It is critical that organizations and health care providers have extensive expertise and knowledge regarding a future dog handler’s specific disability, cognitive ability, the types of prescribed medication and consumption of addictive substances as well as the effect of comorbid conditions prior to dog adoption. Expectations of first-time handlers regarding the dog must be evaluated. Unrealistic expectations should be minimized as they negatively impact perceived success and satisfaction with the dog. Organizations and health care providers must delineate resources required for successful integration of a dog into the recipient’s life. This involves several aspects. Does the handler receive extensive ongoing support? Do the providers maintain contact with handlers with multifaceted disabilities? Do organizations and health care providers have the resources to attend to complex cases? Are alternative placement models an option, such as offering initial training prior to dog adoption, particularly for individuals with complex disabilities and cognitive impairment and/or additional support throughout the assignment duration, perhaps for the entire lifetime of the dog?
3. The Welfare Dimension
Animal welfare refers to the quality of life experienced by the animal, positive or negative, with respect to the domains of nutrition, environment, physical health, behavioral interactions and mental health state of the animal [
87]. The Five Domains Model encourages the requirement to provide opportunities within each domain that lead to positive affective states [
87]. Modern animal management practices are critical to industries reliant on animal use, including working dogs [
88]. Risk assessment to safeguard the welfare of assistance dogs at the operational level recognizes a widespread lack of transparency, stakeholder commitment and partaking of best practice and standards [
82]. Acknowledgment that dogs are sentient animals, having intrinsic value beyond their consideration as properties, equipment or working aid has been somewhat mirrored in advances to legislation and politics globally (e.g., Australia, European Union, New Zealand, Canada, United States and United Kingdom) [
89,
90,
91]. Service or assistance dogs are permanently housed with individuals with disabilities to aid in their day-to-day life [
5] and their welfare must be a principal consideration moving toward a greater degree of concern [
92,
93]. Concerns such as absence of a day-to-day routine, lack of sufficient “time off”, being overweight, and (un)intentional harm and mishandling of the dog by recipients/owners must be addressed. To this end, provider organizations necessitate transparent, long-term procedures and processes for animal welfare [
94,
95].
Cultural difference clearly exists with respect to the perception of assistance dogs. An Australian study [
96] researched the Australian public’s opinion toward both assistance and companion dogs. There was an equal interest in both groups of dogs. Assistance dogs were rated as happier than companion dogs by the study respondents. The survey revealed some ethical concerns regarding the use of animals for human benefit. These included conditions in which the dogs might not profit from their role as working animals and the prevalence of inappropriate behaviors from strangers in public environments such as touching the dog while working. There was only little disapproval of the intensity of training imposed on the dogs as well as the straining and restrictive nature of assistance dog work. It emerged that some study respondents expressed some concern about the ability of recipients with disability to appropriately take care for their dogs, while others stated that assistance dogs may even be better cared for because of the recipients’ dependency on them and the greater amount of time spent together [
96]. The past decade has been associated with some advancement in considering the welfare of assistance dogs [
82,
87,
97]. Numerous researchers in animal welfare science have stressed that professionals working with service or therapy dogs (and other animals) must consider welfare issues [
92,
97,
98]. It is vital to understand that if the working experiences repeatedly cause discomfort, pain or fear the dog is inevitably subject to distress which has severe consequence for both its physical and mental health [
97].
The “ethics of care” approach endeavors to respect all parties participating by emphasizing sustainable relationships and establishing a human-dog bond [
99]. Within this model, the dog should be provided with an optimal rather than a sufficient quality of life [
82]. The “rights approach” concentrates on protecting and respecting the rights of all individuals involved and furthermore contemplates the advantages and disadvantages from the dog’s perspective. According to the “utilitarian approach”, a cost benefit analysis must determine what should be acted upon subsequently, founded on all the morally relevant consequences (typically harms and benefits for sentient individuals) [
100].
3.1. Relationship and Attachment
After adoption, guide dogs were broadly considered as family members by their owners [
101] and similarly, service or assistance dogs frequently have multiple handlers. Dogs perform differently for respective handlers [
102] based on the interplay of canine and human personalities, the strength and style of attachment [
103] and recipient beliefs [
104]. A majority of recipients experience mental health challenges which may influence their concentration, fatigue, stress, motivation and determination. Some recipients may have extended hospital admissions, not being able to care for their dog during that time span. Recipients with an intellectual disability or a lack of maturity may experience more challenges related to memory and consistency in handling the dog and, thus, impacting its welfare.
Therapy dogs are most commonly visiting dogs that are temporarily brought to a setting to support individuals diagnosed with a mental health illness or to interact with people with other diagnoses, for recreation purposes or social facilitation. They are usually accompanied by their owner or a closely familiar person who acts as the responsible person to safeguard the dog’s welfare at any time [
105]. In contrast, mental health service dogs are constantly paired with their owners who themselves frequently have trouble to regulate their inner tension and mental states. Individuals with impaired mental health may experience extended periods of dissociation, where they do not at all respond to their social environment. However, similar to a child, a dog requires attention, social interaction, food, water and needs to be taken outside irrespective of the current constitution of the handler. And the question that instantly emerges is whether people who struggle to maintain their own well-being can be the responsible person to safeguard their dog’s welfare and provide a safe haven in case the dog needs emotional support.
