Depression
- Thread starter ramonmercado
- Start date
Beakmoo
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,964
It sure is real, and with me anyway it's a very physical as well as mental thing. I can go very quickly from the feeling sad, detached and grumpy stage to virtual catatonia. Last time it happened I was at work, emailing my husband at the time, the email tailed off weirdly as my brain simply shut down. It was like the lights in an office block being turned off floor by floor. I couldn't speak, couldn't move. Fortunately my husband knew immediately and came to take me home. On the medical release form I couldn't sign my name, just made a cross.Xanatico said:
That's what depression can be like.
By the way, I love your sigline Xanatico.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,229
- Location
- Eblana
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Wearing too much perfume 'signals depression'
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 3:29pm GMT 04/01/2008
Women who wear too much perfume may be suffering from depression, scientists have said.
The sense of smell appears to be impaired in people with the condition meaning they use more scent.
Smell is already known to have a profound effect on mood and memory with shops and retailers using aromas to induce shoppers to buy certain products.
But a team at Tel Aviv University have found that certain diseases cause the body to attack the olfactory system which governs the ability to detect smells.
This means an impaired sense of smell could be a pointer to serious conditions.
The team suggest depression could have a biological cause rather than being just a psychological disorder and other studies have confirmed patients with depression have a loss of sense of smell and when their condition is treated their senses improve.
Prof Yehuda Shoenfeld, a member of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University is an expert in autoimmune disorders such as arthritis, lupus and rheumatism where the body attacks its own cells.
He found that one of the autoantibodies attacked the olfactory system weakening the sense of smell and inducing depression.
"Our scientific findings suggest that women who are depressed are also losing their sense of smell, and may overcompensate by using more perfume.
"We also believe that depression has biological roots and may be an immune system response to certain physiological cues," he said.
The findings can be applied more widely than just to patients suffering with autoimmune disorders, Prof Shoenfeld said.
"People who are depressed seem to respond well to aromatherapy. Certain smells seem to help them overcome the effects of the biological factors, suggesting that depression may have a biological cause.
"I think that science is able to show that aromatherapy might not be just for quacks. After all, some of these remedies have been used since the time of the Egyptians to treat organic diseases."
He suggested that a "smell test" could be used by doctors to help diagnose depression as well as autoimmune diseases.
Other studies have questioned if depression is a result of a reduced ability to smell rather than the other way around as the condition is also linked to weight loss as people lose their appetite.
Scientists have also used electrodes to establish that the brains of people with depression are less responsive to smells and picked up scents later and at stronger concentrations.
http://tinyurl.com/2m682r
We had a customer the other day who reeked of after-shave.
Strange thing was, he had a full beard! :shock:
Note to Mods: we have several Depression threads. Some are just one or two posts long, and could perhaps be squeezed in elsewhere..?
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
Last Updated: 3:29pm GMT 04/01/2008
Women who wear too much perfume may be suffering from depression, scientists have said.
The sense of smell appears to be impaired in people with the condition meaning they use more scent.
Smell is already known to have a profound effect on mood and memory with shops and retailers using aromas to induce shoppers to buy certain products.
But a team at Tel Aviv University have found that certain diseases cause the body to attack the olfactory system which governs the ability to detect smells.
This means an impaired sense of smell could be a pointer to serious conditions.
The team suggest depression could have a biological cause rather than being just a psychological disorder and other studies have confirmed patients with depression have a loss of sense of smell and when their condition is treated their senses improve.
Prof Yehuda Shoenfeld, a member of the Sackler Faculty of Medicine at Tel Aviv University is an expert in autoimmune disorders such as arthritis, lupus and rheumatism where the body attacks its own cells.
He found that one of the autoantibodies attacked the olfactory system weakening the sense of smell and inducing depression.
"Our scientific findings suggest that women who are depressed are also losing their sense of smell, and may overcompensate by using more perfume.
"We also believe that depression has biological roots and may be an immune system response to certain physiological cues," he said.
The findings can be applied more widely than just to patients suffering with autoimmune disorders, Prof Shoenfeld said.
"People who are depressed seem to respond well to aromatherapy. Certain smells seem to help them overcome the effects of the biological factors, suggesting that depression may have a biological cause.
"I think that science is able to show that aromatherapy might not be just for quacks. After all, some of these remedies have been used since the time of the Egyptians to treat organic diseases."
He suggested that a "smell test" could be used by doctors to help diagnose depression as well as autoimmune diseases.
Other studies have questioned if depression is a result of a reduced ability to smell rather than the other way around as the condition is also linked to weight loss as people lose their appetite.
Scientists have also used electrodes to establish that the brains of people with depression are less responsive to smells and picked up scents later and at stronger concentrations.
http://tinyurl.com/2m682r
We had a customer the other day who reeked of after-shave.
Strange thing was, he had a full beard! :shock:
Note to Mods: we have several Depression threads. Some are just one or two posts long, and could perhaps be squeezed in elsewhere..?
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Depression risk 'highest in 40s'
Life may begin at 40, but research suggests that 44 is the age at which we are most vulnerable to depression.
Data analysis on two million people from 80 countries found a remarkably consistent pattern around the world.
The risk of depression was lowest in younger and older people, with the middle-aged years associated with the highest risk for both men and women.
The study, by the University of Warwick and Dartmouth College in the US, will feature in Social Science & Medicine.
The only country which recorded a significant gender difference was the US, where unhappiness reached a peak around the age of 40 for women, and 50 for men.
Previous research has suggested that the risk of unhappiness and depression stays relatively constant throughout life.
However, the latest finding - of a peak risk in middle age - was consistent around the globe, and in all types of people.
Researcher Professor Andrew Oswald, an economist at the University of Warwick, said: "It happens to men and women, to single and married people, to rich and poor, and to those with and without children."
He said the reason why middle age was a universally vulnerable time was unclear.
Count your blessings
However, he said: "One possibility is that individuals learn to adapt to their strengths and weaknesses, and in mid-life quell their infeasible aspirations.
"Another possibility is that a kind of comparison process is at work in which people have seen similar-aged peers die and value more their own remaining years. Perhaps people somehow learn to count their blessings."
Professor Oswald said for the average person, the dip in mental health and happiness comes on slowly, not suddenly in a single year.
Only in their 50s do most people emerge from the low period.
"But encouragingly, by the time you are 70, if you are still physically fit then on average you are as happy and mentally healthy as a 20-year-old.
"Perhaps realizing that such feelings are completely normal in midlife might even help individuals survive this phase better."
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, said: "This study raises intriguing questions about the processes that lead to depression in mid-life, as well as indicating what a common experience it is worldwide.
"Depression is a complex and challenging condition that remains poorly understood, with as many as one in ten people with severe depression taking their own life.
"We welcome any scientific contribution to our understanding of this illness, particularly if the research can aid the development of better treatments, both therapeutic and pharmaceutical."
Andy Bell, of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, said mental health problems were extremely common - but he stressed they could occur at any time in life.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7213387.stm
Certainly my own depression flared up and was most intense in my 40s, but there were also strong outside factors driving it... (let's not go there).
Life may begin at 40, but research suggests that 44 is the age at which we are most vulnerable to depression.
Data analysis on two million people from 80 countries found a remarkably consistent pattern around the world.
The risk of depression was lowest in younger and older people, with the middle-aged years associated with the highest risk for both men and women.
The study, by the University of Warwick and Dartmouth College in the US, will feature in Social Science & Medicine.
The only country which recorded a significant gender difference was the US, where unhappiness reached a peak around the age of 40 for women, and 50 for men.
Previous research has suggested that the risk of unhappiness and depression stays relatively constant throughout life.
However, the latest finding - of a peak risk in middle age - was consistent around the globe, and in all types of people.
Researcher Professor Andrew Oswald, an economist at the University of Warwick, said: "It happens to men and women, to single and married people, to rich and poor, and to those with and without children."
He said the reason why middle age was a universally vulnerable time was unclear.
Count your blessings
However, he said: "One possibility is that individuals learn to adapt to their strengths and weaknesses, and in mid-life quell their infeasible aspirations.
"Another possibility is that a kind of comparison process is at work in which people have seen similar-aged peers die and value more their own remaining years. Perhaps people somehow learn to count their blessings."
Professor Oswald said for the average person, the dip in mental health and happiness comes on slowly, not suddenly in a single year.
Only in their 50s do most people emerge from the low period.
"But encouragingly, by the time you are 70, if you are still physically fit then on average you are as happy and mentally healthy as a 20-year-old.
"Perhaps realizing that such feelings are completely normal in midlife might even help individuals survive this phase better."
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the mental health charity Sane, said: "This study raises intriguing questions about the processes that lead to depression in mid-life, as well as indicating what a common experience it is worldwide.
