Given A, B, & C, Accommodations for Workers with Depression & Anxiety Should be Required

Con says that arthritis isn't comparable. I will demonstrate how it is: Arthritis is characterized by painful joints, yet not necessarily inabilities. The painful aspect of arthritis causes psychological stress. It is the psychological stress, rather than the physical aspect of the ailment, which raises the need to accommodate. If an individual unknowingly had arthritis, with an accompanying condition in which he couldn't feel pain, then psychological stress wouldn't be an issue. He wouldn't perceive pain and therefore couldn't be distressed by it. With severe arthritis, we get into inabilities to perform tasks, like having limited range of motion. As you said, many people have symptoms of some sort. I argue that having physical symptoms isn't enough to receive an accommodation. I argue that the physical symptom must do at least one of two things: be extremely damaging to the individual's body OR psychological state. Let's deduce why the first isn't good: A woman who can't feel pain has a bone condition, breaks her leg, and can't walk. It's not painful, but she's distraught about her immobility. This is why we care about physical conditions. Because of the psychological consequences. -All 3 conditions produce mental stress -The mental stress of these conditions is what prompts a need for accommodation -Ignoring their symptoms can lead to consequences which produce further mental stress 1. The DSM has strict requirements for diagnosis. Con says the BoP is radically different, suggesting there's not much objective evidence for diagnosing depression or anxiety. I ask that my opponent reviews my first source showing 2 PET scans comparing a "depressed brain" to that of a non-depressed one. [1] Also, "Anxiety disorders appear as brain dysfunction in different parts of the brain..." [2] Con says, depression and anxiety are diagnosed through patients' self-confirmation. A psychologist/psychiatrist is in charge of diagnosis, not the patient. Therapists do more than listen to symptoms. They observe in other ways. Clearly, cut wrists would be an objective indicator that someone is depressed. A therapist will likely interpret trembling as indicators of anxiety. Could it be faked? Sure. People can also fake limping. Con says a person can simply convey the right symptoms to leave work early. Therapists would be very reluctant to recommend this for someone. Therapists constantly weigh the pros and cons of how they treat their patients (even just with deciding whether or not to tell a patient his diagnosis [3]). Ex. "Sam is upset about not making friends in his club at school. If I recommend dropping the club, it will send the message that he isn't able to make friends. I should give him advice to start a conservation." A therapist automatically recommending that a patient leave work early sends the message that the individual isn't capable of ordinary tasks. This can create feelings of guilt and lower self-esteem. If a con artist is indeed lying, he'll have to work with a therapist for a little while. Therapy isn't cheap either. "An hour therapy session can cost between $90 and $250." [4] The stigma of mental health problems is also a deterrent. By con's reasoning, absences of grievance shouldn't be allowed because they could be exploited. People have pretended to attend funerals for days off from work. Any system can be abused. "...a blind person would not be hired as a photographer..." In that case, it would disrupt term A. The terms of accepting a photography job would be being able to take photographs. The woman who can"t inhale fumes isn't necessarily disrupting term A. She may be an office worker. Yet that doesn't mean her boss won't suddenly throw other duties besides paperwork at her. "...they are required to fulfill a role upon being hired, and if they are unable to do so... then they have no business occupying that role." Simply because someone can't fulfill all duties doesn't mean he has no business occupying the role. My sister is nearly deaf and can't hear on the phone, so she requests not to answer the phone at work. The rest of her job gets fulfilled. 2. "The symptoms experienced... are not sufficient to require accommodation... When employees are suffering from several of the symptoms... they are unable to fulfill their role." These two statements are conflicting. Also, having several symptoms does not mean being unable to fulfill the role itself. The job may be completed, but perhaps not as successfully as possible. The solutions con offers are harsh. 