For one in five people, the death of a beloved pet is more distressing than the death of a human family member, according to new research that challenges established psychiatric rules.
A study published in the journal PLOS One argues that excluding pet owners from diagnoses of “Prolonged Grief Disorder” (PGD) is scientifically baseless and prevents suffering people from accessing necessary mental health care.
Currently, the world’s leading diagnostic manuals — the ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR — stipulate that PGD can only be diagnosed following the death of a person. However, findings from Maynooth University in Ireland suggest that grief symptoms for animals manifest in the “exact same way” as grief for humans.
The “silent sorrow”
Professor Philip Hyland surveyed a representative sample of 975 adults in the UK to analyse how they processed different types of bereavement.
The results showed that while the death of a child or partner remains the most likely trigger for disordered grief, pet loss is a significant and overlooked crisis. Among participants who had lost both a pet and a human, 21 per cent identified the death of their pet as the most distressing loss of their lives.
Furthermore, the study found that 7.5 per cent of bereaved pet owners met the clinical criteria for Prolonged Grief Disorder — a rate comparable to those grieving the loss of a sibling or a close friend.
The data reveal that while losing a child carries the highest risk (21.3 per cent), the likelihood of developing PGD after losing a pet (7.5 per cent) is statistically similar to losing a close friend (7.8 per cent) or other family members (8.3 per cent).
A “callous” exclusion
Despite these findings, a psychiatrist currently cannot diagnose a patient with PGD if the source of their distress is a dog or cat, regardless of how severe their symptoms are.
Professor Hyland argues this distinction is rooted in an outdated view of human exceptionalism rather than clinical evidence.
“There is no fundamental difference between man and animals in their ability to feel pleasure and pain,” the study notes, quoting Charles Darwin. The research utilised sophisticated modelling to prove that PGD symptoms — such as intense longing and preoccupation — operate identically regardless of whether the deceased is human or animal.
“Considered in light of evidence that people view grief related to the death of a pet as less legitimate… the decision to exclude pet loss from the bereavement criterion for PGD can be viewed as not only scientifically misguided, but also as callous,” Hyland wrote.
Key statistics include:
- 32.6 per cent of adults surveyed had experienced the death of a beloved pet.
- 8.1 per cent of all PGD cases in the population are attributed to pet loss, a figure second only to the loss of a parent.
- 1.27: The relative risk factor for developing PGD after losing a pet, making it a significant mental health concern.
The study concludes that mental health professionals need to recognise that for many, a pet is a family member, and the denial of a diagnosis may delegitimise a profound psychological wound.
