Germanwings crash

[bocadillo]

If you're banning those with mental health conditions from flying planes, what about police officers or teachers or care workers or government ministers or people working in power stations or the armed forces or bus drivers or . . . ?

If I was employing a person with 'a mental health condition' in any of these positions I would want to ensure that there was adequate and appropriate supervision of the 'condition'. It may well be that there has not been such in this case. Notwithstanding this incident will cause untold difficulty to people with a history of mental health problems in gaining employment of any sort; their situation is already bad enough and this will make it even worse.

 

[spionfox]

Notwithstanding this incident will cause untold difficulty to people with a history of mental health problems in gaining employment of any sort; their situation is already bad enough and this will make it even worse.

I agree with you in connection with *most* jobs as I'm sure you will agree that some jobs should naturally be excluded from those with such conditions.

 

[bocadillo]

I agree with you in connection with *most* jobs as I'm sure you will agree that some jobs should naturally be excluded from those with such conditions.

I don't know what the word 'naturally' is doing in there. I certainly don't think that a person who has or has had a mental illness should be excluded from any particular employment for all time.

 

[spionfox]

I don't know what the word 'naturally' is doing in there. I certainly don't think that a person who has or has had a mental illness should be excluded from any particular employment for all time.

Not for all time, but wouldn't you agree that a person who currently has a mental illness should be excluded from currently flying a passenger jet?

 

[bocadillo]

Not for all time, but wouldn't you agree that a person who currently has a mental illness should be excluded from currently flying a passenger jet?

Not necessarily.

 

[spionfox]

Not necessarily.

At the risk of dragging this on, I'd really appreciate knowing under what circumstances a person currently suffering a mental disorder should be placed in charge of a passenger jet.

 

[Brown Nose]

At the risk of dragging this on, I'd really appreciate knowing under what circumstances a person currently suffering a mental disorder should be placed in charge of a passenger jet.

There are about 150,000 pilots working around the world at the moment. By agreed averages, that means that 37,500 of them will fly this year with a mental health issue. Actually, I'd argue that that particular occupation is liable for higher rates of illness because of the very unhealthy working conditions.

How on earth do you propose to decide which pilots can fly on any particular day?

You are surrounded by people working in important jobs with mental health conditions and you always will be. This nonsense about screening them or making medical staff disclose confidential information to employers disgusts me. Are you really saying that people that are diagnosed with a mental health issue are entitled to fewer freedoms than others? What is that going to do to those that suspect that they're not well? Far fewer will seek medical attention and treatment and the outcomes will be far worse.

 

[Blaarev]

The way this is allegedly handled over here, is that if a pilot goes to a doktor with a mental health issue (anything from severe depression to the death of the family cat), the doctor will inform the aviaton authorities and the employer that the pilot is not fit to fly a plane. Makes sense to me.

 

[spionfox]

Are you really saying that people that are diagnosed with a mental health issue are entitled to fewer freedoms than others? What is that going to do to those that suspect that they're not well? Far fewer will seek medical attention and treatment and the outcomes will be far worse.

It isn't a personal freedom issue when it comes to flying a plane. If you aren't fit you shouldn't be in control of a plane. As for the comment about a worse outcome, 150 lives is a pretty damn bad outcome by any definition.

If you develop into the size of a basketball player you will never be able to become a jockey. If you develop Parkinson's you won't remain as a brain surgeon. By the same token, a mental instability should preclude flying a passenger jet. Nothing to do with personal freedom in my opinion and even if it was the overriding factor should always be the protection of the masses rather than the personal freedom of an individual.

 

[pork pie fox]

Isn't there a danger here that people are lumping all mental illnesses into the same pigeonhole. There are a huge number of mental illnesses and they do not all carry the same risks for the patient, or those that are in the hands of the patient. For instance, psychotic illnesses are very different to depression/anxiety issues and therefore branding all mental illnesses as the same would lead to not only additional stigmatisation, but also steps being taken that aren't necessary. I'm all for looking at what people who have been diagnosed as suffering from a mental illness are and aren't suitable for, but let's not stereotype all conditions as having the same risk implications.

 

[bocadillo]

At the risk of dragging this on, I'd really appreciate knowing under what circumstances a person currently suffering a mental disorder should be placed in charge of a passenger jet.

