Sorg efter tab af selskabsdyr

Companion animal grief is disenfranchised: when companion or service animals die, most owners experience considerable grief, but most owners also feel strange or stigmatised because they do. Outdated assumptions about human-animal relations could be a cause of this paradox, and the aim of the article is to summarise relevant research in the field and derive suggestions for how to support grieving companion animal owners in Denmark. We first describe grief over companion animals in the context of research on Companion Animal Benefits, the Human-Animal Bond and Attachment Theory. Companion animals serve several functions for their humans; some of these arise when relating to the animal as a unique being, and this makes the animal irreplaceable and grievable in the same way as other objects of attachment. The grief itself seems largely similar to grief after human bereavement, but the disenfranchisement reduces access to social support. Considering intervention, counselling to bereaved animal owners by default is likely to be counterproductive. Instead, we summarise an American three-tier model (Miller et al., 2014) and suggest adaptations for Danish use. Therapeutic intervention should be offered when professional assessment indicates a need or when clients who are already in therapy lose an animal. In these cases, a Danish adaptation of Miller et al.’s (2014) TALP programme would be relevant. This six-session intervention would focus on grief validation, psycho-education about human-animal relations and grief processes, and support for coping that matches the particular individual’s coping style. We conclude that the most pertinent needs in a Danish context are: (1) cultural level dissemination of knowledge about human-animal bonds as healthy and typical, in order to reduce the (self) stigmatisation that may prevent owners from enlisting sources of coping and social support when grieving; (2) updated knowledge about grief and coping processes made available to vet clinics and companion animal owners, in order to exchange popular but unfounded older models that would pathologise normal reactions and thus uphold the stigmatisation; and (3) upgrading psychologists’ knowledge about human-animal relations and losses.