider a person who uses an assistance animal to support them to travel independently to work.

If the person is prevented from using public transport because of the animal, several different perspectives may be relevant.

The immediate issue might appear to be:

Can the assistance animal travel on this service?

An Occupational Therapist might also consider:

What effect does this barrier have on the person’s ability to work, travel independently and participate in the community?

A human-rights perspective might additionally consider questions of:

equality, accessibility, dignity, non-discrimination and participation.

These perspectives are not mutually exclusive.

Good AAOT practice requires the ability to see the person, occupation, animal, environment and broader systems surrounding the team.

Human Rights and Assistance-Animal Practice

Assistance animals frequently operate at the intersection between a person’s disability and environments that were not necessarily designed with that person’s needs in mind.

The animal may support a person to overcome or reduce some barriers, but the presence of the animal can also expose the person to new barriers.

For example, an assistance-animal handler may encounter:

• refusal of entry;
• inappropriate requests for evidence;
• intrusive questions about disability;
• assumptions that their disability is not sufficiently severe;
• disbelief because their disability is not visible;
• assumptions about what an assistance animal “should” look like;
• assumptions about breed or size;
• exclusion from particular activities;
• unnecessary segregation;
• difficulty accessing housing;
• barriers in education or employment;
• difficulty using transport;
• refusal or delay in healthcare;
• repeated demands to explain or justify themselves; or
• negative attitudes from staff or members of the public.

The practical effect may extend far beyond the immediate inconvenience.

Repeated access challenges can affect whether someone feels able or willing to attempt an occupation at all.

A person who repeatedly encounters confrontation when shopping, attending appointments or participating in community activities may begin avoiding those activities.

The occupational consequence may therefore include reduced:

• independence;
• community participation;
• employment;
• education;
• healthcare access;
• social participation;
• confidence;
• choice and control.

An AAOT should therefore be able to recognise that what appears to be an animal-access problem may also be an occupational-participation and human-rights problem.

Equality and Equity

An important concept in rights-based practice is the distinction between equality and equity.

An organisation might state:

“We treat everyone exactly the same.”

That can sound fair.

However, treating everyone identically does not necessarily produce equal access.

Consider a venue with a policy stating:

“No dogs are permitted.”

Applying that rule identically to everyone overlooks the different function an assistance animal may perform for a person with disability.

The same principle can apply within professional practice.

Imagine an assessment service requiring every participant to:

• attend the same physical location;
• communicate verbally;
• complete information in the same format;
• tolerate the same appointment duration;
• respond immediately to questions; and
• demonstrate skills in exactly the same way.

The process may technically be identical for everyone while still disadvantaging some people with disability.

Rights-based practice therefore requires consideration of reasonable adjustment, accessibility and individual circumstances, rather than assuming that identical treatment is always fair treatment.

Dignity Matters

Human-rights practice is not only concerned with whether a person ultimately gains access.

How the person is treated during the process also matters.

For example, two venues might ultimately admit the same assistance-animal handler.

At the first venue, staff calmly ask an appropriate question, recognise the person’s evidence and allow them to continue with their day.

At the second venue, the person is stopped publicly, questioned repeatedly about their disability, surrounded by several staff members and required to explain personal medical information before eventually being admitted.

The final outcome—entry—may be the same.

The experience is not.

An AAOT should therefore consider dignity, privacy, respect and the cumulative effects of repeatedly having to prove or explain disability.

This can also be important when preparing documentation for clients. Professional evidence should support legitimate access and participation needs without unnecessarily disclosing sensitive information that is irrelevant to the purpose for which the document is being provided.

Autonomy, Choice and Control

Human-rights practice also requires respect for the person’s autonomy.

Assistance-animal professionals can easily become enthusiastic about what an animal might achieve.

However, an assistance animal is not automatically the right intervention simply because one could be useful.

The person may decide that they:

• do not want an animal;
• do not want the responsibilities associated with animal care;
• prefer another intervention;
• want to train their own animal;
• prefer a different type of assistance;
• are not ready yet;
• want more information before deciding; or
• wish to stop using an assistance animal.

The role of an AAOT is not to decide what a person’s life should look like.

Professional expertise remains important. An Occupational Therapist may identify risks, explain evidence, assess function, discuss alternatives and provide a professional recommendation.

