Dolphin Assisted Therapy: can swimming with dolphins be a suitable treatment?

Ancient history, myths, and legends suggest humans have always had a natural affinity with dolphins. There are many reasons for this, from dolphins demonstrating compassion in the stories of them saving people from drowning, to their obvious intelligence and freedom-loving nature. Just watching them moving elegantly and expertly through the world’s oceans, closely associating with one another, often leaping from the surf, can make us smile or even feel great joy. This is perhaps why, in the past decade or so, increasing numbers of people have expressed a desire to interact closely and swim with dolphins. Offered as a cure or respite from human illness or disability, proponents of Dolphin Assisted Therapy (DAT) claim it can be used to treat a whole range of physical and psychological conditions, including clinical depression, speech development, Down syndrome, autism, blindness, AIDS, and cancer. Yet there is no ‘industry standard’ to set criteria for what constitutes DAT and there is no official regulation of the practice, such that the market has opened up for DAT programmes and facilities to proliferate across the globe with relative ease. DAT can involve dolphins both in captivity and in the wild and includes interactions at the poolside, where a swim is offered as a reward for the completion of a set task; simply swimming with the dolphins either in their tanks or in a sea pen; dorsal fin rides; more structured interactions with dolphins while in the water; or even activities where the participant is made to feel that they are ‘looking after’ the captive dolphin, through feeding or other activities. Wild DAT interactions tend to be less structured and consist largely of swimming with dolphins in their natural environment. A report launched in October 2007 by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) noted that DAT involves two highly vulnerable groups.1 First, the people undergoing the therapy are often children or adults with psychological or physical disabilities and/or emotional problems. Second, the dolphins used in DAT are either held in captivity or are part of a wild population and may suffer from confinement and/or human disturbance. This gives rise to a number of concerns about the impact of DAT on people and dolphins. Anyone contemplating undergoing a form of therapy should consider any risks associated with it and swimming with dolphins can be a dangerous activity, one that has led to swimmers occasionally suffering bites, bruises, scratches, abrasions, and even broken bones. Dolphins are large, strong, wild animals and are unpredictable, even when well-trained. Furthermore, there is a possibility of disease transmission, with dolphins carrying some diseases that can be transmittable to humans and no requirement in some countries to screen their animals for disease. DAT can also present a significant risk to the health and welfare of dolphins used in DAT programmes. Their care and conditions may be neither inspected nor regulated. Furthermore, there appears to be no specific training requirements for DAT practitioners, although a host of competencies are often cited. Many dolphins in DAT programmes were captured in the wild, although the impact of captures on the long-term survival rate of dolphin populations is unknown. There may, however, be significant implications for some populations. Furthermore, in captivity, the stress of their confinement prevents them from behaving normally – hunting, breeding, socializing, resting – often making them ill and resulting in premature death. The effectiveness of DAT has also come increasingly into question. Two independent reviews of published DAT research by senior Emory University scholars, the first in 1998 and the second in 2007, demonstrated that there is no proven scientific validity to DAT. They concluded: ‘Despite DAT’s extensive promotion to the general public, the evidence that it produces enduring improvements in the core symptoms of any psychological disorder is nil’2 and recommended that ‘Both practitioners of DAT and parents who are considering DAT for their children should be made aware that this treatment has yet to be subject to an adequate empirical test’.3 Their position is supported by the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine, whose representative noted, in a letter supporting WDCS’s work: ‘It would be irresponsible and professionally unethical to promote or support DAT as an appropriate prescriptive response from the medical community’ and UK health charity Research Autism, which endorsed WDCS’s indepth report ‘Dolphin Assisted Therapy: Can you put your faith in DAT?’. It is essential that in any Animal Assisted Therapy programme, the health and welfare of both the humans and the animals involved are the primary considerations. We suggest that DAT is not only ineffective as a therapeutic intervention, but could be harmful to both parties.