Legal Recognition of Solitude: Do Single People Have Rights to Companionship Services

Abstract

In a world hyperconnected by technology yet emotionally fragmented, loneliness has silently become a widespread epidemic—especially among single individuals. While legal systems acknowledge companionship for the elderly and disabled, they often ignore the growing population of single people who silently suffer from emotional isolation. This article explores the concept of companionship as a legal right, examining existing legal frameworks and societal perceptions. It advocates for recognizing solitude not as personal failure, but as a modern condition deserving attention through the law. Drawing upon international practices, mental health studies, and emotional narratives, the article ultimately calls for a compassionate legal approach—one that honors emotional dignity as much as economic rights.

Introduction

“Sometimes, being single is not a choice, it is a silence you never asked for.”

This article begins not with statutes or precedents, but with a feeling—one that millions carry but rarely admit: loneliness. It’s the dinner cooked for one, the emergency without a contact, the birthday phone that doesn’t ring. It’s also legally invisible.

The law protects our life, liberty, property, and reputation. But does it protect our need to be seen, heard, and emotionally held?

In the 21st century, where families shrink, marriages delay, friendships go digital, and solitude becomes a long-term companion—should the law respond to the emotional isolation of those who live alone?

This article investigates whether single individuals can have a legal right to companionship services, similar to the support structures provided to the elderly or disabled. It examines how such a right could be framed, the legal and moral grounds for it, and whether the law can step into the emotional space traditionally reserved for relationships and community.

Background

Loneliness as a Legal Blind Spot

Loneliness has been called a silent killer—as harmful as smoking 15 cigarettes a day according to some medical studies. Yet, for the law, it remains an abstract emotion. While public health frameworks acknowledge its dangers, legal systems remain rooted in the material—what can be owned, broken, stolen, or violated.

In contrast, the lived experiences of people tell another story. The 70-year-old man whose children moved abroad. The 35-year-old woman too busy building her career to date. The 28-year-old introvert scared of social interaction. The 25-year-old queer youth rejected by their family.

These people do not fit the traditional categories of vulnerability. They are neither old nor legally disabled. But they are alone, and that aloneness has consequences.

What Are Companionship Services?

Legally, companionship services have mostly been understood in the context of caregiving. For instance, in the U.S., under 29 CFR § 552.106, companionship services include “fellowship, care, and protection for a person who, because of advanced age or physical or mental condition, cannot care for his or her own needs.”

(29 CFR § 552.106)

But must one be aged or impaired to qualify for “fellowship”? Shouldn’t the right to emotional presence—like the right to shelter or food—be more universally acknowledged?

Section I: The Legal Foundations (and Gaps)

1. Rights Tied to Age or Disability

In India, the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 legally mandates that adult children care for their aged parents, including through emotional support. Similarly, in the U.S., companionship services are often linked with care of the elderly under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

(Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007)

(29 CFR § 552.106)

People with disabilities can access personal attendants under provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

(Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.)

These legal recognitions are based on condition-based vulnerability—age, illness, or disability.

What is missing is a status-based vulnerability—such as being single and alone—not because of a physical condition, but due to social disconnection.

2. International Perspectives

Japan’s cultural response to loneliness is perhaps the most well-known. Companies there offer rental family or rental friend services. People hire someone to have lunch with, attend family functions, or even act as a spouse.

(Allison, Anne. “Precarious Japan.” Duke University Press, 2013)

Though not legislated as a right, the thriving industry shows how societies adapt when the law doesn’t respond. Should we rely on the market for emotional support, or should the state step in with structured services for companionship?

Section II: Solitude as a Human Rights Concern

1. Mental Health and the Law

The World Health Organization defines mental health as “a state of well-being in which an individual realizes their abilities, can cope with normal stresses of life, and contribute to community.”

(World Health Organization, Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response, 2018)

Loneliness directly undermines this. Chronic solitude has been linked with:

• Increased cortisol levels (stress hormone)
• Higher risk of dementia
• Increased suicidal ideation

(Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, et al. “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015)

Given this, there is a strong legal argument that emotional well-being must fall under the right to health—a right protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and various international instruments.

2. Right to Life, Dignity and Emotional Well-being

In Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, the Indian Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to live with dignity.

(Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746)

Can dignity include emotional companionship? It must. To live a life with dignity does not mean merely surviving, but thriving.

Imagine the law acknowledging not just that you need food, but that you need someone to eat it with. That is the leap compassion-driven lawmaking can take.

Section III: Real-Life Reflections and Legal Possibilities

Case Study: The Woman Who Paid for Hug Therapy

In Mumbai, a 38-year-old single woman began hiring a “hug therapist” once a week. The arrangement was strictly non-sexual. She described it as “the only hour in the week I feel human.”

There was public mockery. Some called it unnatural. But the law remained silent.

Would we judge her if she hired a therapist for her trauma? Then why judge a therapist for her touch-deprivation?

The silence of the law allows stigma to fester.

Designing a Legal Framework for Companionship Services

If companionship were to be recognized as a legal right, the framework would need to address:

• Eligibility: Based on verified psychological need, income level, or chronic isolation.
• Delivery: Through certified companionship workers (distinct from therapists or sex workers).
• Funding: As part of state welfare schemes or mental health programs.
• Oversight: To prevent abuse, especially in vulnerable populations.

Such a framework would mirror how home health care services are regulated, but with an emotional lens.

Discussion: The Future of Emotional Rights in Law

If we accept the premise that solitude can be as damaging as starvation, the law’s silence becomes dangerous.

What we need is a jurisprudence of emotions—not in a sentimental sense, but one that acknowledges emotional harm as real harm.

This idea aligns with evolving interpretations of fundamental rights globally. The South African Constitution, for example, includes socio-economic rights like shelter and health. There is room to argue for “relational justice”—where the law promotes not only individual autonomy but also access to meaningful relationships.

Conclusion

This article has argued that the law’s failure to acknowledge solitude as a form of suffering has deep consequences. While companionship services exist for the aged or disabled, single individuals are often left to navigate emotional desolation alone.

Recognizing companionship as a legal right would be bold. It would redefine welfare. It would honor emotional dignity. But most importantly, it would validate the invisible pain that many carry in silence.

Legal systems are not just instruments of justice—they are reflections of societal values. If we truly value humanity, then we must recognize that loneliness is not a luxury problem. It is a public health crisis. And like all crises, it needs a legal answer.

Reference(S):

• 29 CFR § 552.106 – Companionship services.
• Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
• Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
• Allison, Anne. “Precarious Japan.” Duke University Press, 2013.
• World Health Organization, Mental Health: Strengthening Our Response, 2018.
• Holt-Lunstad, Julianne, et al. “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality.” Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2015.
• Francis Coralie Mullin v. The Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746.