Dolphin Assisted Therapy or Gimmickry?

by Jim Curtis (1999)

Throughout the ages, dolphins have performed a variety of 'services' for the benefit of the human race. These have ranged from being important religious symbols within the folklore of ancient civilisations, to their emergence in the modern era as commercially valuable marketing tools and tourist attractions. One of the latest discoveries is the industry of Dolphin Assisted Therapy (DAT). But although dolphins have long been associated with notions of alternative living, extending this association to 'alternative healing' has raised ethical and moral questions concerning the exploitation of false hopes and the justification of dolphin captivity.

The conceptual foundations of DAT are generally recognised to have begun in 1971 during an auspicious encounter between a group of adolescent dolphins and the retarded brother of educational anthropologist, Dr Betsy Smith. She observed behavioural changes in both the dolphins and her brother, and realised the potential therapeutic applications of such encounters. Since these humble beginnings, DAT has grown to become a global industry and an increasingly popular field of scientific research, with DAT programs and centres having been established in countries such as Australia, Japan, Israel, Great Britain and the United States.

The early developmental stages of DAT focussed on the ability of dolphins to motivate behavioural and cognitive changes in disabled children. Captive dolphins were used as stimuli to elicit responses that indicated that some degree of positive learning had occurred. The underlying rationale of this approach was the belief that the attention span of disabled children would increase significantly because of their desire to interact with a dolphin. By successfully performing tasks that challenged their area of disability, the children would be rewarded with a dolphin encounter that involved swimming, touching, feeding or patting the animal. This method of positive reinforcement was claimed to achieve learning improvements that were dramatically greater than those attained in a classroom environment.

It is little coincidence that the conceptual emergence of DAT occurred at a time when there was intense interest in dolphin intelligence. Combined with a host of claims concerning the therapeutic and healing powers of dolphins, DAT soon expanded beyond its early foundations of simply providing a stimulating teaching environment. People suffering from cerebral palsy, autism, spinal chord injuries, strokes, cancer, post traumatic stress, chronic depression, attention deficit disorder, down's syndrome, muscular dystrophy, blindness, deafness, anorexia and dyslexia are now all part of the burgeoning DAT market. Although once dismissed as merely a New Age fad, the growing popularity and attention being generated by DAT suggests that such a broad dismissal can no longer be justified.

Some of the claimed therapeutic effects of dolphins have included improvements in the psychological well-being of 'clients' due to raised levels of happiness, confidence and self-esteem, profound states of relaxation that help create stronger immune systems, and even bold assertions that cancerous tumours have either reduced or disappeared. But many of these benefits are extremely subjective and are therefore impossible to quantify. Instead of being supported by scientific evidence, they are based more on a 'feeling' and a sense of faith that dolphins are healers. Such subjective notions of dolphin healing have been a significant source of frustration for researchers studying the science of DAT. Rather than simply accepting the therapeutic effects, their aim is to discover the mechanisms that create these positive responses in the belief that they may be physiological as opposed to psychological. Some of the hypotheses being suggested include theories that a dolphin's sonar is capable of stimulating the production of specific hormones, altering brainwaves and causing cavitation within the soft tissue of the human body. However, there remains a strong element of scepticism towards such scientific theories given that dolphins have long been associated with a variety of New Age claims that have served to tarnish the credibility of this emerging field of scientific research.

At the 1996 International Symposium on Dolphin Assisted Therapy, a paper was presented by Dr W.L. Martens entitled Human Attitudes Towards Dolphin Assisted Therapy: The Essential Tension Between Science and Faith. The paper highlighted how the field of DAT was characterised by contrasting approaches based on science and faith. It also acknowledged that despite the differences between them, they both had the 'desire to make a difference in the lives of people who need the kind of help that dolphins are willing to offer'. But given that most dolphins used for DAT are held in captivity, their 'willingness' to participate is questionable.

What is often forgotten in discussions of DAT are the dolphins themselves. They are wild animals with natural instincts and patterns of behaviour that have evolved over millions of years. They are accustomed to living freely in the world's open waters and hunting for their own food. But these practices are usually deemed as 'inconvenient' for DAT, as the dolphins are invariably required to be continually present and responsive, and this often means that they have to be held in captivity and forced to rely on food from humans. Although some DAT centres claim that their holding pens, pools and lagoons are designed to allow the dolphins to come and go as they please, a member of the same family group, such as a young calf, will often be kept captive to ensure that they return. Combined with their compromised hunting abilities, the dolphins have little choice but to return to captivity.