"Depression is a complex and challenging condition that remains poorly understood, with as many as one in ten people with severe depression taking their own life.
"We welcome any scientific contribution to our understanding of this illness, particularly if the research can aid the development of better treatments, both therapeutic and pharmaceutical."
Andy Bell, of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, said mental health problems were extremely common - but he stressed they could occur at any time in life.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7213387.stm
Certainly my own depression flared up and was most intense in my 40s, but there were also strong outside factors driving it... (let's not go there).
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
I contemplated suicide, says Harry Potter creator, JK Rowling
Stuart MacDonald
JK Rowling has revealed that she thought of killing herself while suffering from depression as a struggling single mother.
The Harry Potter author says she was prescribed cognitive behavioural therapy after suffering “suicidal thoughts” in the aftermath of separation from her first husband, Jorge Arantes, a Portuguese journalist.
She is now one of the world’s richest women, with a fortune estimated at £545m, but at the time lived in a cramped flat in Edinburgh with her baby daughter Jessica. Rowling was only able to afford the rent after a friend paid the £600 deposit. It was there she began writing the first Harry Potter book.
While Rowling, 42, has spoken before of her battle with depression, it is the first time she has admitted that she contemplated suicide. She said she finally sought professional help.
“Mid-twenties life circumstances were poor and I really plummeted,” said Rowling. “The thing that made me go for help . . . was probably my daughter. She was something that earthed me, grounded me, and I thought, this isn’t right, this can’t be right, she cannot grow up with me in this state.”
Rowling said her usual GP was away, and the replacement doctor sent her away. “She said, ‘If you ever feel a bit low, come and speak to the practice nurse’ and dismissed me.”
Rowling added: “We’re talking suicidal thoughts here, we’re not talking ‘I’m a little bit miserable’.
Two weeks later I had a phone call from my regular GP who had looked back over the notes . . . She called me back in and I got counselling through her.
“She absolutely saved me because I don’t think I would have had the guts to go and do it twice.” :yeay:
Cognitive behavioural therapy typically involves a series of sessions with a counsellor and is designed to help patients control negative thoughts. The technique is recommended by the health department for depressive disorders, anxiety, bulimia and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Rowling, whose Harry Potter novels have sold more than 400m copies worldwide and spawned a £7 billion industry, said she was happy to discuss her mental health problems to challenge the stigma associated with depressive illness.
“I have never been remotely ashamed of having been depressed. Never,” she said in an interview with Adeel Amini, 22, for a student magazine at Edinburgh University.
“What’s to be ashamed of? I went through a really rough time and I am quite proud that I got out of that.”
Mental health campaigners welcomed Rowling’s decision to speak publicly about her struggle with suicidal depression.
Celia Richardson, campaigns director of the Mental Health Foundation, said: “JK Rowling is a wonderful role model and it’s brilliant she has chosen to talk about this.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 602774.ece
Stuart MacDonald
JK Rowling has revealed that she thought of killing herself while suffering from depression as a struggling single mother.
The Harry Potter author says she was prescribed cognitive behavioural therapy after suffering “suicidal thoughts” in the aftermath of separation from her first husband, Jorge Arantes, a Portuguese journalist.
She is now one of the world’s richest women, with a fortune estimated at £545m, but at the time lived in a cramped flat in Edinburgh with her baby daughter Jessica. Rowling was only able to afford the rent after a friend paid the £600 deposit. It was there she began writing the first Harry Potter book.
While Rowling, 42, has spoken before of her battle with depression, it is the first time she has admitted that she contemplated suicide. She said she finally sought professional help.
“Mid-twenties life circumstances were poor and I really plummeted,” said Rowling. “The thing that made me go for help . . . was probably my daughter. She was something that earthed me, grounded me, and I thought, this isn’t right, this can’t be right, she cannot grow up with me in this state.”
Rowling said her usual GP was away, and the replacement doctor sent her away. “She said, ‘If you ever feel a bit low, come and speak to the practice nurse’ and dismissed me.”
Rowling added: “We’re talking suicidal thoughts here, we’re not talking ‘I’m a little bit miserable’.
Two weeks later I had a phone call from my regular GP who had looked back over the notes . . . She called me back in and I got counselling through her.
“She absolutely saved me because I don’t think I would have had the guts to go and do it twice.” :yeay:
Cognitive behavioural therapy typically involves a series of sessions with a counsellor and is designed to help patients control negative thoughts. The technique is recommended by the health department for depressive disorders, anxiety, bulimia and posttraumatic stress disorder.
Rowling, whose Harry Potter novels have sold more than 400m copies worldwide and spawned a £7 billion industry, said she was happy to discuss her mental health problems to challenge the stigma associated with depressive illness.
“I have never been remotely ashamed of having been depressed. Never,” she said in an interview with Adeel Amini, 22, for a student magazine at Edinburgh University.
“What’s to be ashamed of? I went through a really rough time and I am quite proud that I got out of that.”
Mental health campaigners welcomed Rowling’s decision to speak publicly about her struggle with suicidal depression.
Celia Richardson, campaigns director of the Mental Health Foundation, said: “JK Rowling is a wonderful role model and it’s brilliant she has chosen to talk about this.”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 602774.ece
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Sometimes anxiety is just a normal reaction
By CHRISTOPHER LANE
IN THE US, almost half of the population is described as being in some way mentally ill, and 200 million prescriptions are written annually to treat depression and anxiety. These statistics have sparked a debate about whether people are taking more medication than is needed, for problems they may not have.
Those who defend such widespread use of prescription drugs insist a significant part of the population is under-treated and under-medicated. Those opposed note that, for example, diagnosis of bipolar disorder has rocketed by 4,000 per cent and that over-medication is impossible without over-diagnosis.
To help settle this dispute, I studied why the number of recognised psychiatric disorders has ballooned in recent decades. In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders added 112 disorders to its third edition (DSM-III). Some 58 more appeared in the revised third and fourth editions. The manual is the bible of American psychiatry, and the addition of even one new disorder has serious consequences. So why add so many?
I was granted access to unpublished memos, letters, and voting data from 1973-1979 when the DSM-III task force debated each disorder. Some of the work was meticulous, but the overall approval process was more capricious than scientific.
DSM-III grew out of meetings that many participants described as chaotic. The expertise of the task force was limited to neuropsychiatry, and the group met for four years before it occurred to members that it might be biased.
Some lists of symptoms were knocked out in minutes and the field studies used to justify their inclusion sometimes involved a single patient. :shock: Experts pressed for the inclusion of illnesses as questionable as "chronic complaint disorder", whose traits included moaning about taxes and the weather. [Surely that's the VMS - Victor Meldrew syndrome? 8) ]
Social anxiety disorder was given official recognition in 1980 and by the 1990s experts insisted as many as one in five Americans suffered from it. Yet Isaac Marks, the specialist who originally recognised social anxiety in the 1960s, resisted its inclusion as a separate disease. The list of behaviours associated with the disorder, such as avoidance of public toilets, gave him pause. By the time a revised task-force added dislike of public speaking to the symptom list in 1987, the disorder seemed sufficiently elastic to include virtually everyone on the planet.
To counter the impression it was turning common fears into medical conditions, DSM-IV added a clause stipulating social anxiety had to be "impairing" before a diagnosis was possible. But the prescribers' understanding of impairment was looser than that of the task-force.
Over-medication would affect fewer Americans if we could rein in examples of over-diagnosis by resurrecting the distinction between chronic illness and mild suffering. . Failure to reform psychiatry will be disastrous for public health. Sanity must prevail: if everyone is mentally ill, then no-one is.
http://news.scotsman.com/features/Somet ... 3950988.jp
By CHRISTOPHER LANE
IN THE US, almost half of the population is described as being in some way mentally ill, and 200 million prescriptions are written annually to treat depression and anxiety. These statistics have sparked a debate about whether people are taking more medication than is needed, for problems they may not have.
Those who defend such widespread use of prescription drugs insist a significant part of the population is under-treated and under-medicated. Those opposed note that, for example, diagnosis of bipolar disorder has rocketed by 4,000 per cent and that over-medication is impossible without over-diagnosis.
To help settle this dispute, I studied why the number of recognised psychiatric disorders has ballooned in recent decades. In 1980, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders added 112 disorders to its third edition (DSM-III). Some 58 more appeared in the revised third and fourth editions. The manual is the bible of American psychiatry, and the addition of even one new disorder has serious consequences. So why add so many?
I was granted access to unpublished memos, letters, and voting data from 1973-1979 when the DSM-III task force debated each disorder. Some of the work was meticulous, but the overall approval process was more capricious than scientific.