1) For depression, "...less than 40% of patients typically respond well to initial treatment. They may need to try several treatments over many weeks or months before finally getting symptom relief." [5] Also: "Anxiety sufferers see an average of 5 physicians before being successfully diagnosed and treated." [6] 2) This would deny individuals the right to pursue happiness. Denying access to the work field because of depression or anxiety is discriminating. "...most people suffer from mild symptoms." This is about severe conditions, so it's only fair to compare with other severe conditions. However, sure, a pregnant lady or a man on meds could be accommodated. Ex. 1: The woman's job involves vigorous activity and she is well into her pregnancy. Then grant her early maternity leave. Ex. 2: The man sometimes drives the pizza delivery car, but his prescription requires him not to drive; therefore, he shouldn't drive it. Not accommodating for 1 or 2 could be extremely damaging to the individual's body and psychological state. The woman could lose her baby and the man could be in a car accident, causing physical and mental stress. I'm not arguing that having less-than-fun symptoms is enough to require accommodations. I'm arguing that if some aspect of work is extremely damaging to the individual's body or mental state (contributing to severe anxiety and depression), then they should be required. 3. Con states a 6.2 percentage for the US, yet cites the Canadian Mental Health Association homepage. I found that about 6.7% of the US suffers from major depressive disorder [7] I request that con links the exact page of her sources. I can't find the 30% statistic. Anyway, I disagree with it. Major depressive disorder is not JUST depression. It is a severe type of depression. [8] If major depressives are the severe cases, taking 30% of major depressives is not justified. Furthermore, 6.2% of 317,000,000 is 19,654,000 (not 28 bil.) The 6.7 percentage puts that number at 21,239,000. If all major depressives received the max SSI, that would equate to $183,759,828,000. That's over $183 billion versus $122 billion in tax revenue. None of this math even accounts for severe anxiety unaccompanied by depression. Even if all severe cases didn't receive SSI, a max of $721 per month automatically puts SSI recipients more than $3K below the poverty line. [9] They would likely qualify for Medicaid, in which "Patients usually pay no part of costs for covered medical expenses." [10] Individuals with severe depression and anxiety should receive treatment, but on SSI, the funds for such treatment will likely come from Medicaid. SSI recipients may also be eligible for programs like SNAP. Thus more costs. So, what would happen if individuals with severe depression or anxiety didn't work? A study found that: "being out of work for long periods was generally bad for your health, resulting in: more consultations, higher use of medication and higher hospital admission rates than for the average population, a two-to-three times increased risk of poor general health, a two-to-three times increased risk of mental health problems, and a 20% higher death rate." [11] Thus increasing economic costs by raising medical costs and costs involved with suicides. "...how someone being hired for one hour, 9-10 am, so an anxious person can avoid rush hour traffic is asinine" - This follows an emotional appeal, not a logical one. Prior to employment, if terms were set specifically requiring the woman to take a 9-5 shift, then she does not have a case. Also, hiring another worker wouldn't likely be a resort. An available employee has probably already been hired. I see you're gearing this argument toward small businesses, so I will make a case for that. Ex. If Jane owns a bakery and requires that someone fill a 9-5 shift and someone fill a 5-9 shift, then those terms should be set when hiring people. "...depressives is enough to break a business" - Accommodating them will treat their conditions to some extent, improving their effectiveness at work. "...coaxed their doctor into recommending 4 day weekends." Most employers have sense enough to set terms concerning hours. Furthermore, if someone required at least 4 days of recovery a week, then a doctor would likely recommend finding another job. If a job is that detrimental to a person's mental health, it is reasonable to assume that a doctor would discourage the person from working there period. Again, because accommodations would be doctor-backed, we can also assume they're reasonable. [1] http://www.mayoclinic.org... [2] http://www.cerescan.com... [3] http://psychcentral.com... [4] http://www.foxbusiness.com... [5] http://www.nih.gov... [6] http://www.cerescan.com... [7] http://www.nimh.nih.gov... [8] http://www.nimh.nih.gov... [9] http://aspe.hhs.gov... [10] http://answers.hhs.gov... [11] http://www.nhs.uk...