In addition to taking away a dolphin's freedom and natural instincts, there are numerous other issues associated with captivity. There have been documented accounts of dolphins suffering from bleeding ulcers, blindness, respiratory infections, stress, behavioural abnormalities, breeding difficulties and poisoning. High mortality rates can be another problem, with some captive dolphins only living between five and seven years compared to the 30 to 40 year lifespan of their wild counterparts. The enclosed spaces of some holding areas have also driven many dolphins to silence. This is a result of the dolphins curtailing the use of their sonar because of the signals bouncing back off the surrounding walls. The psychological repercussions of this effect have been likened to imprisoning a sighted animal in an enclosure of mirrors. As well as becoming non-communicative, captive dolphins can also become highly aggressive. Instances of humans sustaining bruises, bites and broken bones have all occurred because of the aggressive behaviour of a captive dolphin.

These negative impacts are made even more intolerable given the flaws inherent to many DAT studies that have been used to justify dolphin captivity. Despite the growing scientific element of the field, its credibility has been plagued by insufficient and dubious empirical data, the absence of standard criteria for measuring therapeutic progress, subjective anecdotal results and inadequate research protocols. Some studies have been so preoccupied with highlighting the 'wondrous' healing effects of dolphins that they fail to consider other influences. These may include the body's instinctive reactions to water immersion, such as heightened sensory perception, reduced anxiety and pain relief, and the feeling of importance an individual may get by being personally supervised by a trainer, instructor or carer while in the water. There is also the problem of relying on the responses of DAT clients and their family and friends for indications of progress. The financial and emotional expenditure that they have invariably invested can often provide them with enough impetus to 'see' dramatic improvements even though they may not exist. Although the stimulating effects of dolphins are undeniable, these additional factors illustrate that there are other variables that can affect client responses, and this raises valid questions regarding the justification of dolphin captivity for the sake of DAT.

The other growing concern associated with DAT relates to the exploitation of false or misplaced hopes. Claims that dolphins can cure ailments ranging from tobacco addiction to cancer have obviously attracted the attention of a wide range of prospective clients. For many of them, dolphins offer a last hope, and it is this desperation that is sometimes being exploited. The thought of being miraculously cured can result in people investing precious finances and emotions, and given their significant investment, they simply cannot financially or emotionally afford not to believe in the potential healing powers of these 'mystical' animals. Dolphins are therefore not the only victims when it comes to criticising the ethics of DAT.

In the wake of the growing concerns being directed at DAT and dolphin captivity, there are numerous alternatives being proposed. For example, hydrotherapy and domestic animal therapy have been cited as genuine alternatives given that they have produced documented benefits similar to those claimed by DAT enthusiasts. But the common response to this argument is that dolphins provide the optimal motivational setting for generating improvements within people. This may partially be true, but the results may be 'good enough' to challenge the use of captive dolphins. Simulating dolphin interactions through virtual reality has also been considered, but the therapeutic mechanisms of dolphins are currently not understood well enough for accurate artificial replication. Another alternative involves using wild rather than captive dolphins. Although the possible issue of exploiting false hope remains, the captivity concerns are at least alleviated. Interacting with wild dolphins can also be a much more rewarding experience given that they are not being forced to interact through food depravation. This makes the encounter all the more special, and can create a profound sense of importance within the people who have attracted the attention of these naturally curious animals. It also illustrates that wild dolphins have a lot more to offer than just being a reward, which is often the main role of their captive counterparts.

As the claimed therapeutic effects of dolphins garner more attention, the potential to exploit dolphins and human vulnerabilities, often for economic gain, will continue to be a major concern. For many DAT clients, the prospect of interacting with a dolphin offers a rare chance of happiness and hope; emotional commodities that may be lacking in their own lives. However, they unfortunately seem to be so preoccupied, envious and jealous of these qualities that they have little qualm with taking them away from an inherently wild animal for their own personal gain. Although humans have no right to consider their own happiness as being more important than that of a dolphin, this is basically the underlying premise of DAT, and for its proponents to argue that it also benefits dolphins is little more than a vain defence of questionable ethics and morals. Dolphins are wild animals deserving of their freedom, not 'faith healers' capable of remarkable cures.