Originally Posted by
capedreamer
Second, assuming you do believe there is a legitimate medical case for ESAs in some cases, do you agree with the (again apparent FT) consensus that the concept is subject to abuse?
My personal views on this are captured well by
this NYT article. Some choice quotes below:
"
Carla Black, a psychotherapist in Marina del Rey, Calif., began receiving enough requests for emotional support animal certification that this year she began advertising on her website. For $99, she provides an hour of her time, over the phone or Skype, and a clinical assessment, along with a prescription letter, which is valid for one year."
ESAs open to abuse yes, but fake service animals too.
In any event, sounds to me like Carla is keen to get her license suspended, or at least her name blacklisted by airlines. There's no way to provided the type of diagnosis required in an hour, much less over Skype.