Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Also, I agree that people who have jobs that involve the safety of so many people, their doctors should have to report somehow to the employer that the person is not ok to work. Especially mental illness, how can you just assume someone suffering mental illness to the point he cannot work will be honest with his boss?? I understand ensuring privacy, but they do psychological testing to start with, ensuring that status is sound as they continue their career seems pretty important. Why is it ok to test them and give results early on, but not later? That seems crazy to me.
Just saw a news flash that the co-pilot had been diagnosed with a psycho-somatic illness and was being treated with medications for it. Protecting patient privacy to the degree that it interferes with the safety of hundreds of other people just makes no sense.
The journalist needs to be objective...but the story shouldn't come at any and all cost. If a story creates more suffering then that isn't good reporting. This pilot's girlfriend and his family will probably get death threats. It always happens. Not everything should be reported. But when we hunger the way we do for every little detail in stories like that, that is what we get from the media.
I'll bet your paper was very interesting to write (not to mention to read).
What I quoted above brings to mind that WE, the consumers of the media, share responsibility for the nature of how and what they 'report'.
It's a simple feedback mechanism. The media feeding us information that violates persons is simply replying to OUR request.
Most linked articles I read (after the advertisement finally stops) has twelve or more links to other articles (not including the ten or so lurking to the left of the article's text) that link to stories appealing to our basest natures, if not a bait-and-switch ad disguised as information. It gives a glimpse of what a lot of people want to read. It makes me sick and/or lose a little faith in humanity, that these are the things people most want to know. "How to Look Hotter" and "What ISIS Really Wants", not to mention what celebrities look like with no teeth or who belongs to the cellulite behind busting out of a bikini.
The media just gives people the information they want. It is like a mirror. The individuals 'running' media outlets are mirrors, too, which doesn't mean I don't attribute responsibility to them. But they wouldn't have risen to the positions they have if what they produced didn't sell the most.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Also, as my 'legal beagle' husband pointed out, it's important people understand the distinction between 'of interest to the public' and 'In the public interest'.
Instead of blaming "the media" (which is a ridiculously humongous phrase to begin with), let's put the blame on who made the media what it is today -- the American people. If we weren't buying it, they wouldn't be selling it. But we just like to always place blame on some nebulous entity, rather than looking at our consumer habits over the past 50 years.
@vinlyn I absolutely agree. We get what we ask for. We tell them every minute we check their webpages and their channels what we want to see. We are in complete control. I watch little internet or tv news anymore. I mostly follow NPR/MPR (state version of NPR). But it's pretty much impossible to complete avoid it.
But that said, it started somewhere. Did we start asking the news to put all all this stuff we now wish wasn't there? or did they start putting it out and we started immersing ourselves in it? The news is a bit like fashion. We don't know what we want until someone else shows us and tells us what to want.
I'm not sure we're better off with 24/7 news than we were with Uncle Walt at 6:30 every night.
For example, my neighbor has 2 granddaughters and is absolutely hyper about some pervert molesting them. The poor girls are never alone for a minute, totally managed (although they are wonderful girls). I asked her why she is so overly worried about that and she said it's all over the news all the time, and it's so much more prevalent nowadays. I explained that studies have shown that it's no more common today than in the past, and that the reason it seems so much more common is that we are hearing stories from all over the country and the world that we would not even have been aware of 25 years ago. She won't buy it due to all the hype.
Earlier in this thread it was suggested, as I recall, that international standards applied to commercial aviation. Today, "Thai authorities...said they would use special powers under junta rule to urgently improve airline safety as several carriers face bans on new international flights following concerns raised by a UN aviation agency." The article goes on to say that "a United Nations body...reported 'significant safety concerns'" that have resulted in "blocked new flights from Thailand". Even the national carrier -- the once highly respected Thai Airways -- has been affected.
But, unfortunately -- and here's what always concerns me about some third world nations where bribery is so common -- the Prime Minister said, "We have to accept that we are losing revenue from this." Oh, it's only because of the money involved?
"The UN body has flagged several safety concerns including Thai aviation department personnel failing to meet international standards and a lack of full aviation regulations...."
@vinlyn said:
Instead of blaming "the media" (which is a ridiculously humongous phrase to begin with), let's put the blame on who made the media what it is today -- the American people. If we weren't buying it, they wouldn't be selling it. But we just like to always place blame on some nebulous entity, rather than looking at our consumer habits over the past 50 years.
It's not just the American people @vinlyn trust me!
It reminds me of the California experiment with democracy. The more democratic California became (in terms of voters putting things on the ballot, etc. and voters getting to vote on everything), the more of a mess it became.
And I think of our political system, and the more transparent it has become, and more primaries we have, and the more debates we have, the more our government has wallowed in overindulgence.
We seem to no loner be able to find the "happy medium", and as a result, things just get uglier in terms of politics.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Let's stick to topic, guys. Or at least, try....
This does not bode well for Lufthansa, who have set aside an unprecedented £200million for predicted compensation claims/entitlements....
"The company has set aside an additional $300m (€280m; £200m) to cover possible costs arising from the crash. The money is separate from the $54,250 available to the relatives of each passenger to cover short-term expenses. Airlines are obliged to compensate relatives for proven damages of up to a limit of about $157,000, regardless of what caused the crash. Higher compensation is possible if an airline is held liable."
It's a difficult decision, I imagine. Think to people you know, yourself or others, in your life who at some point have suffered a depressive episode. In hindsight, it's easy to see. But what about looking forward? It's kind of horrifying to think of all the vast numbers of people who would be denied jobs that required responsibility if all of their past difficulties were taken into account. How many doctors, other pilots, teachers, cops, firefighters, and on and on have suffered depression at some point? They don't lose their jobs for the most part. It's very difficult to punish someone for something they have not done yet simply because they suffered at some point with something millions of others also go through.
Many years ago I was treated for anxiety. Are there jobs I shouldn't hold now because of it? If we open that box, where does it stop?
I think we can do better, in that if someone is medically advised not to work, there should be reporting on that. But if the incident is in the past, how much do we let it affect their ability to hold a job in the future?
The discussion I heard yesterday I agreed with. Depending on your job, your mental health may or may not be important. But when you have the lives of others under your total control, your right to total privacy and unrestrained job possibilities evaporates. And, if you can't stand the heat, stay out the cockpit. The interview I was listening to was with a clinical psychologist who had specialized in treating people who were severely depressed and suicidal. She speculated that in the time frame this "future pilot" was being treated, that drugs such as thoarzine may have been used.
From what came out yesterday afternoon, the airline admitted they had been made aware of serious medical treatment for serious emotional issues before he applied for work. And why is the airlines' story changing?
What one's job is may hold that person to a higher standard.
thorazine isn't used to treat depression usually (unless it is combined with other problems like bi-polar disorder). He was treated in like 2006...it's not like it was 1990. Most of the currently prescribed antidepressants/SSRIs were in use then as well. It's unlikely if he was treated solely for depression that he would have been prescribed thorazine. The side effects are too hefty when they are safer alternatives available.
I'm not saying people in those positions shouldn't have their mental health considered. But it (I think) needs to be considered at the time, and not 10 years in the past. It is far too common for people to be treated for depression and anxiety among other things at some point in their lives to completely discount them for future jobs based on treatment many years earlier. I DO think that in the case of jobs like this doctors should be reporting to an HR office about potentially dangerous people currently working. However, a lot of that also depends on the person telling the doctor who they work for and what their job is...and if they are at risk for losing it because of mandatory reporting, a lot of them might opt not to report that information truthfully. So, how reliable would a system like that even be?
The psychiatrist that was discussing the case was not of the belief that it was run of the mill depression and there was a reason (which I don't recall) why she thought it was something beyond the drugs commonly given today.
But, whatever it is, it is. After all, she was just one psychiatrist.
0
SarahTTime ... space ... joySouth Coast, UKVeteran
@SpinyNorman said:
It makes me wonder how many other pilots there are out there with mental health issues.
Through my history with my own depression, I have met many. The difference is that they are not allowed to fly whilst on anti-depressants so there's even more of a stigma for pilots than for the rest of us. I have no idea why they are not allowed to find medication that helps but believe this is still the rule.
It saddens me that the media is blaming this on his past depressive episode and not personality issues. A person with severe depression simply would not have the energy to get to an airport let alone fly a plane.
0
HamsakagoosewhispererPolishing the 'just so'Veteran
This pilot had NO run-of-the-mill depression/suicidality issue. The media isn't going to go into great detail about this, or that there is a huge difference, in fear of putting people to sleep. Besides, all the dramarama about depressed people who might kill you sells.
The latest I heard tonight is that internet searches about the locks on the cockpit door and how to suicide were all over his lap top, including the day before he flew.
He was angry beyond anything that actually happened to him to make sense of it. He was resentful and entitled, and he obviously lacked empathy.