I believe that there are people who are suffering from some kinds of mental disorder who would perfectly well be able to be placed in charge of a passenger jet. The situation would need to be approached on a case-by-case/person-by-person basis. You should feel assured that there are already thousands of pilots with mental health issues flying today perfectly safely.

... and probably tomorrow too.

 

[bocadillo]

Let's debate whether gay men should work with boys in a residential setting. I've been bored with that many times over the years.

 

[spionfox]

Let's debate whether gay men should work with boys in a residential setting. I've been bored with that many times over the years.

People who use that argument are frankly ridiculous. No, not you Boc! It's similar to the hoary old chestnut of allowing gays in the same showers as heterosexuals. Why on earth would a gay man be a threat to a heterosexual one in a shower? Does the showering heterosexual think he is going to be attractive to another man just because that person is gay?

Hopefully you feel that argument is ridiculous too Boc but perhaps you might reel somebody in ;-)

 

[homer]

Where exactly are these showers, and does it cost anything to use them ?

 

[RHYDAL]

You've missed my point.

However, I can guarantee that your life has been in the hands of many, many people with mental health issues. Where does your segregation of the millions with mental health issues end for you? Remember that we're talking about a quarter of the population each year.

If you're banning those with mental health conditions from flying planes, what about police officers or teachers or care workers or government ministers or people working in power stations or the armed forces or bus drivers or . . . ?

If mental health is not important in those jobs, then why are psychological assessments and background checks carried out before individuals can take up those posts?

Should a kiddy fiddling sicko get a second chance to work with children when released from prison after treatment?
No, they go on a register which prevents this, forever.

It's too great a risk as the stakes are too high.
And that my friend is my point.

 

[pork pie fox]

If mental health is not important in those jobs, then why are psychological assessments and background checks carried out before individuals can take up those posts?

Should a kiddy fiddling sicko get a second chance to work with children when released from prison after treatment?
No, they go on a register which prevents this, forever.

It's too great a risk as the stakes are too high.
And that my friend is my point.

Are you stating that all mental illnesses provide too great a risk? You understand there are great differences between the effects of different conditions?

As I say, I'm not against having a debate about suitability, but wouldn't it be better to talk in specific terms, rather than lumping all mental illnesses as the same thing?

 

[Brown Nose]

If mental health is not important in those jobs, then why are psychological assessments and background checks carried out before individuals can take up those posts?

Should a kiddy fiddling sicko get a second chance to work with children when released from prison after treatment?
No, they go on a register which prevents this, forever.

It's too great a risk as the stakes are too high.
And that my friend is my point.

Psychological assessments don't happen for most of the jobs I listed. Actually, those employers that do use them aren't doing it to identify mental health issues because that would be contrary to employment law in almost all occupations. Employers do it to try to identify character or personality types that suit their requirements.

I've not said anything about second chances for sex offenders or any other offender. Clearly, if someone has committed a crime that makes them unsuitable to a role, they shouldn't be able to do it. What's that got to do with anything?

There is no more risk being flown by someone with a generic mental health issue as there is being flown by someone with ginger hair. And that is my point.

 

[pork pie fox]

Where exactly are these showers, and does it cost anything to use them ?

Like you don't know already :icon_roll

 

[SJN-Fox]

At the risk of dragging this on, I'd really appreciate knowing under what circumstances a person currently suffering a mental disorder should be placed in charge of a passenger jet.

I know someone who is bipolar and manages the condition perfectly with the correct use of appropriate medication, to the point that no-one would ever know that they suffer from a mental health condition. There are some conditions, which, if correctly managed offer no threat whatsoever to the public and certainly shouldn't be excluded from any form of employment. To simply bracket all mental health conditions together is very narrow minded and typical of the public's perception of mental health. Whist this sort of approach exists the stigma of mental health will continue which will cause more people to hide it thus creating the potential for more tragedies like this one.

 

[spionfox]

I know someone who is bipolar and manages the condition perfectly with the correct use of appropriate medication, to the point that no-one would ever know that they suffer from a mental health condition. There are some conditions, which, if correctly managed offer no threat whatsoever to the public and certainly shouldn't be excluded from any form of employment. To simply bracket all mental health conditions together is very narrow minded and typical of the public's perception of mental health. Whist this sort of approach exists the stigma of mental health will continue which will cause more people to hide it thus creating the potential for more tragedies like this one.

The most telling bit of what you wrote was "if managed correctly". In the case of the co-pilot I would argue that hiding sick notes is not managing the situation correctly.