Needless to say (because I've already said it), I think the practice of discriminating against people on the basis of mental health needs to stop.
Maybe part of the problem is that we don't stop and think about what we're asking people to do when we're requiring them to make such disclosures. So for today I'm going to briefly share a bit of personal perspective.
When it comes to mental health, and trauma in particular, it isn't just the stigma of self-identifying as someone with a mental health history that may make people reluctant to share their diagnoses and past treatment. Speaking for myself at least, it's also the plethora of potential highly sensitive information that could thereby be opened up for discussion.
If I were asked, "Do you have a history of seeking treatment in relation to mental health, (but don't worry we won't ask any follow-up questions)?" I'd answer that far more easily than if someone with the power to compel me to share an unlimited amount of information asked me that same question and I was in the horrifying position of having no idea what might come next.
My trauma history is highly sensitive, as no doubt are many others'. I've explained (at the beginning of this story here, with a follow-up here) that even though I've shared some small aspects of my own story, I'm still very careful about what I share. The only people currently in my life with whom I've shared the details are one friend and one mental health professional. Even with the people I've shared them with, there are some things I can speak about out loud at some moments and some moments when I just can't speak about any of it.
When a person in authority with the power to ask pretty much unlimited follow-up questions requires someone to answer a basic question or two about their mental health history (which may include a history of trauma and/or other really personal history), what they're opening up for them isn't just the issue of whether they should answer that one question or two. It's also the possible complete loss of control over highly personal details of their lives that may be unthinkable for them to speak out loud even to the people closest to them, details that are entirely irrelevant to their ability to practice law.
Digging up unnecessary personal details isn't just harmful because of what the particular answers to those questions will reveal. It's because we're putting someone in a very vulnerable position in relation to extremely personal information that's not relevant to their ability to be a lawyer. Not only does it potentially increase stigma, but putting people in a helpless position in relation to such vulnerable information can actually be harmful to their well-being, and in my opinion, it needs to stop.
As always, please note that I am a lawyer, not a mental health professional of any kind. I have no expertise in trauma or mental health. Also, please note that any opinions and views expressed in this blog are solely my own and are not intended to represent the views or opinions of my employer in any way. For more information about the purpose of this blog, please see here and for a bit more information about my personal perspective on this issue, please see "my story" here
I am very grateful to have received a "Clawbie" Award for this blog (which reflects the importance of this topic): https://www.clawbies.ca/2019-clawbies-canadian-law-blog-awards/
For some of my external writing on this topic, see:
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/a-more-inclusive-discussion-on-the-impact-of-trauma-on-lawyers-mental-health-is-needed/276166
- https://www.cbabc.org/BarTalk/Articles/2020/February/Features/Speaking-Up-About-Trauma-and-Mental-Health
- https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/changing-the-conversation/326240
No comments:
Post a Comment