![]() ![]() 20 Recent anthropological research points to the way in which human–pet interactions and relationships are not necessarily categorically different from interpersonal interactions and that any differences might be of degree rather than of kind. Other research has shown how pet owners interact with animals as they would with human acquaintances 18, 19 and how ‘animalness’ at times is of distinctive value in relationships. Wells 17 points to experimental trials in which dogs have been trained to detect human cancers (skin, bladder, lung and breast) with a relatively high degree of reliability and that dogs can anticipate and warn their owners of impending bouts of hypoglycaemia. The value of pet ownership has previously been documented, 12 – 16 and some research suggests that pets perform similar activities to those of humans in displaying a level of sensitivity to conscious and unconscious human signals. So, for example, dog-owning patients with heart problems have been found to be significantly more likely to survive a year post-discharge from a coronary care unit suggesting that pet contact can be important in the rehabilitation process. 8 – 10 Previous literature in the field has been concerned with the ontological bases of human–dog/cat relationships and the therapeutic effects of pet ownership. 7 Just as interpersonal relationships vary in quality, depending on context and the dyadic interactions between people, the same is likely to be true of relationships with pets within an extended focus of illness-related social networks. In the pursuit of a post-humanist approach to applied social science, a burgeoning research literature exploring the connection between animals and society points to the likelihood of uncovering complex human–pet relationships in chronic illness management. The potential contribution of pets to LTCM 6, 7 Thus, a key contextual question relevant here is the extent to which human–pet relationships are essentially equivalent or different to human–human relationships (lay and professional) in chronic illness management. It has been suggested that the failure to fully acknowledge the role of animals and pets in social research is a result of anthropocentrism and that the way in which distinctive relationships evolve in dialectical and contingent ways between humans and companion animals has potential for understanding social- and health-related phenomena. ![]() In recognising that networks and significant others are relevant for understanding the practices, resources and relationships of illness management, there are persuasive arguments for considering the inclusion of pets. 5 The distribution of the responsibilities for LTCM work between groups of involved actors implicates a set of relationships combining the person with the condition and members of their personal communities including community groups, health professionals, non-health professionals and pets. 3, 4 It also emphasises that illness and its management can be treated as problems of action. However, the notion of long-term illness ‘work’ is used preferentially here because it provides a complementary focus for further understanding the resources, networks and relationships involved and permits a range of contributors to be taken into account. The concept of social support has proved a useful analytical tool in the area of LTCM. Social networks and the work of chronic illness ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |