We love them so much
- 6 days ago
- 6 min read
A Reflection on Care, Projection, and What Dogs Actually Need
By Karin Dix, Grace n' Kelly
Introduction
This article presents a case study that raises a concern increasingly relevant to modern dog
ownership: the function dogs fulfill in contemporary society, and the potential consequences when
that function conflicts with the animal's actual needs.
Case Study: Mia
Approximately one year ago, the author placed a one-year-old Danish Swedish Farmdog — referred to here as Mia — with an older couple whose children had moved out. The dog was healthy, curious, active, and well-socialized at the time of placement.
The Onset: Refusal to Eat
Early signs emerged quickly. Mia began eating poorly. Rather than allowing time for the dog to adjust, the owners repeatedly changed her food. Over the course of one year, Mia was fed a large number of different commercial diets. The eventual outcome was vomiting, bloody diarrhea, and a further reduction in food intake.
Relevant research: Dogs exhibit a documented phenomenon called neophobia — an initial reluctance to accept unfamiliar food. A controlled study (Butowski et al., Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 2017)demonstrated that dogs presented with new food showed slower eating behavior, increased distraction, and hesitation — behaviors that owners frequently misinterpret as rejection or illness. A large-scale
study from the University of Helsinki involving over 4,600 dogs (Vuori et al., Scientific Reports, 2023) found that a highly processed, frequently changing diet during the juvenile phase is associated with higher rates of chronic gastrointestinal disease in later life. Research also confirms that anthropomorphic attitudes toward pets frequently result in nutritional errors with physical consequences
(Mota-Rojas et al., Animals, 2021).
The Dog as a Mirror of Human Needs
A study from the University of Groningen (Bouma, Dijkstra & Arnt Rosa, Animals, 2023) examined how pet owners perceive their dogs and cats. The findings indicate that the degree of anthropomorphization — the attribution of human characteristics to animals — correlates with the social role the animal occupies in the owner's life and with the degree of emotional support the owner derives from the animal. This means: individuals who experience their dog as a primary social relationship are more likely to attribute human emotions, needs, and illnesses to the animal. This is a well-documented psychological pattern.
However, for dogs, it can have significant consequences. Dogs evolved as social working animals. Their behavioral needs — movement, social contact,
exploration — are evolutionarily established. When these needs are constrained through excessive control, isolation, or over-medicalization, behavioral and health problems demonstrably result (Mota-Rojas et al., Animals, 2021).
Today, Mia is no longer the dog she was at placement. She has developed little, appears immature for her age, is more withdrawn and anxious, and carries a notable health burden. The author observes a broader trend: dogs are loved, monitored, treated, and protected — and in the process sometimes lose exactly what keeps them healthy: their freedom, their sense of agency, their
physical resilience, and their ability to simply be dogs.
When the Dog Becomes the Emotional Center
Dogs today often do not merely live with us — they live for us. They serve as family members, emotional anchors, sources of daily structure, and substitutes for social connection. A meaningful human-dog bond can be genuinely valuable for both parties. However, problems arise when the dog is no longer perceived as a dog, but rather as a projection surface for human needs — a process that largely operates beneath conscious awareness.
The Spiral of Concern, Control, and Illness
The problem is not an individual moment of worry. The problem is the escalating cycle: The dog eats less. The owner becomes anxious. The food is changed. The dog develops digestive problems or eats even less. Diet becomes a site of relational anxiety. The owner observes more closely. Veterinary visits increase. New diagnoses are sought. New interventions are implemented. The dog
becomes progressively less autonomous and more fully an object of observation, treatment, and control. The more the owner manages, the sicker the dog appears — and the sicker the dog appears, the more intervention seems justified.
Animal Abuse by Falsification — An Uncomfortable Concept
A clinical term of significance here is Animal Abuse by Falsification (AAF).
This describes a pattern in which owners fabricate, exaggerate, or behaviorally maintain illness symptoms in an animal — often without conscious intent to cause harm. It is the animal equivalent of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy in human medicine.
Research: A study by researchers at Utrecht University (van Herwijnen, van Helvoort, Reinders & Vinke, PLOS One, 2026) found that more than half of surveyed veterinarians reported having likely encountered cases of fabricated or maintained animal illness in their practice. The authors emphasize that this is not a rare marginal phenomenon — yet it receives virtually no attention in veterinary
education or practice.
This does not mean that every overly concerned owner is abusing their animal. It does mean that veterinary medicine recognizes cases in which animals are kept unwell not despite human care, but through it. Some illness does not originate in the dog's body — some originates in the system surrounding the dog.
Pseudopregnancy: A Normal Phenomenon Treated as a Crisis
In Mia's case, her reduced appetite was attributed to a pseudopregnancy. Pseudopregnancy in female dogs is not an exotic disorder. It is a physiologically normal, hormonally driven phenomenon in intact females during the late diestrus phase.
Reproductive veterinarian Cristina Gobello describes canine pseudocyesis as a common syndrome characterized by mammary changes, maternal behavior, and lactation (Gobello, Theriogenology, 2021). From an evolutionary standpoint, this is a functional adaptation.
Research: Owners who frequently experience loneliness or anxiety are more likely to identify corresponding states in their pets, regardless of clinical evidence (Faunalytics, 2022). Not everybehavioral change in a female dog reflects hormonal pathology.
Spaying: Not Every Solution Is Without Risk
Spaying is frequently presented as a definitive resolution to hormonal concerns. In cases of recurring, severe pseudopregnancy, it can be medically appropriate. However, it is not a minor procedure. It removes hormone-producing organs, permanently alters the body, and can affect behavior, metabolism, coat condition, muscle mass, urinary function, and stress regulation.
Research: A study by Kim, Yeon, Houpt et al. (Veterinary Journal, 2006) found increased reactivity in spayed German Shepherd females compared to intact animals. A major review in JAVMA (2023) found elevated levels of anxiety, fear, and stranger-directed aggression in spayed dogs. The Parsemus Foundation (2025) notes that spayed dogs may develop greater anxiety and sometimes show
increased cognitive decline. Regarding timing: if a female is spayed during the luteal phase, the procedure itself can trigger an acute pseudopregnancy due to the abrupt progesterone drop (UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine).
The author's position: spaying must not serve as a rapid response to human overwhelm. When a female is spayed because her owners cannot tolerate her biological processes, that is not caregiving — it is control.
What Dogs Actually Need
The behavioral needs of dogs are well established in the scientific literature:
• Consistent nutrition: Frequent dietary changes destabilize the gut microbiome and cancause gastrointestinal disease (Vuori et al., Scientific Reports, 2023).
• Movement and exploration: Restrictions on physical freedom and social contact are associated with elevated stress levels and behavioral problems (Mota-Rojas et al., Animals, 2021).
• Social contact: Dogs are social animals. Isolation from conspecifics and excessive control during dog-to-dog encounters impairs social development.
• Predictable structure: Inconsistent owner behavior demonstrably increases stress in dogs.
Dogs need unconditional care — but also movement, mental and physical challenge, exploration, manageable risk, and consistent but non-suffocating human relationships. They need owners who can distinguish between care and anxiety, between protection and control, between medicalnecessity and human neediness.
A dog is not a substitute child, not a therapist, not a source of existential meaning, not a project, and not a demonstration of one's capacity to care.
A dog is a dog — and that, precisely, is its value.
Closing Reflection
This article describes a pattern recognized in the scientific literature but rarely identified in practice.
The question it leaves open is:
Do I live with my dog in the way he needs — or in the way I need?
That is not a simple question. It does not yield easy answers. But it is worth asking.
Sources
• van Herwijnen, van Helvoort, Reinders & Vinke (2026). Animal abuse by falsification. PLOS One.
• Mota-Rojas et al. (2021). Anthropomorphism and Its Adverse Effects on the Distress and Welfare of Companion Animals.
Animals (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11113263
• Bouma, Dijkstra & Arnt Rosa (2023). Owner's Anthropomorphic Perceptions. Animals (MDPI).
• Vuori et al. (2023). The effect of puppyhood and adolescent diet. Scientific Reports.
• Butowski et al. (2017). Canine Food Preference Assessment. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.
• Gobello (2021). Revisiting canine pseudocyesis. Theriogenology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2021.03.014
• Kim, Yeon, Houpt et al. (2006). Effects of ovariohysterectomy on reactivity. Veterinary Journal.
• UC Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. Canine Pseudopregnancy.
• Parsemus Foundation (2025). Spay/neuter effects summary.
• Faunalytics (2022). Owner perception and pet behavior.
Comments