3 ms·

The implication being that wou think companies should be free to discriminate against those with a diagnosed issue? This kind of conversation makes it terrifyi

The implication being that wou think companies should be free to discriminate against those with a diagnosed issue? This kind of conversation makes it terrifying to have a mental illness, and it will discourage individuals from seeking diagnoses or treatment. This is how you get overdoses from self-medication.

lowmagnet 5y ago
The EEOC would like to know that because it's not only unethical, it carries fines.
- voakbasda 5y ago
  You can’t be discriminated against if you are not diagnosed. And our current culture actively dissuaded individuals from seeking diagnosis, because that choice could have profoundly negative consequences to your fundamental human rights. Employment discrimination is the least of such problems. Involuntary confinement up to complete loss of individual agency are possible outcomes as well. There are countless ways that the mental ill are marginalized and oppressed. Why would I volunteer to wear the equivalent of a pink triangle or yellow star, when people keep trying to find a final solution for the mental health problem? Go ahead, call me crazy for drawing that parallel, but that is exactly how I view the status quo.
howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
Your take on what I wrote is incorrect and reflects your own bias. What I am advocating for is that we transcend the current state of mental illness & employment into something that permits people to get the help they need, and employers to manage their risks. I'm saying the existing system is broken.
- SauciestGNU 5y ago
  I don't see why an employer should be entitled to know anything about an employee's health (mental or otherwise) outside of what a doctor might order as reasonable accommodation. Employers "managing risk" sounds like allowing them to exclude people with mental illness or other disabilities. Maybe that's not what you mean, but I believe that is what employers would do.

lowmagnet 5y ago

The EEOC would like to know that because it's not only unethical, it carries fines.

voakbasda 5y ago
You can’t be discriminated against if you are not diagnosed. And our current culture actively dissuaded individuals from seeking diagnosis, because that choice could have profoundly negative consequences to your fundamental human rights. Employment discrimination is the least of such problems. Involuntary confinement up to complete loss of individual agency are possible outcomes as well. There are countless ways that the mental ill are marginalized and oppressed. Why would I volunteer to wear the equivalent of a pink triangle or yellow star, when people keep trying to find a final solution for the mental health problem? Go ahead, call me crazy for drawing that parallel, but that is exactly how I view the status quo.

howmayiannoyyou 5y ago

Your take on what I wrote is incorrect and reflects your own bias. What I am advocating for is that we transcend the current state of mental illness & employment into something that permits people to get the help they need, and employers to manage their risks. I'm saying the existing system is broken.

SauciestGNU 5y ago
I don't see why an employer should be entitled to know anything about an employee's health (mental or otherwise) outside of what a doctor might order as reasonable accommodation. Employers "managing risk" sounds like allowing them to exclude people with mental illness or other disabilities. Maybe that's not what you mean, but I believe that is what employers would do.