Doctor here. Can confirm this to be completely incorrect.

I respectfully disagree. Disclosing these things makes your life a living hell.

https://www.acepnow.com/article/emergency-physician-with-dep...

(Reddit thread discussing that article) https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/aaappq/emergency_...

My wife is a psychiatrist and sees a psychiatrist off the record because she’s afraid of the stigma affecting her career. It’s just one data point but I find it telling that a psychiatrist is afraid that other psychiatrists will know she takes med to treat a psychiatric condition. Hers is anxiety related.

In my view it's pretty widespread that people are hesitant to seek certain kinds of care because of the potential effect of a "pre existing condition" on their employability.

Exactly. I don't think it's because the medical board itself would stop them, but more because the stigma attached to it would lead to people questioning them and their ability to do their job, not to mention the issues with insurance. I'd say that likely has a lot more to do with doctors wanting to see others off-the-record... I know of some teachers who do the same thing with psychiatrists, because they don't want it getting out to the students' parents.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't vary by area/country. Where are you a doctor?

No you are wrong. That would be against the Americans with disabilities act.

So wait, I could have been an air force pilot after all, and their annoying eyesight and physical requirements are illegal?

That is absolutely ridiculous, the ADA doesn't imply that anyone with any disability needs to be accommodated for any job, just that reasonable accommodation be made. For instance, someone in a wheelchair will be unable to do many jobs, regardless of accommodation,such as framing carpentry and roofing.

As someone who has gotten ADA accommodations related to mental health, there are absolutely limits. Due to my hand tremors, no hospital in the nation would allow me to be a surgeon, regardless of qualifications. Ditto for police departments, due to said mental-health issues.

Here in the UK at least, the military is one of the very few exceptions to the disabilities laws.

I believe even the police are subject to the disabilities laws, the medical profession too. In which case they most likely can't even ask.

(Not a lawyer, just a bumbling Internet commentator, you'd be insane to take me seriously, etc)

I think the vast majority of people would agree with you. Clearly, some jobs require certain physical attributes.

However, which jobs would a person with a psychiatric disorder be disqualified for? Couldn’t one argue that all jobs that require a brain would be off-limits? Probably not, but where is the line drawn?

Anything that requires a security clearance.

And that is as much because of the potential for the condition to be used for blackmail as it is any real limits it imposes on the work you would be doing.

And for some jobs, e.g. you want to work undercover for the CIA as a field agent, your mental state is not what would be strictly considered normal.

This whole discussion is completely absurd. Good soldiers, doctors, intelligence agents, fighter pilots and astronauts are often far outside of the bell curve in some important traits. That's why they ended up in the job. It would be impossible to find good candidates if everyone was completely honest with all the things that should disqualify them from the job. If you were a cynic, you'd call it a test of good judgement.

You can bet that almost everyone in these jobs has some skeleton in the closet that would officially be a problem. Some years of depression or other psychiatric illness, a proclivity for scandalous sex, having used an illegal drug a couple of times or even regularly, an unofficial child somewhere, some hidden medical issue that popped up once and was never talked about again, etc. With the common case that the issue has little, no or even positive effect on job performance.

This is anecdotally true from off-the-record conversations with exceptional individuals I know. The list of disqualifying parameters is just there so the bureaucrats can cover their ass when an aneurysm causes the loss of a billion-dollar aircraft, and to prevent blackmail with information that can be easily found.

But regarding blackmail, I think the bigger problem is that honest and harmless things can be used for blackmail in the first place. Everyone has smoked a joint and had some compromising photos taken, it shouldn't be such a big deal.

ADA has limits. You can't be in the military if you are missing a limb. Can't be a police officer if you have mental issues. There are common sense limits to ADA.