DSM-III grew out of meetings that many participants described as chaotic. The expertise of the task force was limited to neuropsychiatry, and the group met for four years before it occurred to members that it might be biased.
Some lists of symptoms were knocked out in minutes and the field studies used to justify their inclusion sometimes involved a single patient. :shock: Experts pressed for the inclusion of illnesses as questionable as "chronic complaint disorder", whose traits included moaning about taxes and the weather. [Surely that's the VMS - Victor Meldrew syndrome? 8) ]
Social anxiety disorder was given official recognition in 1980 and by the 1990s experts insisted as many as one in five Americans suffered from it. Yet Isaac Marks, the specialist who originally recognised social anxiety in the 1960s, resisted its inclusion as a separate disease. The list of behaviours associated with the disorder, such as avoidance of public toilets, gave him pause. By the time a revised task-force added dislike of public speaking to the symptom list in 1987, the disorder seemed sufficiently elastic to include virtually everyone on the planet.
To counter the impression it was turning common fears into medical conditions, DSM-IV added a clause stipulating social anxiety had to be "impairing" before a diagnosis was possible. But the prescribers' understanding of impairment was looser than that of the task-force.
Over-medication would affect fewer Americans if we could rein in examples of over-diagnosis by resurrecting the distinction between chronic illness and mild suffering. . Failure to reform psychiatry will be disastrous for public health. Sanity must prevail: if everyone is mentally ill, then no-one is.
http://news.scotsman.com/features/Somet ... 3950988.jp
McAvennie
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2003
- Messages
- 3,998
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b30iwhEw9ho
Interesting video I came across making the claim that mental illness/emotional disorders are concocted to keep the psychiatry business in business.
I'm not science-smart enough to know if the case made in the video is spot on or bending the truth for its own purpose.
Would be interested to hear what more science-minded boffins make of it.
Interesting video I came across making the claim that mental illness/emotional disorders are concocted to keep the psychiatry business in business.
I'm not science-smart enough to know if the case made in the video is spot on or bending the truth for its own purpose.
Would be interested to hear what more science-minded boffins make of it.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Now you can get sued for being depressed - how depressing is that?!
Cheltenham director Christine Laird sued for 'lying about illness'
Fran Yeoman
A local authority accused its former managing director of fraudulent behaviour and deceit yesterday, claiming that she withheld her history of depressive illness when applying for the job.
In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Cheltenham Borough Council accused Christine Laird, 52, of “fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation” at the High Court.
The authority claims that she concealed her medical history, including that she had been taking antidepressants for several years, before she was appointed in February 2002 after a council vote went narrowly in her favour. She held the post, which had been advertised at a salary of between £63,000 and £79,000, until 2005 but from June 2004 she was absent on full pay.
The council is now suing her for £982,000 plus interest, bringing the total to more than £1million. It includes the projected £450,000 cost of Mrs Laird's ill-health pension entitlement as well as the £175,000 expense of covering for her while she was off sick and £96,000 in legal costs.
Mrs Laird, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, denies the allegations and contests the council's claim. She says that she has insufficient assets to pay. The council does not accept that she is “impoverished”.
Her time at Cheltenham was marked by a series of disputes with the authority and Andrew McKinlay, its Liberal Democrat leader, with allegation and counter-allegation of inappropriate, obstructive and bullying conduct. Mrs Laird filed 25 official complaints to the Standards Board for England, of which one was upheld. She also filed an application for a restraining order banning Mr McKinlay from entering the first floor of the council headquarters, where she had an office, but this was withdrawn later.
Mrs Laird pursued separate legal claims against the council and Mr McKinlay, but failed and incurred costs of more than £90,000.
In its statement of claim, the authority said that in her pre-employment questionnaire she had replied “no” when asked: “Do you see yourself as disabled?” Asked whether she enjoyed good health, she had replied, “yes.”
The council said that she had failed to disclose three bouts of moderate depressive illness since May 1997 and had taken time off work. “As a result, the council was wrongly advised that she was medically fit for the job and it proceeded to implement its decision - reached by a narrow 18 to 17 majority - to employ her,” Tim Kerr, QC, told Mr Justice Hamblen. “In consequence, the authority sustained loss and damage of just over £982,000.”
The hearing continues.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 600425.ece
Very worrying if anyone who's ever suffered from depression can be categorised as 'disabled'.
