The recent tragedy of the crash of the Germanwings Airbus
A320 in the Alps raises some interesting questions about air safety and how we
can protect ourselves. Some of the answers may be diametrical opposite to what
we believe to be Canadian values.
In Canada, in the past few years, there has been an
increased public dialogue about at least some of issues related to mental
illness. Anyone who can read, use social media or who watches any of the
Canadian commercial television broadcasts knows that one out of five Canadians
will live with some form of a mental illness during their life time. This means
that most of us will at the very least know someone well who lives with a
mental illness. In fact we will in all likelihood know numerous people. This
knowledge should mean that that (1) we will be more likely supportive when a
close friend or family member is experiencing difficulties, (2) that we will be
less ashamed to get hep when we need it and (3) that people living with a
mental illness will be far less discriminated against than in the past.
On the other hand using the example of the recent crash it
would appear that there might be jobs in which people who are struggling with
mental health should not be allowed to do, and that some may suggest that we
need to do more intrusive monitoring of those who work in those fields. I
suspect there is an argument to be made that those who have, as part of their
job description, a responsibility to ensure other people's safety need to be
held to a higher level of mental health than someone who does not come into
contact with the general public. That group might include not only pilots but perhaps
as well train engineers, bus drivers and the police. Of course the problem with
that argument is that the list quickly becomes too long. Civil rights advocates
would, with justification, argue that regular, mandatory mental health examination
of sufficient intensity to "catch" those who are hiding problems
would a gross violation of human rights.
I don't think there is an easy answer. In hindsight, I
suspect that most would agree that that pilot should have been prevented from
flying that day, and that whatever measures required, no matter how intrusive, should have been in place to know that he
should not have flown. I think most of us would agree unless of course we were
the ones who perhaps once a week had to sit down in front of a stranger and
discuss intimate details of our lives before we were allowed to do our jobs.
Most of us would agree - but I suspect we would disagree who should pay for such
sessions.
As Canadian society continues to develop its awareness of the
complexities of both living with a mental illness and supporting those who do,
we will need to also develop better mechanisms to deal with the multifaceted
legal, social and moral issues that will arise. Finding the line between protecting the public
good and defending individual rights may be one of the harder ones to resolve.
On a side note, the Harper government's response to this
tragedy was to immediately establish a new policy stating that there must be
two people in the cockpit at all times. This means that when the pilot leaves
to get a coffee or to go to the bathroom, another airline employee needs to
stay with the other pilot until the first returns. Which sort of makes sense except that the
only people available are the attendants/stewards/or whatever they are called.
I am also not too sure how qualified they are to deal with an emergency that
might require some flying skills. As well, as their union has suggested, those
individuals are already stretched to their limits and if there was an emergency
- there would not be enough help for the passengers. It is an interesting
band-aid solution that does nothing to resolve the real issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment