Suicide as an immoral act is typically a viewpoint of the religious — it’s a sin against God, “thou shalt not kill,” and so on. For those free of religion, and of course some who aren’t, ethics are commonly based on what does harm to others, not yourself or deities — under this framework, the conclusion that suicide is immoral in many circumstances is difficult to avoid.

A sensible ethical philosophy considers physical harm and psychological harm. These harms can be actual (known consequences) or potential (possible or unknown consequences). The actual harm of, say, shooting a stranger in the heart is that person’s suffering and death. The potential harm on top of that is wide-ranging: if the stranger had kids it could be their emotional agony, for instance. The shooter simply would not know. Most suicides will entail these sorts of things.

First, most suicides will bring massive psychological harm, lasting many years, to family and friends. Were I to commit suicide, this would be a known consequence, known to me beforehand. Given my personal ethics, aligning with those described above, the act would then necessarily be unethical, would it not? This seems to hold true, in my view, even given my lifelong depression (I am no stranger to visualizations of self-termination and its aftermath, though fortunately with more morbid curiosity than seriousness to date; medication is highly useful and recommended). One can suffer and, by finding relief in nonexistence, cause suffering. As a saying goes, “Suicide doesn’t end the pain, it simply passes it to someone else.” Perhaps the more intense my mental suffering, the less unethical the act (more on this in a moment), but given that the act will cause serious pain to others whether my suffering be mild or extreme, it appears from the outset to be immoral to some degree.

Second, there’s the potential harms, always trickier. There are many unknowns that could result from taking my own life. The potential harms could be more extreme psychological harms, a family member driven to severe depression or madness or alcoholism. (In reality, psychological harms are physical harms — consciousness is a byproduct of brain matter — and vice versa, so stress on one affects the other.) But they could be physical as well. Suicide, we know, is contagious. Taking my own life could inspire others to do the same. Not only could I be responsible for contributing, even indirectly, to the death of another person, I would also have a hand in all the actual and potential harms that result from his or her death! It’s a growing moral burden.

Of course, all ethics are situational. This is accepted by just about everyone — it’s why killing in self-defense seems less wrong than killing in cold blood, or why completely accidental killings seem less unethical than purposeful ones. These things can even seem ethically neutral. So there will always be circumstances that change the moral calculus. One questions if old age alone is enough (one of your parents or grandparents taking their own lives would surely be about as traumatic as anyone else), but intense suffering from age or disease could make the act less unethical, in the same way deeper and deeper levels of depression may do the same. Again, less unethical is used here. Can the act reach an ethically neutral place? The key may simply be the perceptions and emotions of others. Perhaps with worsening disease, decay, or depression, a person’s suicide would be less painful to friends and family. It would be hard to lose someone in that way, but, as we often hear when someone passes away of natural but terrible causes, “She’s not suffering anymore.” Perhaps at some point the scale is tipped, with too much agony for the individual weighing down one side and too much understanding from friends and family lifting up the other. One is certainly able to visualize this — no one wants their loved ones to suffer, and the end of their suffering can be a relief as well as a sorrow, constituting a reduction in actual harm — and this is no doubt reality in various cases. This writing simply posits that not all suicides will fall into that category (many are unexpected), and, while a distinguishing line may be frequently impossible to see or determine, the suicides outside it are morally questionable due to the ensuing harm.

If all this is nonsense, and such sympathetic understanding of intense suffering brings no lesser amount of harm to loved ones, then we’re in trouble, for how else can the act break free from that immoral place, for those operating under the moral framework that causing harm is wrong?

It should also be noted that the rare individuals without any real friends or family seem to have less moral culpability here. And perhaps admitted plans and assisted suicide diminish the immorality of the act, regardless of the extent of your suffering — if you tell your loved ones in advance you are leaving, if they are there by your side in the hospital to say goodbye, isn’t that less traumatizing and painful than a sudden, unexpected event, with your body found cold in your apartment? In these cases, however, the potential harms, while some may be diminished in likelihood alongside the actual, still abound. A news report on your case could still inspire someone else to commit suicide. One simply cannot predict the future, all the effects of your cause.

As a final thought, it’s difficult not to see some contradiction in believing in suicide prevention, encouraging those you know or those you don’t not to end their lives, and believing suicide to be ethically neutral or permissible. If it’s ethically neutral, why bother? If you don’t want someone to commit suicide, it’s because you believe they have value, whether inherent or simply to others (whether one can have inherent value without a deity is for another day). And destroying that value, bringing all that pain to others or eliminating all of the individual’s potential positive experiences and interactions, is considered wrong, undesirable. Immorality and prevention go hand-in-hand. But with folks who are suffering we let go of prevention, even advocating for assisted suicide, because only in those cases do we begin to consider suicide ethically neutral or permissible.

In sum, one finds oneself believing that if causing harm to others is wrong, and suicide causes harm to others, suicide must in some general sense be wrong — but acknowledging that there must be specific cases and circumstances where suicide is less wrong, approaching ethical neutrality, or even breaking into it.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Expanding the Supreme Court would be disastrous. We hardly want an arms race in which the party that controls Congress and the White House expands the Court to achieve a majority. It may feel good when the Democrats do it, but it won’t when it’s the Republicans’ turn. 

The problem with the Court is that the system of unwritten rules, of the “gentlemen’s agreement,” is completely breaking down. There have been expansions and nomination fights or shenanigans before in U.S. history, but generally when a justice died or retired a Senate controlled by Party A would grudgingly approve a new justice nominated by a president of Party B — because eventually the situation would be reversed, and you wanted and expected the other party to show you the same courtesy. It was reciprocal altruism. It all seemed fair enough, because apart from a strategic retirement, it was random luck — who knew when a justice would die? 

The age of unwritten rules is over. The political climate is far too polarized and hostile to allow functionality under such a system. When Antonin Scalia died, Obama should have been able to install Merrick Garland on the Court — Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate infamously wouldn’t even hold a vote, much less vote Garland down, for nearly 300 days. They simply delayed until a new Republican president could install Neil Gorsuch. Democrats attempted to block this appointment, as well as Kavanaugh (replacing the retiring Kennedy) and Barrett (replacing the passed Ginsburg). The Democrats criticized the Barrett case for occurring too close to an election, mere weeks away, the same line the GOP had used with Garland, and conservatives no doubt saw the investigation into Kavanaugh as an obstructionist hit job akin to the Garland case. But it was entirely fair for Trump to replace Kennedy and Ginsberg, as it was fair for Obama to replace Garland. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But that’s history — and now, with Democrats moving forward on expansion, things are deteriorating further.

This has been a change building over a couple decades. Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett received just four Democratic votes. The justices Obama was able to install, Kagan and Sotomayor, received 14 Republican votes. George W. Bush’s Alito and Roberts received 26 Democratic votes. Clinton’s Breyer and Ginsburg received 74 Republican votes. George H.W. Bush’s nominees, Souter and Thomas, won over 57 Democrats. When Ronald Reagan nominated Kennedy, more Democrats voted yes than Republicans, 51-46! Reagan’s nominees (Kennedy, Scalia, Rehnquist, O’Connor) won 159 Democratic votes, versus 199 Republican. Times have certainly changed. Partisanship has poisoned the well, and obstruction and expansion are the result.

Some people defend the new normal, correctly noting the Constitution simply allows the president to nominate and the Senate to confirm or deny. Those are the written rules, so that’s all that matters. And that’s the problem, the systemic flaw. It’s why you can obstruct and expand and break everything, make it all inoperable. And with reciprocal altruism, fairness, and bipartisanship out the window, it’s not hard to imagine things getting worse. If a party could deny a vote on a nominee for the better part of a year (shrinking the Court to eight, one notices, which can be advantageous), could it do so longer? Delaying for years, perhaps four or eight? Why not, there are no rules against it. Years of obstruction would become years of 4-4 votes on the Court, a completely neutered branch of government, checks and balances be damned. Or, if each party packs the Court when it’s in power, we’ll have an ever-growing Court, a major problem. The judiciary automatically aligning with the party that also controls Congress and the White House is again the serious weakening of a check and balance. Democrats may want a stable, liberal Court around some day to strike down rightwing initiatives coming out of Congress and the Oval Office. True, an expanding Court will hurt and help parties equally, and parties won’t always be able to expand, but for any person who sees value in real checks on legislative and executive power, this is a poor idea. All the same can be said for obstruction.

Here is a better idea. The Constitution should be amended to reflect the new realities of American politics. This is to preserve functionality and meaningful checks and balances, though admittedly the only way to save the latter may be to undercut it in a smaller way elsewhere. The Court should permanently be set at nine justices, doing away with expansions. Election year appointments should be codified as obviously fine. The selection of a new justice must pass to one decision-making body: the president, the Senate, the House, or a popular vote by the citizenry. True, doing away with a nomination by one body and confirmation by another itself abolishes a check on power, but this may be the only way to avoid the obstruction, the tied Court, the total gridlock until a new party wins the presidency. It may be a fair tradeoff, sacrificing a smaller check for a more significant one. However, this change could be accompanied by much-discussed term limits, say 16, 20, or 24 years, for justices. So while only one body could appoint, the appointment would not last extraordinary lengths of time.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

In early December, a month after the election was called, after all “disputed” states had certified Biden’s victory (Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania), with some certifying a second time after recounts, after 40-odd lawsuits from Trump, Republican officials, and conservative voters had failed miserably in the American courts, the insanity only continued. About 20 Republican states (with 106 Republican members of the House) sued to stop electors from casting their votes for Biden. Only 27 of 249 Republican congresspersons would acknowledge Biden’s victory. Rightwing media played along, even while knowing stolen election claims were lies. A GOP state legislator and plenty of ordinary citizens pushed for Trump to simply use the military and martial law to stay in power. The Trump administration contemplated using the National Guard to seize voting machines.

At this time, with his legal front collapsing, the president turned to Congress, the state legislatures, and the Electoral College. Trump actually pushed for the Georgia legislature to replace the state’s 16 electors (members of the 2020 Electoral College, who were set to be Biden supporters after Georgia certified Biden’s win weeks prior) with Trump supporters! Without any ruling from a court or state in support, absurd imaginings and lies about mass voter fraud were to be used to justify simply handing the state to Trump — a truly frightening attack on the democratic process. Trump knew he lost but did not care. Officials in other battleground states got phone calls about what their legislatures could do to subvert election results as well (state secretaries later being asked to “recalculate” and told things like “I just want to find 11,780 votes”). And it was theoretically possible for this to work, if the right circumstance presented itself. ProPublica wrote that

the Trump side’s legislature theory has some basis in fact. Article II of the U.S. Constitution holds that “each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” to vote for president as a member of the Electoral College. In the early days of the republic, some legislatures chose electors directly or vested that power in other state officials. Today, every state allocates presidential electors by popular vote…

As far as the Constitution is concerned, there’s nothing to stop a state legislature from reclaiming that power for itself, at least prospectively. Separately, a federal law, the Electoral Count Act of 1887, provides that whenever a state “has failed to make a choice” in a presidential election, electors can be chosen “in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.”

Putting aside how a battle between certified election results and misguided screams of election fraud might be construed as a “failure to make a choice” by a Trumpian judge somewhere, the door is open for state legislatures to return to the days of divorcing electors from the popular vote. The challenge, as this report went on to say, is that in these battleground states, the popular vote-elector connection “is enshrined in the state constitution, the state’s election code or both,” which means that change was only impossible in the moment because a party would need dominant political power in these states to change the constitutions and election codes — needing a GOP governor, control of or supermajorities in both houses of the legislature, even the passing of a citizens’ vote on the matter, depending on the state. Republican officials, if willing to pursue this (and true, not all would be), couldn’t act at that particular moment in history because success was a political impossibility. Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, for instance, had Democratic governors and enough legislators to prevent a supermajority veto override. But it isn’t difficult to envision a parallel universe or future election within our own reality where a couple states are red enough to reclaim the power to appoint electors and do so, returning someone like Trump to office and making voting in their states completely meaningless.

In the exact same vein, House Republicans laid plans to challenge and throw out electors in January. This was theoretically possible, too. Per the procedures, if a House rep and senator together challenge a state’s slate of electors, the Congress as a whole must vote on whether to confirm or dismiss the electors. The latter would reduce the electoral votes of one candidate. Like the state legislature intervention, this was sure to fail only due to fortunate political circumstances. The Independent wrote, “There’s no way that a majority of Congress would vote to throw out Biden’s electors. Democrats control the House, so that’s an impossibility. In the Senate, there are enough Republicans who have already acknowledged Biden’s win (Romney, Murkowski, Collins and Toomey, to name just a few) to vote with Democrats.” Would things have gone differently had the GOP controlled both houses?

Desperate, Republicans even sued Mike Pence in a bizarre attempt to make the courts grant him the sole right to decide which electoral votes counted! Rasmussen, the right-leaning polling institution, liked this idea, favorably lifting up a (false) quote by Stalin saying something evil in support of Pence throwing out votes. The vice president has the ceremonial duty of certifying the electoral votes after they are counted in Congress — Trump and others pushed Pence hard to simply reject votes for Biden. There is no law giving the vice president this authority. Pence refused to do this, understanding the illegality, but if he had played along the courts would have had to confirm that the Electoral Count Act of 1887 granted the vice president ceremonial, not decision-making, power if democracy was to survive.

Indeed, all that would be needed for success after such acts are judges to go along with them. Given that such changes are not unconstitutional, final success is imaginable, whether in the lower courts or in the Supreme Court, where such things would surely end up. It’s encouraging to see, both recently and during Trump’s term, that the judicial system has remained strong, continuing to function within normal parameters while the rest of the nation went mad. In late 2020, Trump and rightwing efforts to have citizen votes disqualified and other disgusting moves based on fraud claims were tossed out of the courtrooms due to things like lack of something called “evidence.” Even the rightwing Supreme Court, with three Trump appointees, refused to get involved in and shot down Trump’s nonsense (much like Trump’s own Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security). Yet we waited with bated breath to see if this would be so. It could have gone the other way — votes thrown out despite the lack of evidence, such decisions upheld by higher courts, results overturned. That’s all it would have taken this time — forget changing how electors are chosen or Congress (or Pence) rejecting them! If QAnon types can make it into Congress, if people like Trump can receive such loyalty from the congresspersons who approve Supreme Court justices and other judges, if someone like Trump can win the White House and be in a position to nominate justices, the idea of the absurdity seeping into the judicial system doesn’t seem so far-fetched. Like other presidents, Trump appointed hundreds of federal judges. And if that seems possible — the courts tolerating bad cases brought before them — then the courts ruling that states can return to anti-democratic systems of old eras or tolerating a purge of rightful electors seems possible, too. Any course makes citizen voting a sham.

The only bulwark to the overturning of a fair election and the end of American democracy was basically luck, comprising, before January 6 at any rate: 1) a small group of Republican officials being unable to act, and/or 2) a small group of judges being unwilling to act. It isn’t that hard to imagine a different circumstance that would have allowed state legislators or Congress or the vice president to terminate democracy and/or seen the Trumpian insanity infecting judges like it has voters and elected officials. In this sense, we simply got extremely lucky. And it’s worth reiterating that Number 1 needn’t even be in the picture — all you need is enough judges (and jurists) to go along with the foolishness Trump and the GOP brought into the courtroom and real democracy is finished.

(If interested to know exactly how many people would be required to unjustly hand a battleground state to the loser, the answer is 20. This includes a U.S. district judge and jury, a majority of an appellate court, and a majority of the Supreme Court. This number drops to just eight if the district court somehow sees a bench trial, without a jury. But at most, the sanity of just 20 people stands between democracy and chaos in each state. In this election, one state, any of the battleground states, would not have been enough to seize the Electoral College, you would have needed three of them. Meaning at most five Supreme Court justices and 45 judges and jurors. In this sense, this election was far more secure than some future election that hinges on one state.)

Then on January 6, we noticed that our luck was comprised of something else. It also included 3) a military that, like our justice system, hadn’t lost its mind yet. More on that momentarily.

When January 6 arrived, and it was time for Congress to count and confirm the Electoral College votes, GOP House reps and senators indeed came together to object to electors, forcing votes from both houses of Congress on elector acceptance. Then a Trumpian mob, sizably armed, overwhelmed the police and broke into the Capitol building to “Stop the Steal,” leaving people dead and IEDs needing disarming — another little hint at what a coup, of a very different sort, might look and feel like. Though a few Republicans changed their minds, and plans to contest other states were scrapped, 147 Republican congresspersons still voted to sustain objections to the electors of Arizona and Pennsylvania! They sought to not confirm the electoral votes of disputed states until an “election audit” was conducted. Long after the courts (59 cases lost by then), the states (some Republican), and Trump’s own government departments had said the election was free and fair, and after they saw how Trump’s lies could lead directly to deadly violence, Republicans continued playing along, encouraging the continued belief in falsities and risking further chaos. They comprised 65% of GOP House members and 15% of GOP senators. (Some did the right thing: 10 Republicans in the House would vote to impeach Trump, seven in the Senate to convict.) This time, fortunately, there wasn’t enough congressional support to reject electoral votes. Perhaps next time there will be — and a judicial system willing to tolerate such a travesty.

Recent times have been a true education in how a democracy can implode. It can do so without democratic processes, requiring a dear leader spewing lies, enough of the populace to believe those lies, enough of the most devout to take violent action, and military involvement or inaction. If armed supporters storm and seize the Capitol and other places of power then it doesn’t really matter what the courts say, but this only ultimately works if the military does it or acquiesces to it. While the January 6 mob included active soldiers and veterans, this had no support from the branches, instead condemnation and protective response. This was ideal, but next time we may not be so fortunate. But the end of the great experiment can also happen through democratic processes. Democratic systems can eliminate democracy. Other free nations have seen democracy legislated away just as they have seen military coups. You need a dear leader spewing lies to justify acts that would keep him in charge, enough of the populace to believe those lies, enough of the dear leader’s party to go along with those lies and acts for power reasons (holding on to branches of government), and enough judges to tolerate such lies and approve, legitimize, such acts. We can count our lucky stars we did not see the last one this time, but it was frightening to witness the first three.

Trump’s conspiracy theories about voter fraud began long before the election (laying the groundwork to question the election’s integrity, only if he lost) and continued long after. Polls suggested eight or nine of every ten Trump voters believed Biden’s victory wasn’t legitimate; about half of Republicans agreed. So many Republican politicians stayed silent or played along with Trump’s voter fraud claims, cementing distrust in the democratic process and encouraging the spread of misinformation, which, like Trump’s actions, increased political division, the potential for violence, and the odds of overturning a fair election. As with voter suppression, gerrymandering, denying justice confirmation votes, and much else, it is clear that power is more important than democracy to many Republicans. Anything to keep the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court. You can’t stand up to the Madman and the Masses. The Masses adore the Madman, and you can’t lose their votes (or, if an earnest supporter, go against your dear leader). Some politicians may even fear for their safety.

It was frightening to realize that democracy really does rest, precariously, on the truth. On human recognition of reality, on sensible standards of evidence, on reason. It’s misinformation and gullibility that can end the democratic experiment, whether by coup or democratic mechanisms or both.

What would happen next? First, no one would be punished, at least not for long. American law allows presidential pardons, another systemic weakness. Anyone who joined a violent coup or quietly worked against democracy would be forgiven and legitimated by the victorious president. Trump, after using this power during his term to free corrupt allies, later vowed to forgive the January 6 rioters if he ever returned to the White House.

More broadly, tens of millions of Americans would celebrate. They wouldn’t be cheering the literal end of democracy, they would be cheering its salvation, because to them fraud had been overcome. So a sizable portion of the population would exist in a delusional state, completely disconnected from reality, which could mean a relatively stable system, like other countries that drifted from democracy. Perhaps the nation simply continues on, in a new form where elections are shams — opening the door to further authoritarianism. Despite much earnest sentiment toward and celebration of democracy, there is a troubling popularity of authoritarianism among Trump voters and to a lesser extent Americans as a whole. Unless the rest of the nation became completely ungovernable, whether in the form of nationwide strikes and mass civil disobedience or the actual violence that the typically hyperbolic prophets of “civil war” predict, there may be few alternatives to a nation in a new form. Considering Congress would need high Republican support to remove a president, or considering Congress would be neutered by the military, an effective governmental response seems almost impossible.

We truly witnessed an incredible moment in U.S. history. It’s one thing to read about nations going over the cliff, and another to see the cliff approaching before your very eyes. Reflecting the rise of authoritarians elsewhere in history, Trump reached the highest office using demagoguery (demonizing Mexicans and illegal immigrants, Muslims, China, the media, and other existential threats) and nationalism (promising to crush these existential threats and restore American greatness). The prejudiced masses loved it. As president his worst policies not only acted upon his demagoguery, with crackdowns on all legal immigration, Muslim immigrants, and illegal immigrants, he also consistently gave the finger to democratic and legal processes, such as ordering people to ignore subpoenas, declaring a national emergency to bypass congressional power and get his wall built, obstruction of justice (even a Republican senator voted to convict him of this), and so on. Then, at the end, Trump sought to stay in office through lies and a backstabbing of democracy, the overturning of a fair vote. And even in all this, we were extremely lucky — not only that the judicial and military systems remained strong (it was interesting to see how unelected authorities can protect democracy, highlighting the importance of some unelected power in a system of checks and balances), but that Trump was always more doofus than dictator, without much of a political ideology beyond “me, me, me.” Next time we may not be so fortunate. America didn’t go over the cliff this time, but we must work to ensure we never approach it again.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

After reading one of my books, folks who aren’t involved in social movements often ask, in private or at public talks, “What can we do?” So distraught by horrors past and present, people feel helpless and overwhelmed, and want to know how we build that better world — how does one join a social movement, exactly? I often say it’s easy to feel powerless before all the daunting obstacles — and no matter how involved you get, you typically feel you’re not doing enough. Perhaps even the most famous activists and leaders felt that way. Fortunately, I continue, if you look at history it becomes clear that social change isn’t just about one person doing a lot. It’s about countless people doing just a little bit. Howard Zinn said, “Small acts, when multiplied by millions of people, can transform the world.” And he was right, as we’ve seen. Whatever challenges we face today, those who came before us faced even greater terrors — and they won, because growing numbers of ordinary people decided to act, decided to organize, to put pressure on the economically and politically powerful. I then list (some of) the tools in the toolbox of social change, which I have reproduced below so I can pass them along in written form.

The list roughly and imperfectly goes from smaller, less powerful tools to larger, more powerful ones. The first nine are largely done “together alone,” while the last nine are mostly in the realm of true organizing and collective action. Yet all are of extreme importance in building a more decent society. (It ignores, perhaps rightly, the sentiments of some comrades that there should be no participation in current electoral systems, instead favoring using all possible tools at one’s disposal.) This is in no way a comprehensive list (writing books is hopefully on this spectrum somewhere, alongside many other things), but it is enough to get the curious started.

Talk to people

Post on social media

Submit editorials / earn media attention / advertise

Sign petitions

Call / email / write / tag the powerful

Donate to candidates

Donate to organizations

Vote for candidates

Vote for policy initiatives

Volunteer for candidates (phonebank / canvass / register or drive voters)

Volunteer for policy initiative campaigns (phonebank / canvass / register or drive voters)

Run for office

Join an organization

Launch a policy initiative campaign (from petition to ballot)

March / protest / picket (at a place of power)

Boycott (organized refusal to buy or participate)

Strike (organized refusal to return to work or school)

Sit-in / civil disobedience / disruption (organized, nonviolent refusal to leave a place of power, cooperate, or obey the law; acceptance of arrest)

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

For years now, exhaustive psychological research and studies have concluded that a wealth of medical benefits exists for the individual who owns a pet. According to Abnormal Psychology (Comer, 2010), “social support of various kinds helps reduce or prevent depression. Indeed, the companionship and warmth of dogs and other pets have been found to prevent loneliness and isolation and, in turn, to help alleviate or prevent depression” (p. 260). Without companionship, people are far more likely fall into depression when life presents increased stress. An article in Natural Health summarizes the medical advantages of pet ownership by saying, “researchers have discovered that owning a pet can reduce blood pressure, heart rate, and cholesterol; lower triglyceride levels; lessen stress; result in fewer doctor visits; and alleviate depression” (Hynes, 2005). Additionally, Hynes explains, “Infants who live in a household with dogs are less likely to develop allergies later in life, not only to animals but also to other common allergens.”

While immune system adaptation explains allergy prevention, a pet’s gift of reducing depression is multilayered. One of the most important components is touch therapy. The physical contact of petting a cat or dog provides a calming effect, comforting the owner and fighting off stress. The New York Times reports pets “provide a socially acceptable outlet for the need for physical contact. Men have been observed to touch their pets as often and as lovingly as women do” (1982). Physical touch in infancy is vital to normal brain development, and the need for contact continues into adulthood as a way to ease tension, express love, and feel loved. 

Another aspect of this phenomenon is unconditional love. Pets can provide people with love that is difficult or sometimes impossible to find from another person. In the article Pets for Depression and Health, Alan Entin, PhD, says unconditional love explains everything. “When you are feeling down and out, the puppy just starts licking you, being with you, saying with his eyes, ‘You are the greatest.’ When an animal is giving you that kind of attention, you can’t help but respond by improving your mood and playing with it” (Doheny, 2010). Pets are often the only source of true unconditional love a man or woman can find, and the feeling of being adored improves mood and self-confidence.

Not everyone is a pet person, which is why owning a pet will not be efficacious for everyone. Indeed, people who are already so depressed they cannot even take care of themselves will not see improvements. However, those who do take on the responsibility of owning a cat, dog, or any other little creature, will see reduced depression simply because they are responsible for another living being’s life. In an article in Reader’s Digest, Dr. Yokoyama Akimitsu, head of Kyosai Tachikawa Hospital’s psychiatric unit, says pets help by “creating a feeling of being needed” (2000). This need, this calling to take care of the pet, will give the owner a sense of importance and purpose. It also provides a distraction from one’s life problems. These elements work in concert to battle depression. 

Owning a pet also results in increased exercise and social contact with people. According to Elizabeth Scott, M.S., in her 2007 article How Owning a Dog or Cat Reduces Stress, dog owners spend more time walking than non-owners in urban settings. Exercise is known to burn stress. Furthermore, Scott says, “When we’re out walking, having a dog with us can make us more approachable and give people a reason to stop and talk, thereby increasing the number of people we meet, giving us an opportunity to increase our network of friends and acquaintances, which also has great stress management benefits.” Increased exercise will also lead to an improved sense of well-being due to endorphins released in the brain, and better sleep.

Finally, owning a pet simply staves off loneliness. Scott says, “They could be the best antidote to loneliness. In fact, research shows that nursing home residents reported less loneliness when visited by dogs than when they spent time with other people” (2007). Just by being there for their owners, pets eliminate feelings of isolation and sadness. They can serve as companions and friends to anyone suffering from mild or moderate depression.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

References

Brody, J. E. (1982, August 11). Owning a Pet Can Have Therapeutic Value. In The New York Times. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/11/garden/owning-a-pet-can-have-therapeutic-value.html?scp=1&sq=1982%20pets&st=cse

Comer, R. J.  (2010). Abnormal Psychology (7^th Ed.). New York: Worth Publishers

Doheny, K. (2010, August 18). Pets for Depression and Health. In WebMD. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.webmd.com/depression/recognizing-depression-symptoms/pets-depression

Hynes, A. (2005, March). The Healing Power of Animals. In CBS Money Watch. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NAH/is_3_35/ai_n9775602/

Scott, E. (2007, November 1). How Owning a Dog or Cat Can Reduce Stress. In About.com. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://stress.about.com/od/lowstresslifestyle/a/petsandstress.htm

Williams, M. (2000, August). Healing Power of Pets. In Reader’s Digest. Retrieved December 13, 2010, from http://www.drmartinwilliams.com/healingpets/healingpets.html