Cheltenham director Christine Laird sued for 'lying about illness'
Fran Yeoman
A local authority accused its former managing director of fraudulent behaviour and deceit yesterday, claiming that she withheld her history of depressive illness when applying for the job.
In what is thought to be the first case of its kind, Cheltenham Borough Council accused Christine Laird, 52, of “fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation” at the High Court.
The authority claims that she concealed her medical history, including that she had been taking antidepressants for several years, before she was appointed in February 2002 after a council vote went narrowly in her favour. She held the post, which had been advertised at a salary of between £63,000 and £79,000, until 2005 but from June 2004 she was absent on full pay.
The council is now suing her for £982,000 plus interest, bringing the total to more than £1million. It includes the projected £450,000 cost of Mrs Laird's ill-health pension entitlement as well as the £175,000 expense of covering for her while she was off sick and £96,000 in legal costs.
Mrs Laird, of Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire, denies the allegations and contests the council's claim. She says that she has insufficient assets to pay. The council does not accept that she is “impoverished”.
Her time at Cheltenham was marked by a series of disputes with the authority and Andrew McKinlay, its Liberal Democrat leader, with allegation and counter-allegation of inappropriate, obstructive and bullying conduct. Mrs Laird filed 25 official complaints to the Standards Board for England, of which one was upheld. She also filed an application for a restraining order banning Mr McKinlay from entering the first floor of the council headquarters, where she had an office, but this was withdrawn later.
Mrs Laird pursued separate legal claims against the council and Mr McKinlay, but failed and incurred costs of more than £90,000.
In its statement of claim, the authority said that in her pre-employment questionnaire she had replied “no” when asked: “Do you see yourself as disabled?” Asked whether she enjoyed good health, she had replied, “yes.”
The council said that she had failed to disclose three bouts of moderate depressive illness since May 1997 and had taken time off work. “As a result, the council was wrongly advised that she was medically fit for the job and it proceeded to implement its decision - reached by a narrow 18 to 17 majority - to employ her,” Tim Kerr, QC, told Mr Justice Hamblen. “In consequence, the authority sustained loss and damage of just over £982,000.”
The hearing continues.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 600425.ece
Very worrying if anyone who's ever suffered from depression can be categorised as 'disabled'.
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
This case made me very uneasy. Ms Laird probably should have disclosed the fact that she had been treated for depression in the past, but the council seems to be suggesting that if she had done so they would have considered her "not fit for work". This is ludicrous and is likely to make people even less likely to approach their doctors when suffering from mental health problems, let alone tell potential employers about them.
As for the disability point - depression *can* be considered, in law, to constitute a disability. However that is not the point at issue here. Ms Laird was asked whether *she considered herself* to have a disability. It seems entirely reasonable for her to answer "no" to this question.
As for the disability point - depression *can* be considered, in law, to constitute a disability. However that is not the point at issue here. Ms Laird was asked whether *she considered herself* to have a disability. It seems entirely reasonable for her to answer "no" to this question.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2002
- Messages
- 1,814
I thought it was illegal for employers to request that a candidate for a vacancy to disclose their medical history.
The real question is whether or not her mental health left her unable to do the job or if she just wasn't very good at it. Either way she shouldn't be getting sued and it shows a considerable lack of understanding from her employer to mount this extra pressure upon her.
Fair enough, sack her if she can't do the job, but you can't sue her.
The real question is whether or not her mental health left her unable to do the job or if she just wasn't very good at it. Either way she shouldn't be getting sued and it shows a considerable lack of understanding from her employer to mount this extra pressure upon her.
Fair enough, sack her if she can't do the job, but you can't sue her.
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
Although I share your discomfort at these questions, it's actually quite commonplace for large organisations to insist that candidates complete a medical questionnaire prior to joining. Some organisations also insist on a medical examination, especially for more senior jobs.
The results should not be directly visible to the employer, who will instead receive a response from the doctor that the individual is fit for work, not fit for work or fit for work provided certain adjustments are made (for example a special chair for someone who suffers from back problems).
In this case I suspect the council's argument is specious as I think it unlikely that a doctor would deem someone who has suffered occasional bouts of depression some time ago to be unfit for work.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,229
- Location
- Eblana
I occasionally suffer from depression, therefore I take anti-depressants. That does not make me disabled or unfit from work. Its 3 1/2 years since I last had depression, maybe I'll get it again, maybe I won't.
Its apalling that a public sector employer should take such a case.
