Mental health

[gpstracker]

Please allow me to explain my situation. I suffer from severe anxiety, agoraphobia and severe depression; this is documented by the Veteran's Affairs Hospital and Mental Health Department.  Even though I have not been diagnosed with PTSD, my quality of life along with my mental and physical health has severely declined since I was discharged from the Army. I have been training my dog to use as a service animal and have used her many times to help me engage in everyday life. The more I am reading about the qualifications I am realizing that my mental conditions don't allow me to use a service dog, though I may be misunderstanding the information. I have seen both psychiatrists and psychologists since 2002. I have been prescribed Prozac, Wellbutrin, Zoloft, and Lorazepam. Prozac was the only medication that had a slight positive outcome until the side effects kicked in. Due to the information I have read, suffering from these illnesses does not allow me to use a service dog. I have never once refused to answer a question about why I use a service animal nor have I ever demanded any special accommodations. I obey the laws which apply to the use of service animals and my service dog has helped me greatly, even though my state of mind is a work in progress. Fortunately I now have a job where they don't mind that I bring my animal with me, but I work alone. I have quit or lost jobs over the years and have been unemployed for 2 consecutive years due to these issues. I have had my body filled with all sorts of poisons to help my chemical imbalance, but those have failed to correct this and I was pulled off from medications. The VA had suggested using a service animal to replace the medication, but what's the point if I am not allowed one.

[latopla]

I don't understand why you think you cannot use a service dog.  The ADA clearly states that psychiatric service dogs are just as valid as other types of service dogs...guide dogs, mobility dogs, seizure alert dogs, etc.

To use a service dog, you must simply meet two qualifications.  You must be considered disabled by your doctors.  And, your dog must be trained to perform tasks that mitigate your disability.  If you meet both of those qualifications, you are free to use your dog as a service dog in public.

[Roxie]

A diagnosis does not = a disability. No matter who gives the diagosis or how many one has.

Tracker - can you post the quote that makes you believe you can't use a SD?

Latopla is correct.

Welcome - if I haven't said that already. I no longer have internet at home and use my little cell phone to read posts - but posting from my cell is a killer. So, I have to wait until I get to a WiFi spot! 

[labs4ever]

Welcome,  well, just from  reading your opening post, it SOUNDS like  you are diabled (although docs are the only ones that can say that  according to ADA definitions)  and  it sounds like your dog does  help you as a PSD should... I am confused too.   as the others are.  At any rate welcome and  do provide more info as maybe we  can help you and us or (me anyway) be less confused! 

[DeeDee]

it SOUNDS like  you are diabled (although docs are the only ones that can say that  according to ADA definitions)

Please tell me where in the ADA that is said. I sure haven't been able to find that statement in it.

[HumSD]

http://www.ada.gov/regs2010/titleIII_2010/titleIII_2010_withbold.htm

Disability means, with respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment.

    (1) The phrase physical or mental impairment means –
        (i) Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genitourinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine;
        (ii) Any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities;
        (iii) The phrase physical or mental impairment includes, but is not limited to, such contagious and noncontagious diseases and conditions as orthopedic, visual, speech, and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, mental retardation, emotional illness, specific learning disabilities, HIV disease (whether symptomatic or asymptomatic), tuberculosis, drug addiction, and alcoholism;
        (iv) The phrase physical or mental impairment does not include homosexuality or bisexuality.
    (2) The phrase major life activities means functions such as caring for one´s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.
    (3) The phrase has a record of such an impairment means has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
    (4) The phrase is regarded as having an impairment means –
        (i) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but that is treated by a private entity as constituting such a limitation;
        (ii) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or
        (iii) Has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (1) of this definition but is treated by a private entity as having such an impairment.
    (5) The term disability does not include –
        (i) Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;
        (ii) Compulsive gambling, kleptomania, or pyromania; or
        (iii) Psychoactive substance use disorders resulting from current illegal use of drugs.

[gpstracker]

Thank you all for the replies. Like I mentioned in my post, I maybe misunderstanding the guidelines that qualify me to use a SD. Though I have read some articles on websites that may not be giving correct information. I did, however, read that "only a judge can determine that whether a person is disabled" and "that agoraphobia and anxiety does not warrant the use of a Service Animal". The first statement I do not believe because how does a judge's decision outweigh that of a doctor's? The second statement I am not sure whether it is true or not.

[latopla]

"only a judge can determine that whether a person is disabled"

Technically, this is true.  However, not every sick person can go to a judge and ask "am I disabled or not?"  That isn't practical.  Instead, doctors have the job of telling you whether they believe you are disabled or not, which in a courtroom would be one of the few ways a judge would make a determination.  If your doc thinks you are disabled...that is great!  If no one thinks you are disabled, then yeah...you don't get a service dog.

