Informed consent is a fundamental ethical principle in all health, disability and support practices, including assistance animal practice.

An assistance animal partnership involves significant decisions that may affect a person’s life for many years. These decisions may involve:

• choosing whether to pursue an assistance animal;
• selecting a training pathway;
• committing significant time and financial resources;
• agreeing to assessments;
• selecting tasks;
• accepting recommendations from professionals;
• planning for future changes.

Ethical practice requires that people are not simply told what will happen or directed toward a particular outcome. They must be supported to understand their options, consider the information available and make decisions that align with their own goals and values.

Informed consent means that a person is not just agreeing.

They are:

• informed;
• supported;
• able to participate;
• able to ask questions;
• able to change their mind.

What Is Informed Consent?

Informed consent is the process of ensuring a person understands enough information about a decision to make a voluntary and meaningful choice.

For consent to be ethically valid, it generally requires:

Information

The person receives relevant information about:

• the decision;
• available options;
• benefits;
• risks;
• limitations;
• alternatives.

Understanding

Information must be provided in a way the person can understand.

This may require:

• plain language;
• visual supports;
• additional explanation;
• accessible formats;
• communication supports.

Providing information is not enough if the person cannot reasonably understand it.

Capacity and Support

Capacity is decision-specific.

A person may have capacity to make some decisions and require support with others.

Having:

• a disability;
• autism;
• communication differences;
• a mental health condition;
• cognitive impairment;

does not automatically mean a person cannot make decisions.

Ethical practice focuses on providing the supports needed for participation.

Voluntary Choice

A decision must be made freely.

Consent should not occur because of:

• pressure;
• fear;
• coercion;
• unrealistic promises;
• a belief that there is no alternative.

People should be able to say:

• yes;
• no;
• not yet;
• I need more information.

Ongoing Process

Consent is not a single event.

It is an ongoing process that continues throughout the assistance animal journey.

A person may reconsider:

• whether an assistance animal remains suitable;
• what tasks are needed;
• who is involved;
• whether circumstances have changed.

Informed Consent in Assistance Animal Practice

Assistance animals are often emotionally significant and represent a major commitment.

People may approach assistance animals with:

• hope;
• urgency;
• expectations of improved independence;
• previous experiences of disability barriers.

Ethical practitioners must ensure people receive realistic information.

This includes discussing:

• training timeframes;
• costs;
• responsibilities;
• challenges;
• animal limitations;
• alternative supports.

An assistance animal should not be presented as a guaranteed solution.

Avoiding Unrealistic Expectations

One of the most important ethical responsibilities is ensuring people understand both the potential benefits and limitations of assistance animals.

Assistance animals may support:

• independence;
• participation;
• safety;
• confidence;
• routines;
• emotional regulation.

However, they are not:

• cures;
• replacements for all other supports;
• suitable for every person;
• guaranteed to solve every difficulty.

Ethical practice requires honest conversations about what an assistance animal can and cannot do.

Shared Decision Making

Shared decision making involves professionals and the person working together to make decisions.

It combines:

• the person’s goals and lived experience;
• professional expertise;
• evidence;
• animal welfare considerations.

It does not mean:

• the professional decides;
• the person decides without information;
• the animal’s needs are ignored.

Instead, decisions are developed collaboratively.

The Three Sources of Knowledge in Shared Decision Making

Effective shared decision making recognises that different people contribute different expertise.

The Person’s Expertise

The person understands:

• their own life;
• their priorities;
• their barriers;
• what matters to them.

Professional Expertise

Professionals contribute:

• clinical reasoning;
• technical knowledge;
• assessment skills;
• evidence-informed recommendations.

Animal Expertise

Animal professionals contribute:

• behaviour knowledge;
• training expertise;
• welfare considerations;
• suitability assessment.

The strongest decisions occur when all three perspectives are considered.

Applying Shared Decision Making Across the Assistance Animal Journey

Initial Consideration

The decision to pursue an assistance animal should involve exploring:

• Why is the person considering an assistance animal?
• What goals do they want to achieve?
• What barriers are they experiencing?
• What alternatives exist?

The question is not:

“Can we provide an assistance animal?”

The question is:

“Would an assistance animal meaningfully support this person’s goals?”

Choosing a Training Pathway

People may have different pathways available, including:

• program-trained assistance animals;
• self-trained assistance animals;
• supported training pathways.

Ethical shared decision making requires discussing:

• benefits;
• limitations;
• waiting times;
• costs;
• responsibilities;
• suitability.

There is no single pathway that is right for every person.

Selecting Tasks

Tasks should be developed collaboratively.

The person should be involved in identifying:

• what barriers affect them;
• what outcomes matter;
• what support would be meaningful.

Professionals then consider:

• whether the task is appropriate;
• whether it is safe;
• whether the animal can perform it ethically.

Changes in Circumstances and Ongoing Consent

Assistance animal partnerships change over time.

A person’s:

• disability;
• health;
• lifestyle;
• environment;
• goals;

may change.

Ongoing shared decision making is required to consider:

• additional tasks;
• reduced workload;
• retirement;
• changing supports.

A previous decision should not lock someone into a pathway forever.

Consent and Involving Others

Many people involve others in their assistance animal journey, such as:

• family members;
• partners;
• support workers;
• advocates;
• professionals.

This can be valuable.

However, ethical practice requires ensuring:

• the person’s voice remains central;
• information is shared appropriately;
• supporters do not override the person’s choices.

When Professionals Disagree With a Person’s Choice

Professionals may sometimes have concerns about a person’s preferred decision.

For example:

• the requested task may be unsafe;
• the animal may not be suitable;
• expectations may be unrealistic.

Ethical practice does not mean simply agreeing.

It means:

1. Listening to the person’s goals.
2. Explaining concerns respectfully.
3. Providing clear information.
4. Exploring alternatives.
5. Supporting informed decision making.

The aim is collaboration, not conflict.

Ethical Documentation of Consent

Good documentation should demonstrate:

• what decisions were discussed;
• what information was provided;
• what options were considered;
• the person’s preferences;
• agreed next steps.

Documentation should reflect the person’s voice, not only professional observations.

Common Ethical Risks

Assuming Consent

A person agreeing does not automatically mean they understood.

Information Overload

Providing large amounts of complex information without considering accessibility may prevent genuine participation.

Coercion

People may feel pressured because:

• they desperately need support;
• a provider presents one pathway as the only option;
• they fear losing access.

Professional Dominance

Professionals should avoid creating situations where their opinion automatically overrides the person’s preferences.

Key Practice Principle

Informed consent and shared decision making ensure that assistance animal partnerships are built on:

• respect;
• understanding;
• choice;
• collaboration.

Ethical assistance animal practice does not ask:

“How do we convince someone that an assistance animal is right for them?”

It asks:

“How do we support this person to make an informed decision about whether an assistance animal is right for them?”

The person, the animal and the professionals supporting them each bring valuable knowledge.

The best partnerships are created when decisions are made with people, not for them.