Measurements of cortisol as a strategy to monitor the adrenocortical activity in response to stress have been broadly applied in canine welfare science [
105]. In comparison to saliva, in which cortisol typically rises in response to an acute stressor, analyses of hair may represent the long-term cortisol status [
106]. Research by Sundman et al. [
107] demonstrated significant interspecies associations in long-term stress when dog hair cortisol levels were correlated with human hair cortisol concentrations. This is particularly interesting since cortisol in hair of PTSD service dogs for veterans did not differ from concentrations of regular pet dogs, suggesting no profound effect of their working task on their long-term stress profile [
108,
109]. In line with these findings, van Houtert et al. [
109] also stated that salivary cortisol, a representative of acute arousal, appeared to be lower in PTSD dogs for veterans during training sequences than concentrations measured upon arrival at the training site or after an episode of free play. According to these recent studies on adrenocortical activity related to supporting veterans with PTSD, the data do not raise any concern about compromised animal welfare. Although the two recent studies have not found any evidence of altered stress levels, both acute and long-term, in PTSD service dogs for veterans [
108,
109] it would be essential to run long-term research including regular, continuous physiological and psychological follow-ups. As we have mentioned before in therapy dogs [
97], studies would benefit from adding measurements of the recipients’ emotional competence, attitude and empathy towards their dog.
Yarborough et al. [
60] described difficulties in coping with the additional stressors of sustaining the dog’s training, integrating the dog into the family, and receiving unwanted attention in public which may cause added stress, anxiety and fatigue. Additionally, findings from a recent exploratory study by Williamson et al. [
67] point at difficulties such as establishing a sustainable emotional and working relationship with the service dog as well as integrating it into the family (including socialization with preexisting pets). In case of unsuccessful matches, dogs may need to be rehomed or reassigned to another veteran. Furthermore, preexistent pet dogs may not necessarily be ideal candidates for PTSD service due to challenges of coping with the newly assigned tasks, as Williamson et al. revealed [
69].
According to Glintborg and Hansen [
26] people with PTSD can benefit from their service dog through ventriloquizing (i.e., talking about the nonverbal animal by implicitly referring to oneself) which may facilitate social interactions and psychotherapeutic processes. However, the fact that people with a mental health disorder may regularly have their service dog accompany them to psychotherapy, especially in group sessions, necessitates attention from an animal welfare point of view due to interindividual emotional contagion of behavior and physiology [
110] that may negatively impact the dog [
111].
3.2. Children Recipients
Dog assistance may benefit children affected by neuro-developmental disorders such as ASD [
112,
113,
114]. However, families may have unrealistic expectations of the recipient/owner-dog relationship [
115], and insufficient information regarding the impact on the dog and the basic welfare guidelines to protect the animal [
116].
Living in close proximity with children may negatively affect dog well-being and quality of life [
117,
118], conceivably augmenting the risk of child-directed aggression. The majority of dog bite accidents (about 75%) occur in the household environment [
119] indicating a great necessity to intensify parent sentience about contexts and child activities that may trigger a dog bite [
120]. Dogs do not necessarily enjoy being physically close to and tactile with a child [
121]. Studies suggest that dogs may well find close interactions such as kissing or petting stressful, as evidenced by increases in cortisol [
122] and behavioral indices [
123,
124].
A number of studies provide data on the impact of child-dog interactions for dog quality of life [
125,
126,
127], with one considering the quality of life of pet dogs around children [
127]. Oher studies referred to therapy dogs [
128,
129], other animal-assisted intervention dogs [
126] and autism service dogs [
53].
Four papers specified possible sources of stress (for service dogs, therapy dogs and pet dogs), either as identified through the parent/handler [
53,
127] or through researcher observations [
53,
129].
Hall et al. [
127] as well as Burrows et al. [
53] reported that child meltdowns and tantrums were particularly stressful for pet dogs [
127] or assistance dogs [
53]. Stress indicators observed were barking, jumping up and shaking. Both papers indicated that the dog was being at risk from potentially aggressive behaviors from the child, either because the dog was the closest target for the child or because the parent had encouraged the dog to interrupt the display of aggression to calm the child. At times, Hall et al. [
127] observed that the dog spontaneously interjected in a meltdown by seeking physical proximity with the child, reflecting its efforts to appease a stressful situation and defuse a perceived conflict [
130].
Not all negative attention directed to the dog was the consequence of meltdowns or tantrums, as it was reported that the child jumped, prodded and poked the dog aggressively and in a rough manner during various daily interactions [
53,
127].
Lack of predictable routines, uninterrupted resting times, children handling the dog on the lead [
127], environmental instability, erratic unpredictable movements, such as those involving wheeled toys or the child bouncing around, as well as loud noises [
53,
127] and activities from child visitors [
127] were considered as major sources of stress for dogs. Recreational activities, in particular sleep and off-duty time, were seen as vital to ensure physical and psychological health [
53]. Children’s toys and games had a negative effect on some dog’s well-being as indicated by a proliferation in stress behaviors associated with avoidance (e.g., pet dogs hiding and running away [
127]). Interestingly, parents believed that the dog enjoyed being “dressed-up” by the child [
127]; however, other studies indicated more stress when children put a bandana on the dog [
129]. Behaviors displayed by the dog during child-dog interactions included paw chewing, lip-licking, grooming, yawning and panting [
53,
127,
128,
129], running away, shaking, urinating and defecating [
53,
127], safety seeking behaviors (hiding, going to their safe place or seeking the parent/handler), all of which may be indicators of heightened stress levels [
131]. Dogs living full time with children displayed a spectrum of physical health conditions associated with chronic stress due to impaired immunity [
119], such as ear, eye and skin infections [
53,
127]. Social effects exhibited by the dog were displaying distress when left alone with the child shown by whining, scratching, seeking behavior, particularly if the dog had to sleep in the same room as the child [
53], or if the child created stressful situations for the dog [
127], with the dog also withdrawing from the child [
127].