"that agoraphobia and anxiety does not warrant the use of a Service Animal".

I'm not sure where you found this.  There is no list of illnesses that cannot be considered disabling.  However, having either of these diseases does not simply make you disabled.  Only 25% of the mentally ill are considered disabled by their mental illness.

[DeeDee]

Instead, doctors have the job of telling you whether they believe you are disabled or not

No, they don't. Disability is a legal concept, not a medical one. And doctors don't study law.

which in a courtroom would be one of the few ways a judge would make a determination.

Also not true. Haven't you ever read the opinion in the Debby Rose case? Her doctor testified that she was disabled and only managed to annoy the judge in a big way. She lost because the judge found her to be NOT disabled. Then on the flip side, in most of the case law I have read the opposing side stipulated to the PWD's disability - which is to day that it wasn't an issue at all.
 
A careful reading of the ADA shows that it was intentionally written to protect the rights of those who meet the definition of disability without requiring third-party verification of the existence of the disability such as an opinion from a doctor.

Stop trying to insert requirements into the law that simply aren't there. You are harming your fellow PWDs when you spread misinformation like this.

[latopla]

In order for a person to use a service dog, they must be disabled.  A person cannot simply decide that they think or feel they are disabled.  If that were the case, every person with non-disabling depression or anxiety would be toting around a PSD just for the heck of it.  Someone else has to make the determination that you are disabled.  That someone else is, in the end, a judge...but most people with service dogs are never required to go to court and have to prove their case of being disabled to a judge.  So the next person to make that determination is, in fact, a doctor.  Just because a doctor feels you are disabled does not mean that you automatically are...I did not say that.  A judge can still make a different decision.  However, a doctor stating his belief that you are disabled is going to hold a lot more weight than simply the person with the service dog stating that they think they are.  A person with a service dog is not the one that can decide whether or not they are disabled.

[DeeDee]

A person cannot simply decide that they think or feel they are disabled.

Of course s/he can. If the authors of the ADA wanted to require third-party determination of disability status they could have done so. And they didn't. Ergo, first-party determination (the person deciding for his or her self whether or not s/he is disabled) is sufficient.

Do you actually think that PWDs are automatically too stupid to understand the law or too dishonest to apply it to themselves? That would be a very insulting argument to make.

A person with a service dog is not the one that can decide whether or not they are disabled.

Of course s/he can. It's called self-determination. It's one of the underlying principles of the ADA, and it's a GOOD thing.

Don't be so quick to give up power over your future to authority figures. That's for children, not adults.

[latopla]

I think you are, not only highly confused, but terribly mistaken. 

Have you ever applied for a service dog through a program?  Nearly all of them require information from your doctor. Why? Because not only do they need to know in what manner you are disabled but also that you actually are disabled.

Ever try to fly with a psychiatric service dog?  They require a letter from your psychiatrist stating that you are disabled by a mental illness.

Ever attend a college with a service dog?  You have to register with disability services. They require notes from doctors stating in what manner you are disabled and how a service dog is part of your treatment plan so that the university will allow your SD on campus and into class.

Simply believing that you are disabled will do you no good in getting access in these situations. None of them will simply take your word for it.

[springingpups]

When latopla said:

A person cannot simply decide that they think or feel they are disabled.

and

A person with a service dog is not the one that can decide whether or not they are disabled.

It was my understanding that she was referring to situations where a person would have to prove disability.  Sure, a person could just decide that they're disabled (and they might be right about it), but without having a knowledgeable person, such as a doctor, to back them up on that, they could end up screwed if they wind up in court or another situation where they would have to prove that they are disabled.

Think about it - if you apply for SSDI/SSI, the government goes to your doctor to get information to determine whether you are truly disabled or not.  They're not going to just take your word on it.

If you get taken to court and you don't have any documentation regarding your disability (other than your word), you'd end up screwed.  You wouldn't have a case.

It's not giving up power to authority figures when you go to your doctor and ask for help in determining if you are disabled or not - it's covering your butt.  This is one area where it's better safe than sorry, IMO.

[latopla]

Thank you. That is exactly the point I am trying to make.

[DeeDee]

It's not giving up power to authority figures when you go to your doctor and ask for help in determining if you are disabled or not - it's covering your butt.

This is more like it. Seeking help and support in making a decision is a healthy, good thing. Giving someone else the power to make that decision for you (usually) isn't.

Here is the reality:

You can legally use an SD without having consulted with a doctor about the issue. However, a doctor's input may be helpful in determining whether or not you want to go that route, and there are some isolated circumstances (such as no-pet housing, air travel, and lawsuits over access issues) in which medical documentation of your disability may become necessary.

That is a FAR cry from what latopia has been arguing, which is that one cannot legally use an SD if your doctor hasn't found you to be disabled.