Should a mentally ill person be allowed to keep a cat?

Should a mentally ill person be allowed to keep a cat? I don’t think that this question has been asked before. I think it is a reasonable question. But please don’t misunderstand me. A cat companion to a person who has mental health issues and who is perhaps vulnerable from a mental health standpoint, may receive great benefit from looking after a domestic cat. That is the upside; that is the good aspect of this story.

And the story is that a British woman, 23 years of age, living near Barnsley in the North of England, with a history of mental health problems including being sectioned under the Mental Health Act 20 times, placed her cat in a microwave and turned it on for 5 minutes because she claims that her cat attacked her goldfish.

Her name is Laura Cunliffe and her cat was a 4-month-old kitten that she had named Mowgli. Laura was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under the Animal Welfare Act 2006.

Woman who microwaved her cat
Picture: Caters
Two useful tags. Click either to see the articles: Toxic to cats | Dangers to cats

Her cat died 90 minutes after being removed from the microwave. We can only imagine the hellish pain that this kitten went through. It is a clear case of horrific cat cruelty. She was sentenced to 14 weeks in jail.

There are many people who would argue that the sentence is far too short. She has also, incidentally, been banned from keeping animals for life and she cannot appeal the court judgement for at least 5 years.

Someone in the gallery in the court shouted out, “she doesn’t know what’s happening–she hasn’t a clue”. And there is the problem. Should Laura, in the first place, have had the opportunity to look after a cat? Clearly not, must be the response.

The answer to the question in the title to this article is that some mentally ill people should not be allowed to look after a cat. We don’t allow some mentally ill mothers to look after their newborn baby. The baby is taken into care immediately upon birth. This happens routinely in the United Kingdom.

Clearly, we do not treat, in this country, the cat companion, from a legal standpoint in the same way that we treat a human companion and that has to be accepted and acknowledged. However, many families treat their cat companion as a member of the family and I think a little more respect is due in the form of protection for the domestic cat.

The only way to exercise that sort of protection would be to register cat ownership on a central database and then cross reference that with any person who has been recorded as having mental health issues. Most people won’t approve that and politicians will not create the law. I am sure that there are databases that contain information regarding the mental health of people and whether they are a danger to themselves and others. Cross-referencing, as suggested, would, I propose, help project a cat that was as vulnerable as Mowgli. May he rest in peace.

  1. Source – sometimes external links break. I can’t help that.
  2. I respect and am tender towards all people with mental health issues.

Please search using the search box at the top of the site. You are bound to find what you are looking for.

86 thoughts on “Should a mentally ill person be allowed to keep a cat?”

  1. Michael,
    “I respect and am tender towards all people with mental health issues.” Nice little add on to your column, a little late but it is there. Guess you upset too many people with very strong opinions which with your lack of sympathy.
    Also love how another person can express what you were feeling and thinking and you are unable to yourself.

    Reply
    • Amy you’re talking a load of BS. Really. Are you a troll? You sound as if you are. You don’t know me. You don’t know how tender I am to the vulnerable; and people with mental health issues are vulnerable as are cats and all animals in the human world. I do have an opinion and I express it but they’re not strong views. It may seem that I have strong opinions about things. I don’t, it is just that most webpages on the Internet about cats are bland and people avoid expressing their opinion perhaps because they do not have one.

      There is no doubt in my mind that you have deliberately set out to annoy me and you have succeeded but that will be the end of it. Don’t bother to make any further comments unless they are reasonable and unless they don’t insult people without good cause.

      Reply
  2. Jo, great article. Certainly raised my hackles, didn’t it? And that is one of the delights about PoC, besides the facts and anecdotes that are available in the archives. I must tell you that I truly think that you are The cat’s meow for having written this brilliant! article on a subject that is so sensitive (understatedly so).