It is almost unfair to call him 'depressed', because depression was completely incidental to the choices he made to do what he did.
Comments
Also, I agree that people who have jobs that involve the safety of so many people, their doctors should have to report somehow to the employer that the person is not ok to work. Especially mental illness, how can you just assume someone suffering mental illness to the point he cannot work will be honest with his boss?? I understand ensuring privacy, but they do psychological testing to start with, ensuring that status is sound as they continue their career seems pretty important. Why is it ok to test them and give results early on, but not later? That seems crazy to me.
Just saw a news flash that the co-pilot had been diagnosed with a psycho-somatic illness and was being treated with medications for it. Protecting patient privacy to the degree that it interferes with the safety of hundreds of other people just makes no sense.
The first causality of war (or in this case a tragedy-when the media gets their hands on it) is the truth...
May all involved (including relatives friends loved ones and 'all' those who died) find peace and be liberated from their suffering...
@karasti said:
I'll bet your paper was very interesting to write (not to mention to read).
What I quoted above brings to mind that WE, the consumers of the media, share responsibility for the nature of how and what they 'report'.
It's a simple feedback mechanism. The media feeding us information that violates persons is simply replying to OUR request.
Most linked articles I read (after the advertisement finally stops) has twelve or more links to other articles (not including the ten or so lurking to the left of the article's text) that link to stories appealing to our basest natures, if not a bait-and-switch ad disguised as information. It gives a glimpse of what a lot of people want to read. It makes me sick and/or lose a little faith in humanity, that these are the things people most want to know. "How to Look Hotter" and "What ISIS Really Wants", not to mention what celebrities look like with no teeth or who belongs to the cellulite behind busting out of a bikini.
The media just gives people the information they want. It is like a mirror. The individuals 'running' media outlets are mirrors, too, which doesn't mean I don't attribute responsibility to them. But they wouldn't have risen to the positions they have if what they produced didn't sell the most.
Also, as my 'legal beagle' husband pointed out, it's important people understand the distinction between 'of interest to the public' and 'In the public interest'.
Unfortunately most of the media, and the thirst for knowledge, is on the "reality" level.
Instead of blaming "the media" (which is a ridiculously humongous phrase to begin with), let's put the blame on who made the media what it is today -- the American people. If we weren't buying it, they wouldn't be selling it. But we just like to always place blame on some nebulous entity, rather than looking at our consumer habits over the past 50 years.
When I wrote my sentence I realised that the word order was wrong
But I don't blame only the American people.
@vinlyn I absolutely agree. We get what we ask for. We tell them every minute we check their webpages and their channels what we want to see. We are in complete control. I watch little internet or tv news anymore. I mostly follow NPR/MPR (state version of NPR). But it's pretty much impossible to complete avoid it.
But that said, it started somewhere. Did we start asking the news to put all all this stuff we now wish wasn't there? or did they start putting it out and we started immersing ourselves in it? The news is a bit like fashion. We don't know what we want until someone else shows us and tells us what to want.
I'm not sure we're better off with 24/7 news than we were with Uncle Walt at 6:30 every night.
For example, my neighbor has 2 granddaughters and is absolutely hyper about some pervert molesting them. The poor girls are never alone for a minute, totally managed (although they are wonderful girls). I asked her why she is so overly worried about that and she said it's all over the news all the time, and it's so much more prevalent nowadays. I explained that studies have shown that it's no more common today than in the past, and that the reason it seems so much more common is that we are hearing stories from all over the country and the world that we would not even have been aware of 25 years ago. She won't buy it due to all the hype.
Earlier in this thread it was suggested, as I recall, that international standards applied to commercial aviation. Today, "Thai authorities...said they would use special powers under junta rule to urgently improve airline safety as several carriers face bans on new international flights following concerns raised by a UN aviation agency." The article goes on to say that "a United Nations body...reported 'significant safety concerns'" that have resulted in "blocked new flights from Thailand". Even the national carrier -- the once highly respected Thai Airways -- has been affected.
But, unfortunately -- and here's what always concerns me about some third world nations where bribery is so common -- the Prime Minister said, "We have to accept that we are losing revenue from this." Oh, it's only because of the money involved?
"The UN body has flagged several safety concerns including Thai aviation department personnel failing to meet international standards and a lack of full aviation regulations...."
This is the substance of the article, but there is much more here: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/813417-thailand-admits-urgent-need-to-improve-aviation-safety/
It's not just the American people @vinlyn trust me!