Its apalling that a public sector employer should take such a case.
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
Reading between the lines there had been a lot of bad blood between Ms Laird and councillors/colleagues. Nonetheless, I'm astonished they've chosen to fight this case.
Ironically it coincides with the launch of a major campaign by mental health charities encouraging employers and others to treat those with mental illness more sympathetically.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Psychologists find gene that helps you look on the bright side of life
Those unfortunate enough to lack the 'brightside gene' are more likely to suffer from mental health problems such as depression
Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009 00.05 GMT
If life looks cheery in spite of the gloomy weather, mass job insecurity and the suspicion that spending hours on Facebook is mangling your mind, you might want to thank your brightside gene.
It seems that for some of us, seeing the glass as half full is hardwired into our genetic make-up, helping us shrug off the miseries of life and enjoy the positives.
Research by British psychologists suggests that people who carry the gene pay less attention to negative things going on around them and focus instead on the happier aspects of life. By doing so, they end up being more sociable and are generally in better shape psychologically.
Elaine Fox, head of psychology at Essex University, said the gene seems to underlie some people's ability to deal with daily stresses. Those without it are likely to have a gloomier outlook on life, and suffer more from mental health problems such as depression.
"We've shown for the first time that a genetic variation is linked with a tendency to look on the bright side of life," she said. "This is a key mechanism underlying resilience to general life stress."
In a study involving more than 100 volunteers, Fox's team checked how long it took people to react to good and bad images that flashed up on a computer screen. Among the positive pictures were a couple hugging and someone sailing along in a boat. The negative images included a photo of someone being mugged.
Chris Ashwin, a co-author on the study and cognitive psychologist at Bath University, said the test reveals whether people are inclined to focus more on the good things in life or the bad.
Genetic tests on the participants showed that a tendency to ignore negative images and dwell on the positive ones was strongly linked to a variation in a gene that controls serotonin, the brain's main feelgood chemical.
Each of us inherits two versions of the gene, either two short ones, two long ones, or one of each. People who had two longs versions were most likely to focus on the positives, according to the study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
How the gene works is unclear, but Ashwin suspects it might dampen down activity in part of the brain called the amygdala, which plays a leading role in regulating our emotions. People with two short versions of the gene show more activity in that part of the brain and are more likely to be neurotic and anxious about their lives, the researchers said.
The discovery raises the prospect of employers screening out applicants who take a glum view on life. But individuals vary too much for such a test to be effective, the researchers told the Guardian.
Of course they're probably wrong, but who cares, working for a living is rubbish anyway. 8)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... tal-health
Those unfortunate enough to lack the 'brightside gene' are more likely to suffer from mental health problems such as depression
Ian Sample, science correspondent guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 February 2009 00.05 GMT
If life looks cheery in spite of the gloomy weather, mass job insecurity and the suspicion that spending hours on Facebook is mangling your mind, you might want to thank your brightside gene.
It seems that for some of us, seeing the glass as half full is hardwired into our genetic make-up, helping us shrug off the miseries of life and enjoy the positives.
Research by British psychologists suggests that people who carry the gene pay less attention to negative things going on around them and focus instead on the happier aspects of life. By doing so, they end up being more sociable and are generally in better shape psychologically.
Elaine Fox, head of psychology at Essex University, said the gene seems to underlie some people's ability to deal with daily stresses. Those without it are likely to have a gloomier outlook on life, and suffer more from mental health problems such as depression.
"We've shown for the first time that a genetic variation is linked with a tendency to look on the bright side of life," she said. "This is a key mechanism underlying resilience to general life stress."
In a study involving more than 100 volunteers, Fox's team checked how long it took people to react to good and bad images that flashed up on a computer screen. Among the positive pictures were a couple hugging and someone sailing along in a boat. The negative images included a photo of someone being mugged.
Chris Ashwin, a co-author on the study and cognitive psychologist at Bath University, said the test reveals whether people are inclined to focus more on the good things in life or the bad.
Genetic tests on the participants showed that a tendency to ignore negative images and dwell on the positive ones was strongly linked to a variation in a gene that controls serotonin, the brain's main feelgood chemical.
Each of us inherits two versions of the gene, either two short ones, two long ones, or one of each. People who had two longs versions were most likely to focus on the positives, according to the study published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
How the gene works is unclear, but Ashwin suspects it might dampen down activity in part of the brain called the amygdala, which plays a leading role in regulating our emotions. People with two short versions of the gene show more activity in that part of the brain and are more likely to be neurotic and anxious about their lives, the researchers said.