    Reply
  3. I think that maybe being mentally ill isn’t the criteria for the evil that this woman did, I think she is rotten to the core, right through to her soul and whether she was mentally ill or perfectly healthy I think she would still have done it. There is good or there is evil, mentally sound people can be either, mentally ill people can be either. This smirking woman is evil, I personally wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger given half a chance for what she did. She brings down good, kind, mentally ill people by associating herself with them.

    Reply
  4. Really opened a can of worms here Micheal!!! It induced a rage in me that I have not felt in quite a while. You have stooped to a new low level. I have a daughter who suffers from a couple different diagnosis of mental illness, from Bi-Polar disorder, panic disorder to name two. She was diagnosed when she was in her very early teens and now is in her 40s.She is unable to work because of these disorders and her pets are her life. She would NEVER in her wildest dreams ever ever hurt any animal.You cannot make this a one thing covers all topic. There has been a registry bill suggested, but so far it has not been passed. I agree that one should be made BUT only after the person has been convicted under the law, whether they are mentally ill or not. To deny a person pets ownership on just that premise ” mental illness” is so wrong. Countless pets would have to be euthanized just because a person carries a “label” for life. Oh speaking of labels you have your own it seems. “Sometimes you have to engage in this sort of tabloid activity because there is a part of society who read tabloid newspapers.”

    Reply
    • Amy I am asking a question, no more. I am not labelling all people with mental health issues as incapable of caring for a cat. Far from it. I am just asking. Clearly some people with mental health issues are not capable of caring for a cat and some are. Sometimes the mental illness itself prevents the person from being able to look after cat.

      With respect I don’t like your phrase ,”You have stooped to a new low level” because it implies I have stooped to low levels regularly which I categorically reject with passion.

      Reply
      • Forgive me for interjecting a thought on Amy’s behalf, but I am certain that she did not mean to include that. It is all to easy to blurt out something that wasn’t what was intended, when the subject matter is offensive and leaves one feeling quite vulnerable! at least, this was true of me, even as an ailurophile normally feeling quite comfortable on PoC, Michael.

        Reply
        • By the way, I suffer from military-inflicted PTSD from some thirty years ago. Now have what might be labeled as agoraphobia.

          Reply
          • really hugs i know caroline its hard as my sister in christchurch in nz as the post traumatc stres due to the earthquakes.

            Reply
            • Okay, here it is. I wan’t going to to attempt to explain my agoraphobia nor my other silly issues on your site. But I guess I need to now, since I made such a mess of things. 🙁

              Well, I was a brilliant person when I was seventeen and joined the military. The problem was that I did not have a clue as to what actually went on in adulthood. (I had never known.)
              To make a long story short, I had a nervous breakdown due to sexual trauma and never got a chance to continue my brilliant career.

              Reply
              • Carolyn, agoraphobia, is by no means a silly issue. And, you are not silly.
                It’s pretty apparent to me how very bright you are. Some of your comments have blown me away.
                What were your aspirations?
                Please share with us. It’s safe here.
                And, it can never be said enough, “Thank you for your service.”

                Reply
          • Caroline thank you for trying to help with the article about “Should Mentally Ill Folks Own Pets”. Also another HUGE thank you for serving in the military. I am also a veteran who served in the Army back in 1961 -1964. I am truly sorry you suffered such a traumatic experience which cut short you dreams. I responded to his reply to my comments. Again thank you so much.

            Reply
        • Thanks Cal. It is no big deal to me. I didn’t appreciate her comment. I don’t think the article is offensive. It is exploring difficult ground. It is like trying to talk about immigration in the UK. As soon as you do you’re branded a racist when you are not.

          Reply
          • Michael, this article, this article that Jo wrote, never intending it to be hurtful in any guise, hit with a bit of an unintended shockwave, metaphorically. That, I believe is key. Many of us with our gnawed-to-the-bone skeletons in our dark little closets, and many of us, who so intimately love and empathise with those closest to us who themselves feel that they wear the letter “A” emblazoned on their chest, over-analyze and judge. I think that this was not, perhaps, the best “venue” in which to engage in such? 🙂 Jo? You have my respect. You know this, by now. I am not criticizing the article, and I do believe that you know I am not. It was not intended to be anything but illustrative and constructive on the cat’s behalf!

            I’m sorry for responding and causing anybody to feel that they need to rethink what they might have done differently. I fully believe that this article was intended to be constructive. And, I also fully believe that it is. 🙂

            Reply
      • Michael I will not apologize for the statement about “stooping to a new low level”. What I meant was that for as many of your contributing articles/responses I have read, they have been more impartial and not one sided as this one seemed. It was meant to stir animal lovers up. Believe it or not I DO NOT read tabloids because I consider them trash. I imagine that this wonderful site will lose a few more people because of what was written about the mentally ill and whether they should be allowed to own pets.

        Reply
        • But it isn’t one sided Amy. Michael writes an article on important issues and we all get a chance to say without moderation, what our thoughts are on the subject. So both sides are aired, which I think is good because far too much which affects animals is hidden away.
          Mowgli was murdered horribly by someone who should not have been allowed to have a living creature in her charge and wouldn’t have had if it was known what sort of a person she is.
          There should be a register of people who are a danger to animals.

          Reply
          • Ruth,
            Yes I know what happened to Mowgli, this has happened in America more than once also to several different animals not just cats. It is a unbelievable crime, which should not have happened. Nice of you to speak up for Michael which is your right and I respect that. There are a few points which I did not like. (1) The topic seemed very one sided in my opinion. (2) He also keeps referring to Tabloids as if that they are the only thing in print.I do understand this column is mainly about cats, and it does every once in a while refer to “other” pets. This article should have covered a wider spectrum of animals/pets. I agree that some people with mental illness should not own pets, but to say none of them should is so wrong. Does this law want everyone to take a mentality test before getting the okay to hopefully “ADOPT” a animal?

            Reply
            • I speak up for anyone who is in the right and yes I do believe there should be a law that people should take a mentality test before being allowed a pet.
              Maybe we feel more strongly about the welfare of animals here in England, I myself am particularly passionate about cats and their welfare.
              One example is declawing, if that was happening here we’d be out on the streets with information tables and posters and petitions, we wouldn’t stand for vets mutilating cats that way, we’d get it stopped by fair means or foul. Yet it still goes on in America decade after decade.
              I respect your views, of course I do and it’s good we are adult enough here on PoC to be able to have a reasonable discussion without falling out.

              Reply
            • Amy You did not read the article? I did not say that all people with mental health issues should not keep cats. I initially asked the question and then in the article itself I said this:

              The answer to the question in the title to this article is that some mentally ill people should not be allowed to look after a cat.

              Now what does that look like? Can you read Amy? I suggest that you become less enthusiastic about insulting people and keener on being accurate. As for Ruth, she is a very fine person.

              Reply
              • Micheal losing your professionalism a little? To attack me at such a childish level is not called for. “NOW WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? CAN YOU READ AMY?” I have not intentionally insulted anyone except you. I admit you got me really enraged with the article. I also maybe should have calmed down a bit before I wrote my reply.
                I have read many responses defending you, including Ruth which I have no problem with. They have their own opinion and they have a right to express it. I have not challenged or responded with the exception of the lady who had a traumatic experience while in the military. If YOU go back to your article you recommend everyone who wants a cat should sign some kind of form/registry,not just some people. I agree with the concept but I don’t know how it could be enforced. How can you convince people to sign forms other than the original adoption papers. Many people in my opinion might see that as a violation of their rights and invasion of their privacy.

                Reply
  5. Cal, I just like to ask questions, even when they are difficult ones and even when I don’t know the answer. Sometimes you have to engage in this sort of tabloid activity because there is a part of society who read tabloid newspapers. PoC has to serve a wide audience and try and address new cat topics.

    Reply
    • Yep its good to ask the Questions as it does make well one think n awaresness michael ur just so wonderful and making us so aware of things.

      Reply
      • I agree with Kylee, Michael is brave enough to bring issues like this out into the open, as not many people dare to do.
        It doesn’t mean he is prejudiced, it simply means asking questions and getting peoples opinions and this encourages people to talk about things instead of keeping them hidden.
        Mental illness is not to be ashamed of but there are truly evil people who get away with horrible crimes by pretending to be mentally ill, so the more awareness about all this, the better for the sake of animals.

        Reply
  6. That was a poor attempt at a joke, given the horrendous images and scenarios. The “image” in your article was created in our minds by the description. The description is horrendous. It is one of our worst nightmares in this world of ours. Let me just say, that no person who is psychotic, nor any individual who has not been given a psych eval yet displays behavior indicative of, should be allowed to NOT undergo a psychiatrist’s care. Now, let’s talk about the laws that should be in place to protect animals from such persons. Is this what you were getting at? I’m a little slow. 🙂

    Reply
    • YYep thats what i meant, as there are some out there who should never ever have access to animals. Esp when they been Proven to have abused an animal. if they applied everything just cause u have mental health issues it would be very sad. It saddens me to hear in u.k how with the welfare how people are denied and even though they really not good or cant walk they still have such prejudices

      Reply
      • Let me just tell you this. There are many people out there in this vast, yet small world of ours, who have committed what could be deemed “atrocities” in their own eyes, based on their morals… And yet, should they be punished under the guiding good? No, for they did not mean to do wrong.

        I think that this is the point that Michael was trying to make. It is a quandary. What do you do? When have you the right to judge others for wrongdoing? Please remember that he is a retired solicitor in the U.K. He poses Q’s because that is his job, esp. when it comes to the nature of the “beast,” in this case our tormentor, Felis catus, et. al.

        Reply
          • wow. got way ahead of myself while keying. I hope you get the gist of what I am trying to convey. We, as healthy, yet ignorant, individuals can sometimes do harm, unknowingly to our next of kin, our siblings, our parents, our children, our pets. This does not make us able to purposefully HURT anyone of them. When we make a mistake, which is not physical, but maybe emotional, it does not make us a bad person. [sorry, being as simplistic as I can] The thing is, WE LEARN from our mistakes. even healthy animals do this. The difference btwn a “mentally ill” person, by Michael’s def. as I understand it is that WE LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES, and we do not repeat them. Those that engage in behaviors that are physically destructive, like the examples given above, well, let’s just say that they should be put in custody and given therapy and eval. for a very long time.

            Reply
            • Good point Cal. An aspect of the behavior of a person with mental health issues is that sometimes they have difficulty caring properly for themselves and when that happens it is unlikely that they will care properly for their cat. There is no maliciousness involved it is simply a question of ability in coping with life. And believe me I am extremely sympathetic towards people who struggle to cope. Life can be harsh.

              Reply
              • Yes, Life can be harsh, as we all well know. But that does not mean that you should tower above your cherished, thinking that you deserve better than the next character in your life’s drama… perhaps your cat, or maybe a human loved one. Get down on the [ground] floor and play. It might do us you, and us, a world of good. xx

                Reply
          • As Felis catus, our tormentor Homo sapiens [god, what would Linnaeus have said about that Latin?] is what it should have read. 😉

            Reply
        • Thanks Cal. I agree. If a mentally ill person hurts a cat and does it because of the mental illness the person should be treated and cared for (and not punished) but the person should not be allowed to care for a cat until it was certain the illness was under control.

          Reply
          • And it may be that that client should neverbe given that opportunity. But then, how are you, as a caregiver, social worker, attorney/solicitor or judge to control that? are we done with this conversation, yet? …<3 hopefully, not.

            Reply

Leave a Reply to Dee (Florida) Cancel reply

follow it link and logo