They Burn Brightly, But Only for a Short Time
The Role of Social Workers in Companion Animal Grief and Loss
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2162091 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Melissa Laing (0000-0002-7378-2061, RMIT University), Christopher Maylea (RMIT University), Chris Maylea (0000-0003-3688-0487) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 31 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 221-232 |
| Publication date | 2018-03-04 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Anthrozoös (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0892-7936 • E-ISSN: 1753-0377 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/08927936.2018.1434062 |
| OpenAlex | W2794356503 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 10 |
| References cited | 25 |
The human–animal bond is a relational theory which describes the dynamic between humans and nonhuman animals that satisfies needs in each for companionship and emotional support, framing companion animals as valued family members. Social workers have historically ignored the central role companion animals play in the lives of their clients, adopting an anthropocentric view underpinned by human rights and social justice. However, the need for companion animal-inclusive practice features in recent social work literature. As companion animals are intricately woven into the lives of their guardians, it follows that their inevitable death brings a profound sense of loss and thus an opportunity for social work intervention. The aim of this research was to see if there was a role for social work practitioners to support grieving animal companion guardians. Qualitative thematic analysis was performed on 218 candid online responses to an article on the topic of losing a companion animal, from which four major themes were identified: strength of the bond, anthropocentrically disenfranchised grief, anticipatory grief in the context of euthanasia, and the need for professional support. This analysis demonstrates the strength of the human– animal bond, illustrates how the dominant anthropocentric hegemony disenfranchises this variety of grief and loss, describes the experience of anticipatory grief in the context of euthanasia, and identifies the need for professional support. Implications for social work practice are identified, with opportunities for social workers to exchange their anthropocentric approach for a biocentric view, provide support to veterinarians and other professionals, and to work toward challenging the social constructs, which disenfranchise companion animal loss
Animal welfare · Anthropocentrism · Context (archaeology · Environmental ethics · Framing (construction · Grief · Political science · Psychotherapist · Qualitative research · Social science · Sociology · Thematic analysis · Agriculture and Farm Safety · Geographies of human-animal interactions · Human-Animal Interaction Studies · Psychology · Social Work · Ecology · Law · Social Psychology
How to care for the caregiver
The experiences and needs of dog-‘owners’ affected by dog-theft
Older adults and companion animal death
Human–Animal Relationships and Social Work
Grieving the loss of a pet
Robot Death and Human Grief in Films
Giving voice to the voiceless”
Grief for the Loss of a Pet
On being posthuman in human spaces
The story of my animal companion
New mourners, old mourners
Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design
Challenging Anthropocentricism in Social Work Through Ethics and Spirituality
The importance of pet loss and some implications for services
The Lived Experience of Companion-animal Loss
Environmental ethics for social work
Grief and loss theory in social work practice
The Role of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Anti-Oppressive Social Work Practice
Social Work, Animal-Assisted Therapies and Ethical Considerations
Social Work Practitioners and the Human--Companion Animal Bond
People and pets
Using thematic analysis in psychology
A Survey of Veterinarians in the US
Veterinary social work
Characterizing the Data in Online Companion-dog Obituaries to Assess Their Usefulness as a Source of Information about Human-Animal Bonds
| Unique citing works | 10 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,67 |
| Citation span | 2020 - 2025 (6) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 10 |