The discovery raises the prospect of employers screening out applicants who take a glum view on life. But individuals vary too much for such a test to be effective, the researchers told the Guardian.
Of course they're probably wrong, but who cares, working for a living is rubbish anyway. 8)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/ ... tal-health
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,229
- Location
- Eblana
Appalling the mentality that says you cant be seen to enjoy yourself while you are depressed.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,229
- Location
- Eblana
I have suffered from "major" depression and it is possible to enjoy yourself even when you are in the depths. Occasionally a good show, film etc will temporarily light up the darkness.
Yes, I smiled when I was out sick, suffering from depression. That did not mean that I was fit for work.
Yes, I smiled when I was out sick, suffering from depression. That did not mean that I was fit for work.
Timble2
Imaginary Person
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,047
- Location
- In a Liminal Zone
However, if you're well enough to go out and be photographed having (apparently) a good time, and post the results on Facebook, it has to raise questions about whether you're fit to work.
A bit like those people who are off with say, back trouble, and get photographed running a half marathon.
A bit like those people who are off with say, back trouble, and get photographed running a half marathon.
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,229
- Location
- Eblana
Timble2 said:
When you suffer from depression your judgement is also likely to be impaired. My trickcyclist encouraged me to get out and enjoy myself as part of bringing my existence as close as possible to normal.
I honestly don't think there is any comparison with those who have "backtrouble" and who pull cars with their teeth.
Btw, when I was in a Psychiatric Hospital, patients were not discharged for laughing.
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
The first case to go to a high court perhaps, but otherwise i'm sure it happens plenty. A former employer tried to use that as a reason to dismiss me, though in that instance, they didn't dismiss me for that inasmuch as they dismissed me for no specified reason in the end.
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
The issue here wasn't that she was dismissed though - the council was suiing her to repay salary and benefits because she hadn't disclosed when applying for the job that she had previously been treated for mild depression. Unsurprisngly, the case was thrown out.
Anome
Bibliomancer
- Joined
- May 23, 2002
- Messages
- 5,528
- Location
- Left, and to the Back
Let's face it, if going out to strip clubs was all that was needed to get over depression, then I'd have been cured ages ago.ramonmercado said:
Seriously, a one-off incident does not indicate a remission. You can't tell from a couple of photos whether she went home and had a breakdown from having been around people and being ashamed at the whole incident. Or maybe she tap-danced all the way home. You can't diagnose depression or the lack thereof from photos. You can't really diagnose anything reliably from photos alone, even a bad back.
And then there's the ethical issues around whether her employers ought to have seen the pictures in any case. (Apparently they were hidden from public, and the company had to "break-in" to see them.)
Quake42
Warrior Princess
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2004
- Messages
- 9,312
You omitted the rest of the paragraph which puts a rather different spin on the situation:
Rather than Ms Laird causing difficulty to innocent parties, it seems clear that both sides were throwing copious amounts of mud at each other. I wouldn't be too quick to blame the employee.
Employment disputes, particularly at a senior level, can become extremely unpleasant and if the employee ends up having to make dozens of repeat complaints it is very often because the organisation concerned is determined to ignore what is being alleged and appears to close its eyes to the obvious.
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2002
- Messages
- 36,432
- Location
- East of Suez
Quake said:
I acknowledge what you say, but:
a) These complaints were taken to the 'standards board' - presumably an external body. 24 out of 25 were rejected. Is that not telling?
b) There paragraph you quote seems only to suggest it wasn't all one-sided. That's accepted, but of course, merely disputing the claims of this woman would be reported as counter-allegation.
c) Seeking a restraining over work issues is stupid and counter-productive (as it appears she realised).
Perhaps there's more to it; although I'm inclined to think not. It's famously difficult to sack public-sector workers unless they are actually criminals. This woman sounds like a malingerer who - because she was an unpopular employee - relied on dragging everything out as far as possible and really irritating her employer. This kind of behaviour does tend to make one disliked by those around them. I'm not all that surprised she was depressed. I've read several cases in the news of disgruntled employees becoming embroiled in long-term disputes and then going on long-term sick leave as they are suffering from stress as a fallout. It's not always the employee's fault - certainly not - but all the numerous attempts at (failed) formal action make me highly suspicious.