Ayrsayle said:
While I am by no means an expert on it - I think it comes back to universality of service. The limitations are largely based on suitability rather then direct discrimination. While I am willing to accept that some individuals with a mental illness (insert any number of things in here) are more capable then some individuals without it - on the whole these conditions create a predisposition to having issues conducting your duties.
A friend of mine is Deaf and took the fact he was not eligible for military service particularly hard - and felt he was being discriminated against. I can understand his frustration, but when I started to explain why hearing is an essential capacity to have in the military context (the system is set up for hearing and I can't see many ways around it without having everyone else have to change the structure of the army to accommodate) - He understood it wasn't about him not being good enough "personally", but that it would effect his ability to perform vital tasks. It would put other people at risk.
Handling stressful situations is a must for all military personnel - Yes, you may think you have a good coping system, drugs, etc and that YOU feel it will not impact your performance (or that you are still better then everyone else, etc) - but ultimately that is a decision for the CAF to make (in this case). The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate suitability, not for the system to accommodate everyone.
One of my uncles spent 23 years in the army. He has lost a significant portion of his hearing and also suffers from tinnitus (ringing in the ears) as a result of his service. He traces most of the loss back to the days when, as a young private in the RCOC, he was given the job of running a 10-kilowatt generator. The only way the job could be done was for him to sleep in the back of a deuce-and-a-half truck and then awaken as needed to run the generator.
As it turns out, the truck was located right beside the generator. He didn't wear hearing protection; back in those days, the importance of hearing conservation wasn't recognized as well as it is today and so he wasn't issued ear defenders.
The rest of the hearing loss (and probably the tinnitus) was likely the result of being exposed to the sound of small arms fire, tanks firing their main guns, etc., while on exercises and with no hearing protection. The military is a noisy environment, and only a few trades are able to avoid much exposure to the noise. Even RMS clerks, who work in offices on bases most of the time, can be posted to the field periodically and thus exposed to the hazard. They may also lose some of their hearing even with proper protection as noise has a cumulative effect on hearing and this is magnified due to the natural effects of aging.
It isn't a case of your hearing impaired friend not being able to hear commands and warnings properly and therefore being unable to respond properly (thus putting the lives of others at risk), it's also a case of losing what little hearing he may have left from being exposed to occupational hazards that are considered a normal and unavoidable part of the jobs that soldiers, sailors and aircrew are expected to do.
It costs the military - and by extension, taxpayers a lot of money to recruit, train, and equip someone to do a specific job. If the person has to be released early in their career due to service-related injuries that gravely aggravate a pre-existing medical condition, then financially speaking, a net loss will be borne by the military, and additional costs will be incurred through providing a disability pension and other disability-related supports. Still more costs may be incurred if the person released from employment lodges a lawsuit and is successful.
It would be irresponsible for the military to recruit such individuals knowing the risks of doing so, operationally and otherwise, and knowing that the potential consequences were quite easily avoided by not recruiting people who have pre-existing medical conditions that will seriously affect their ability to function and do their jobs properly.
As to the person who wanted to join while suffering from GAD (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), it isn't the fact that they need life-sustaining medication that is the problem, because the benzodiazepines and anti-depressants used to treat anxiety disorders aren't life-sustaining. The problem lies in the fact that these drugs can induce drowsiness and, in the case of benzodiazepines especially, can negatively affect alertness and judgment.
An associated problem lies in the fact that people on high-dose benzo regimens can experience serious symptoms, including seizures (to say nothing of exacerbation of their existing problem) when their prescriptions are cut off or refills are delayed. Imagine the problems that could result if a member who is dependent on that kind of medication is deployed to a remote region of the world where the required medications cannot be readily found if the existing prescription runs out. The net result is that you will have a member who will suffer needlessly and also become a management problem and thus combat ineffective.
The military isn't really structured to look after the needs of people who have chronic or permanent medical conditions as most of the medical resources are aimed at treating service members who are injured while on duty or in combat, and getting them back to the front lines or their jobs as quickly as possible, whenever feasible to do so, or if not feasible, sending them somewhere where they can get the treatment they need without regard for operational concerns or restrictions. That is to say, recommending that they be released from the military and sent back into civilian life.