But there is an important difference between:

supporting informed decision-making

and

making decisions for a person because the professional believes they know what is best.

This distinction will be explored in greater depth when you study the Human Rights Model of Disability and Supported Decision-Making Practice Framework later in this manual.

Human Rights Do Not Mean Automatic Agreement

Rights-based practice does not mean that an AAOT must agree with every request.

A person may have a strong preference for an assistance-animal intervention that the practitioner cannot currently support professionally.

For example, there may be concerns regarding:

• whether the intervention addresses the identified occupational need;
• animal suitability;
• animal health or welfare;
• proposed tasks;
• environmental safety;
• the person’s ability to meet the animal’s needs;
• unrealistic expectations about what the animal can provide;
• risks to the person, animal or others;
• insufficient information;
• the need for another professional assessment; or
• whether another intervention should also be considered.

Respecting someone’s autonomy does not require an Occupational Therapist to provide an opinion they do not professionally hold.

A rights-respecting response might sometimes be:

I cannot recommend this arrangement based on the information currently available, but I want to explain why and discuss what other options or next steps are available.

The person should remain meaningfully involved in the process even when the professional conclusion is not the outcome they hoped for.

Human Rights and Animal Welfare

Assistance-animal practice creates an additional consideration that distinguishes it from many other forms of assistive intervention:

the intervention involves another living, sentient being.

An assistance animal should not be treated merely as equipment.

The animal has physical, behavioural and social needs that continue regardless of the importance of the tasks it performs.

Human rights and animal welfare should therefore not automatically be framed as opposing concepts.

The question should not simply be:

Whose interests win—the person’s or the animal’s?

Instead, an AAOT should ask:

Can this intervention support the person’s rights, goals and occupational participation while also providing an appropriate life and working environment for the animal?

In many cases these interests will align.

A healthy, appropriately selected, well-supported animal that enjoys or comfortably performs its work is more likely to contribute to a sustainable partnership.

Sometimes, however, tension may arise.

A person may rely heavily upon an animal that is becoming elderly or unwell.

A proposed task may benefit the handler but create unacceptable physical risk for the animal.

A person may desperately want an assistance animal but currently live in circumstances where the animal’s needs cannot reasonably be met.

A rights-based AAOT approach should take the person’s circumstances seriously without treating animal-welfare concerns as insignificant.

Equally, animal welfare should not become a convenient justification for paternalism or unnecessary restriction of the person’s autonomy.

These situations require careful, individualised professional reasoning.

Rights, Responsibilities and the Wider Community

Human rights do not exist in a vacuum.

Assistance-animal practice can involve the interests and responsibilities of:

• the handler;
• the animal;
• family members;
• carers and support workers;
• employers;
• educational institutions;
• healthcare providers;
• businesses and service providers;
• transport operators;
• landlords and housing providers;
• other members of the public; and
• other animals.

There may be circumstances involving competing needs.

For example, another person may have a significant allergy, phobia or disability affected by the presence of an animal.

A workplace may involve genuine safety hazards.

An animal may behave in a way that creates legitimate concerns.

A particular environment may be unsuitable for an animal for reasons that cannot simply be dismissed as discrimination.

Rights-based reasoning does not require ignoring these considerations.

Instead, it requires us to avoid jumping immediately from:

There is a problem

to:

Therefore the person with the assistance animal must be excluded.

An AAOT should consider whether the competing needs can be addressed through individualised assessment, environmental modification, reasonable adjustment, planning, communication or alternative arrangements.

The goal should be to preserve participation as far as reasonably possible rather than treating exclusion as the automatic solution.

Looking Beyond the Individual

One of the most important ideas you will encounter throughout AAOT is that a participation problem is not always located within the individual.

Consider two people with exactly the same functional impairment.

One lives in an accessible community, has appropriate supports, receives information in a format they understand and encounters organisations willing to make reasonable adjustments.

The other encounters inaccessible transport, rigid policies, negative attitudes and services that refuse to modify their procedures.

Their disability may be similar.

Their opportunities for participation may be very different.

This is highly relevant to assistance-animal practice.

Sometimes the appropriate OT intervention may involve the individual or animal.