I'm glad to hear that it is beyond our borders.
It reminds me of the California experiment with democracy. The more democratic California became (in terms of voters putting things on the ballot, etc. and voters getting to vote on everything), the more of a mess it became.
And I think of our political system, and the more transparent it has become, and more primaries we have, and the more debates we have, the more our government has wallowed in overindulgence.
We seem to no loner be able to find the "happy medium", and as a result, things just get uglier in terms of politics.
Let's stick to topic, guys. Or at least, try....
This does not bode well for Lufthansa, who have set aside an unprecedented £200million for predicted compensation claims/entitlements....
"The company has set aside an additional $300m (€280m; £200m) to cover possible costs arising from the crash.
The money is separate from the $54,250 available to the relatives of each passenger to cover short-term expenses.
Airlines are obliged to compensate relatives for proven damages of up to a limit of about $157,000, regardless of what caused the crash. Higher compensation is possible if an airline is held liable."
Ooops.....
It's a difficult decision, I imagine. Think to people you know, yourself or others, in your life who at some point have suffered a depressive episode. In hindsight, it's easy to see. But what about looking forward? It's kind of horrifying to think of all the vast numbers of people who would be denied jobs that required responsibility if all of their past difficulties were taken into account. How many doctors, other pilots, teachers, cops, firefighters, and on and on have suffered depression at some point? They don't lose their jobs for the most part. It's very difficult to punish someone for something they have not done yet simply because they suffered at some point with something millions of others also go through.
Many years ago I was treated for anxiety. Are there jobs I shouldn't hold now because of it? If we open that box, where does it stop?
I think we can do better, in that if someone is medically advised not to work, there should be reporting on that. But if the incident is in the past, how much do we let it affect their ability to hold a job in the future?
The discussion I heard yesterday I agreed with. Depending on your job, your mental health may or may not be important. But when you have the lives of others under your total control, your right to total privacy and unrestrained job possibilities evaporates. And, if you can't stand the heat, stay out the cockpit. The interview I was listening to was with a clinical psychologist who had specialized in treating people who were severely depressed and suicidal. She speculated that in the time frame this "future pilot" was being treated, that drugs such as thoarzine may have been used.
From what came out yesterday afternoon, the airline admitted they had been made aware of serious medical treatment for serious emotional issues before he applied for work. And why is the airlines' story changing?
What one's job is may hold that person to a higher standard.
thorazine isn't used to treat depression usually (unless it is combined with other problems like bi-polar disorder). He was treated in like 2006...it's not like it was 1990. Most of the currently prescribed antidepressants/SSRIs were in use then as well. It's unlikely if he was treated solely for depression that he would have been prescribed thorazine. The side effects are too hefty when they are safer alternatives available.
I'm not saying people in those positions shouldn't have their mental health considered. But it (I think) needs to be considered at the time, and not 10 years in the past. It is far too common for people to be treated for depression and anxiety among other things at some point in their lives to completely discount them for future jobs based on treatment many years earlier. I DO think that in the case of jobs like this doctors should be reporting to an HR office about potentially dangerous people currently working. However, a lot of that also depends on the person telling the doctor who they work for and what their job is...and if they are at risk for losing it because of mandatory reporting, a lot of them might opt not to report that information truthfully. So, how reliable would a system like that even be?
The psychiatrist that was discussing the case was not of the belief that it was run of the mill depression and there was a reason (which I don't recall) why she thought it was something beyond the drugs commonly given today.
But, whatever it is, it is. After all, she was just one psychiatrist.
Through my history with my own depression, I have met many. The difference is that they are not allowed to fly whilst on anti-depressants so there's even more of a stigma for pilots than for the rest of us. I have no idea why they are not allowed to find medication that helps but believe this is still the rule.
It saddens me that the media is blaming this on his past depressive episode and not personality issues. A person with severe depression simply would not have the energy to get to an airport let alone fly a plane.
This pilot had NO run-of-the-mill depression/suicidality issue. The media isn't going to go into great detail about this, or that there is a huge difference, in fear of putting people to sleep. Besides, all the dramarama about depressed people who might kill you sells.
The latest I heard tonight is that internet searches about the locks on the cockpit door and how to suicide were all over his lap top, including the day before he flew.
He was angry beyond anything that actually happened to him to make sense of it. He was resentful and entitled, and he obviously lacked empathy.
It is almost unfair to call him 'depressed', because depression was completely incidental to the choices he made to do what he did.