1:4
Any of you who have twittered* or facebooked me may have noticed a link I posted earlier in the week to an article in The Metro. It doesn’t rank as one of my favoured news outlets (based on ownership and it being foisted in my face everytime I get off a bus in Nottingham), but this did interest me. Actually the credit for noticing said article should go to my mother who after having the paper flung at her took one look and apparently told the driver “C__* will want to know about this” (muster up a theatrical declaration and you’re practically there, my mother treats every opportunity to talk like a soliloquy*).
Anyway, huge diversion aside. The article interests me greatly. The Metro, and The Times discuss the action largely as though it came out of the blue (and nor can any of the articles agree on what amount Ms Laird is being sued for). Which I suppose is for brevity, and the fact that only residents of Cheltenham are likely to be especially interested in the prequel to this event. Though if you are Auntie has a couple of articles here and here. The preceeding events however, don’t entirely explain a worrying decision on the part of the council. The decision to sue someone for not disclosing a mental health problem.
She was asked if she considered herself disabled. This is a standard application form question, anyone who has applied for a job in the past ten years or so will have answered that one. The problem with Ms Laird and her former employers seems to be based on different definitions of disability (at least on the face of it). The question, which is phrased almost identically on every application form, and very occasionally in interviews, is phrased that way so that the decision about disability is made by the applicant themselves. Everyone has a different opinion on what constitutes disability, including people who regard themselves, or would be regarded by others as being disabled.
Yes, there exist in HR manuals, and DWP handbooks guidelines about what broadly could be considered a disabling condition, or a disability. However, the onus is still upon the applicant for the job/the benefit to consider themselves disabled. No doubt plenty would consider this a redundant question if faced with someone who uses a wheelcahir, but if that person does not feel that their life is hindered by the need to use a chair then in their own definition they may not consider themselves disabled. And that’s all before we get onto the social versus medical models.*
It gets more problematic though when we get into matters of mental health. The news reports state that Ms Laird had suffered from “bouts” of depression, which rather suggests that it was something of a periodic thing (pretty common for people with all kinds of depression). She was asked if she considered herself fit/well. If she wasn’t in a depressive phase, and the anti-depressants were working at the time, it doesn’t strike me as unreasonable for her to describe herself as fit and capable. By the same token I don’t think it would be unreasonable for someone who had a physical condition that was managed by medication to describe themselves as fit and well, if they felt themselves to be so at the time.
However, the biggest problem with mental health is everything that surrounds it. While in some parts of society, and some job types mental health problems if not exactly accepted they are expected (theatre, social services), in others they are the death knell of your career. Partly because, many people base their opinions on outdated assumptions that people with mental health problems are always unwell, are dangerous, vulnerable and incapable. In business, and sadly the medical profession being seen to be in anyway vulnerable is risky. It is assumed thatyou will be fragile at the wrong time, that you will be incapable of making decisions, and you will be an embarrassment.
The embarrassment takes on a life of its own.
One of my many colurful hats involves working with a mental health service user. This woman is talented, capable and very clever. Prior to not being able to work through illness she worked in a demanding field and reached the highest level of her profession. She’s published in her field, and her work is well respected. Since having been very ill she hasn’t much contact with friends and colleagues that she knew before (though she was on-off ill then too), and as part of her getting back to ‘normal’ life (such as it is) we’ve been finding ways of finding her old friends. Except her colleagues “it’d be too embarrassing, I’d have to tell them where I’d been”. Despite my protestations that there are no doubt plenty of others in her position (this I do believe), and that they’d understand, I know at some level she’s right. The fact that it took me three different searches to find a mental health support network for her profession, that the website has no names for contact and is highly secretive about meeting locations tells me she’s absolutely right.*
I’m also concerned that this legal action implies that for someone to have taken a year off of work sick presumes they must have been ill before. By all accounts, both Ms Laird and Mr McKinlay had a stressful time. I don’t know who was right, or who did what. In all honesty I don’t care, it’s irrelevent. What is relevent is that all that harranging, bickering and fighting could have led someone with absolutely no history of mental health problems to be ill.
All that said I am mostly concerned because this is evidently an attempt to get the monies back from Ms Laird that were paid in sickpay, and the council have chosen a frankly underhand means of doing so. They were foolish to write a contract that gave someone full sickpay for a year if they didn’t want to pay it. They shouldn’t be using people’s right to privacy about their own health as leverage.
*New verbs rock, do they not?
*Yes C is me, me is C.
*And yes I have inherited this trait. All the world is indeed a stage.
*Far too many minutes of my life have ebbed away listening to people angrily argue about these (and they will again later this month), so that debate can stay in its box today.
*There is also something about not wanting professionals to be human too. On a messageboard I use there is currently a discussion about NHS staff having to be secretive about activities that may “bring the profession into disrepute”. Activities which are a darned sight less disreputable than many activities people indulge in. Apparently though nurses, doctors and physios aren’t allowed to be human.
Tags: bbc, cheltenham, council, depression, disability, facebook, legal, medical, mental health, mother, my actual name, news, social medical model, the metro, the times, twitter
A very knotty problem, but more specific than the screaming headlines would have you believe. It’s not about MHPs per se.
If the person had “periodic” depression, which could be *reasonably* expected could return, this could be argued as something which one would have to expect to disclose; a single bout of depression which one has recovered from is something very different. Yes, “disability” is a badly worded concept on application forms, but I don’t think holding info back is an option these days.
In my experience on an employment project for people with MHPs, most employers who are sceptical / afraid are pleasantly surprised then rather impressed when you disclose, and *then* spiel about what you’ve learned from your experiences, how they’ve improved you and the things you do to cope with the condition. Other employers who have taken the trouble to reach out to MH projects find not only does it improve their own staff’s MH, but also adds to the employability of others.
So this headline case may be worrying, but I think it’s actually against the general trend. A slow, grindingly slow, froggin’ painfully slow trend, but one nevertheless…
Oh, and you can hardly do a “C….” then keep us guessing. Colin?
I see your point, and there is a certain appeal of things being out in the open, and increasing acceptance.
No doubt that the companies who do make the effort reap benefits, but I think that’s true across the board. Companies who take a holistic approach to their employees have better retention generally, and better productivity.
I would argue though that the increasing trend for disclosure is invasive. Indeed yes someone’s depression could, and in this case seems to, come back. Which has apparently diminished her performance, but so too could cancer, and I wonder how many cancer survivors put “I had testicle cancer 2 yrs ago” on application forms? Of all the application forms I’ve read I’ve never seen that as a disclosure and that’s against the national averages.
Personally I only disclose my heart condition if I feel it relevent. So if I’m sitting on my arse all day then I don’t, but if expected to be particularly active or get warm I will.
Although I still resent the “declaration” aspect, I don’t mind them knowing for First Aid purposes, but I know what I’m physically capable of I’m not sure I want someone not medically qualified making that decision for me.
Good guess, yup Colin it is