At other times, the most important intervention may involve:

• changing an environment;
• educating an organisation;
• supporting reasonable adjustment;
• addressing an inaccessible process;
• improving communication;
• developing a workplace plan;
• advocating for policy change; or
• identifying systemic barriers.

AAOT therefore requires practitioners to look beyond:

How can we change this person or animal?

and also ask:

What needs to change around them?

Human Rights and Professional Advocacy

Occupational Therapists may have an important role in advocating alongside people with disability.

In assistance-animal practice this might involve:

• documenting functional needs;
• explaining the relationship between an assistance animal and occupational participation;
• identifying environmental barriers;
• recommending reasonable adjustments;
• participating in workplace or education planning;
• supporting a person to communicate their needs;
• helping organisations understand functional consequences of exclusion; or
• contributing professional evidence where appropriate.

However, advocacy must remain within professional scope.

Understanding human-rights principles does not make an AAOT a lawyer.

There is an important distinction between saying:

This restriction appears to be creating a significant barrier to my client’s occupational participation, and these are the functional consequences I have assessed.

and providing definitive legal advice about whether an organisation has breached legislation.

Where a matter requires legal interpretation or representation, appropriate legal advice may be required.

Throughout AAOT you will repeatedly be encouraged to ask:

What is within my professional scope?

What can I appropriately contribute?

What expertise is missing?

Who else should be involved?

Knowing when to collaborate, consult or refer is a professional strength.

Human Rights as a Foundation for the Rest of AAOT

Human rights appear early in this credential deliberately.

They provide a foundation for many of the topics you will encounter later, including:

• United Nations human-rights frameworks;
• the Human Rights Model of Disability;
• supported decision-making;
• NDIS participant rights;
• First Nations cultural awareness;
• neurodivergent-affirming practice;
• refugee rights;
• LGBTQ+ inclusion;
• child protection and safeguarding;
• trauma-informed care;
• mental health;
• homelessness;
• modern slavery; and
• ethical professional decision-making.

You will also encounter situations where important principles appear to pull in different directions.

For example:

autonomy versus perceived risk

privacy versus safeguarding

participation versus safety

professional judgement versus client preference

human benefit versus animal welfare

There may not always be a simple answer.

Human-rights knowledge provides one of the frameworks through which these situations can be considered.

It does not replace legislation, evidence, professional standards, animal-welfare knowledge, ethical reasoning or interdisciplinary consultation.

Instead, it helps ensure that the person’s dignity, rights, voice, autonomy and participation remain visible throughout the decision-making process.

Before Moving On

As you complete AAOT, try to develop the habit of asking:

Whose rights and interests are involved?

What does the person actually want?

Have they been meaningfully involved in the decision?

Is a barrier being created by the person, the animal, the environment, the system—or a combination of these?

Are we treating equality as though it simply means treating everyone identically?

Could a reasonable adjustment or environmental change enable participation?

Am I making an assumption about disability, capacity, independence or risk?

What are the welfare implications for the animal?

What evidence or information am I missing?

What is within my professional scope?

Who else should be involved?

These questions will recur throughout the credential.

Continue This Topic in Your Reflective Workbook

You have now completed the introductory learning material for:

Foundation Topic 1 — An Introduction to Human Rights

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

The workbook contains the reflective questions, applied assistance-animal scenarios, case studies and professional reasoning activities associated with this topic.

The purpose is not to reproduce the information you have just read. Instead, use the workbook to apply, question and critically consider it in the context of assistance-animal Occupational Therapy practice.

You may complete the activities now and return to them later as your knowledge develops.

In fact, you are encouraged to do so.

An answer you provide near the beginning of AAOT may look quite different after another 6, 12 or 18 months of learning, professional discussion, research and practical experience. Where your thinking changes, consider retaining your original response and recording what changed and why.

The questions, issues and ideas you identify in your workbook will also form a useful working bank of material for later AAOT assessments, your Capstone Portfolio and your Capstone projects.

If you are uncertain about a question or would like another perspective, you do not need to work through it alone. You may submit workbook material to WAFA for formative feedback, contact your AAOT trainer, or discuss an appropriately de-identified issue with other participants, WAFA staff and professionals through the AAOT Community of Practice.

Join the Assistance Animals for Occupational Therapists Community of Practice

There is no expectation that you already know every answer. Learning to identify what you do not know, where to look, and when to ask another person is part of becoming an AAOT.