Why the death of a pet can be as traumatic as losing a loved one
New research has shown that grieving for a pet can be just as painful as grieving a human family member.
The study, published in the academic journal PLOS One, suggests that rules surrounding severe grief should be changed to reflect the feelings of loss people may feel when a pet dies.
The research has found that it is possible for pet owners to suffer from a mental health condition known as protracted grief disorder (PGD), which can last for months or years following the death of a loved one.
Symptoms include intense longing for the deceased, hopelessness, and difficulty socializing and carrying on with daily life.
.jpg)
PGD diagnoses are currently only accepted for human deaths, but the author of this study called for this to be extended to pets after finding that humans can experience clinically significant impairment from pet loss.
The research interviewed 975 adults in the UK and found almost a third had experienced the death of their pet. Of those who lost their pets, 7.5 percent met PGD criteria. This rate almost matches the rate of those who lost a close friend (7.8 percent).
It found that 8.3 per cent of people experienced PGD after the death of a grandparent, with statistics varying to 8.9 per cent for a sibling and 9.1 per cent for a partner.
Those who had lost a parent (11.2 percent) or child (21.3 percent) exhibited the highest rates of this disorder.
Nearly a fifth of people who experienced both pet and human loss said losing their pet was worse.
The study estimates that one in 12 cases of PGD in the UK are caused by the death of a pet, despite only half of adults owning a pet and animals generally having shorter lifespans than humans.
Study author Philip Hyland, from Maynooth University, said: “These findings provide consistent and convincing evidence that people can experience clinically significant levels of PGD following the death of a pet.”
He added: “The decision to exclude pet loss from the bereavement criteria for PGD could be viewed as not only scientifically misguided but also insensitive.”
