No description available.

This thesis expands on the model presented in Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s Zoopolis for how companion animals might be treated as co-citizens in a post-Animal Rights world. I will attempt to clarify the distinct political obligations owed to companion animals throughout their lifetimes by individual caregivers and by the state. In particular, I argue that there is nothing in the genetic make-up of most companion animals that precludes them from being “autonomous agents” in adulthood, meaning that if allowed to develop their agency, most animals would be able to lead flourishing lives independent of human companions. I suggest that, for young companion animals, guardians have political obligations to develop the autonomous agency of their dependents, with help from the state. That said, for adult animals which develop autonomous agency, I argue that both a human caregiver and the animal have a right to sever their relationship with each other, just as we give adult children the right to leave their parents’ care and also give parents the “right to kick out” adult children who are capable of supporting themselves. However, while advocating for human caregivers’ rights to sever relationships with autonomous pets, I nonetheless maintain that the state will always retain obligations to its citizens to provide them with a basic level of welfare, and these obligations extend to companion animals as well. Thus, the thesis will consider ways that companion animals can flourish without human companionship. Questions I am concerned with are: Can companion animals lead worthwhile lives without human caregivers? What obligations do caregivers and states have to raise animal young? When and how can these obligations be terminated? And lastly, how might we restructure our public and political institutions to accommodate animals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave relationships with caregivers? / Thesis (Master, Philosophy) -- Queen's University, 2013-11-15 09:18:40.613

This cross-sectional study compared three groups of grandparents, two custodial and one noncustodial, to identify and delineate the unique challenges and expectations faced by custodial grandparents due to their nontraditional roles while attempting to disentangle grandparental role demands from child-specific problems as sources of distress. Those grandparents raising grandchildren demonstrating neurological, physical, emotional, or behavioral problems exhibited the most distress, the most disruption of roles, and the most deteriorated grandparent-grandchild relationships. Although the custodial grandparents raising apparently normal grandchildren demonstrated less distress, less disruption of roles, and less deterioration of the grandparent-grandchild relationship than those grandparents raising grandchildren displaying problems, they still demonstrated higher levels than did traditional grandparents. Those grandparents who reported fewer resources, demonstrated poor attitudes regarding seeking mental health services, and reported raising grandchildren displaying problems had the lowest levels of adjustment.