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

I feel bad that you missed the last round, but you were a worthy opponent nonetheless! SUMMARY OF MY OPPONENT'S POINTS AND MY REBUTTALS: 1. Physical ailments aren't comparable to mental ailments. Arthritis is specifically not comparable to depression or anxiety. -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 2. People can take advantage of doctors to get accommodations -There are objective tests for depression and anxiety. -Psychologists/psychiatrists are professionally trained. Clinical psychology is a profession and therapists should be regarded no less than general practitioners. They won't recommend unreasonable accommodations. Just as a general doctor wouldn't recommend taking a year off for a sprained ankle, a therapist wouldn't recommend taking a year off for depression or anxiety. A general doctor wouldn't even recommend this for a mental health patient. -Any system can be abused. We shouldn't penalize the majority for the wrong-doing of a few. We regulate and oversee. -People can take advantage of regular physicians. e. g. "I hurt my back. I need a week off from work. " 3. It's the employee's burden to find a job that better suits his or her limitations. -An accommodation doesn't imply that the employee is not able to fulfill his or her hired role. Refer to the example of my sister in round three and of the woman with a respiratory problem. -Importance of term A 4. We'll have to extend these accommodations to the average person. -Unless they experience severe conditions, the average person isn't comparable to someone experiencing severe depression or anxiety. -If an aspect of work is extremely damaging to an individual's body or mental state, then we would grant an accommodation to the average person. Refer to my round 3 examples about the pregnant woman and man on prescription medicine. 5. It would be less costly to the economy for individuals with depression to receive SSI than to work. -Putting JUST severe depression cases on the max SSI amounts to over $183 billion. Over a $60 billion difference with the tax revenue con mentioned. -This doesn't account for individuals with severe anxiety unaccompanied by severe depression. -Individuals on SSI are automatically $3K under poverty level, so Medicare and other assistance programs will probably be necessary. -Being out of work for extended periods of time is extremely detrimental to physical and mental health, results in increased medical treatment, and increases death rate (I'd like to retract the fact that I assumed my source meant increased suicide rates in round 3). These consequences would undoubtedly increase medical costs for the economy, especially considering people with severe depression and anxiety. I argue that this is an unethical alternative for them (if forced). 6. Accommodating these individuals would be a burden. -Accommodating individuals will treat them to some extent, boosting their effectiveness in the workplace. This will result in fewer costs for the economy. -See new rebuttal* 7. It would especially be a burden to small businesses. -If it is extremely important that a worker fill a specific shift, then terms should be set about this prior to employment. Term A prevents unnecessary burdens. -See new rebuttal** *NEW REBUTTAL: While an accommodation could still be a burden, I emphasize that employers are responsible for their employees to an extent. Maternity leave can still be a burden for employers who are required to offer it, but it's justified because - in particular - the mother needs to recover physically. It's also justified because it's generally accepted that a mother needs some time to bond with her newborn. Note that adopting a child could also mandate a medical leave. That's a psychological accommodation. There's no physical recovery, indicating that psychological needs are indeed important. Eliminating requirements for maternity/paternity leave would not be justified simply because employers are burdened. Therefore, restricting accommodations for individuals with severe depression or anxiety would not be justified simply because employers are burdened. Employers are burdened by various factors: e. g. Worker's Compensation Insurance and various business regulations. These aren't reasons to get rid of those regulations. **NEW REBUTTAL: I'd like to concede to the fact that small businesses should be exempt from certain regulations. I found that some small businesses were exempt from offering maternity leave. "The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 mandates that companies with more than 50 employees offer eligible workers 12 weeks of unpaid leave with benefits and job protection after the birth or adoption of a child. While some states have laws that apply to smaller companies, the decision to offer maternity leave, even without pay, can be entirely at the owner's discretion. " [1] Since some employers are exempt from offering maternity leave (an accommodation), employers could be similarly exempt in accommodating individuals with severe anxiety and depression. It could exempt small businesses from being required to fulfill a doctor-backed request for a shift change. CONCLUSION: The psychological and physical symptoms that individuals with severe depression and anxiety experience differ from the symptoms of stress experienced by the average person (in quantity of symptoms and severity). They can discourage and prevent someone from performing tasks, much like the symptoms of severe arthritis can. Those with depression and anxiety are also at higher risk for serious stress-correlated physical conditions and suicide. Therefore: depression and anxiety should be given the full weight of consideration for accommodations that physical conditions are. It's no doubt that depression and anxiety can negatively impact the work field, but accommodating individuals will treat them and improve their performance and efficiency at work, costing the economy less in terms of depression and anxiety. The alternative - putting individuals with severe depression or anxiety on SSI - is far more costly. Alongside this, it will result in increased medical costs and an increased need for assistance programs like Medicaid. Even though SSI may be an option, all individuals with severe depression and anxiety won't necessarily go on SSI because they have the right to pursue happiness (like working). Should the employer accommodate for them, it can treat their conditions, thus boosting their effectiveness in the workplace and reducing the costs I mentioned in round two. My opponent does present a valid point about these accommodations burdening businesses; however, it doesn't justify why these accommodations shouldn't be required. A concern for small businesses isn't necessarily. .. necessary either! Like with offering maternity leave, small businesses could be exempt in accommodating individuals with severe depression and anxiety (to some extent). As far as any business goes, it can be reasonably assumed that the burden won't truly be that burdensome because (1) If a patient wants a hefty accommodation, a doctor would more than likely recommend quitting the job than back the accommodation. (2) The employee is fulfilling term A and B. Lastly, while taking advantage of an accommodation is a possibility, it's not a justification for not requiring accommodations either. Therefore, given terms A, B, & C, doctor-backed accommodations for workers with depression and/or anxiety should be required. [1] . http://www.nytimes.com...