> Their lawyers also plan to argue the university breached equality laws when it failed to adjust its regime of oral assessments in light of Natasha’s social anxiety disorder.
I’m curious how far out into the work place this argument could extend.
If this girl went on to work for someone and at some point her job required something that caused her anxiety (be it presenting something to a group, or any other task) would the employer have a duty of care not to expect it of her? Presumably they’d also not be able to discriminate against her for it, even if her MH issues meant she’s unable to fulfil the requirements of the role.
I get the argument that people shouldn’t be pushed so far out of their comfort zone that they’d harm themselves rather than face it (if that is indeed the reason she took her life), but similarly we can’t 100% control what life throws at us and sometimes our education, work, life etc. means facing things that make us uncomfortable – and I say that as someone who hated standing up and presenting to a group myself. We can’t *always* make sure that never happens.
It is really dangerous to go down the line of blaming an institution (or an individual) for a suicide, especially when there are so many variables at play. There is a huge leap from saying that a student has social anxiety (which many, many people have) and the university by not being able to accommodate this and that is somehow directly or indirectly responsible for the student’s subsequent death.
How do you prove that the university knew that this was the right way to accommodate someone’s circumstances (because research tells us that social anxiety isn’t actually helped by avoidance in the longer term and colluding with it compounds the anxiety). Has it been evidenced that they knew this would happen and somehow showed a cavalier disregard for that student’s wellbeing? Then how do you attribute blame that the person then took actions to end their life, especially in the context of the local mental health services were found to be wanting. What about the city, the people around her, the government and anything else that may have played a part? How is this going to help?
I would be really concerned at the implications, because if this is upheld, it theoretically it opens the door to *all* of us being responsible for someone else’s actions around suicide (and not just a negligent healthcare team). How would you like to be blamed for someone else’s death because you didn’t perfectly adjust for their trauma?
2 comments
> Their lawyers also plan to argue the university breached equality laws when it failed to adjust its regime of oral assessments in light of Natasha’s social anxiety disorder.
I’m curious how far out into the work place this argument could extend.
If this girl went on to work for someone and at some point her job required something that caused her anxiety (be it presenting something to a group, or any other task) would the employer have a duty of care not to expect it of her? Presumably they’d also not be able to discriminate against her for it, even if her MH issues meant she’s unable to fulfil the requirements of the role.
I get the argument that people shouldn’t be pushed so far out of their comfort zone that they’d harm themselves rather than face it (if that is indeed the reason she took her life), but similarly we can’t 100% control what life throws at us and sometimes our education, work, life etc. means facing things that make us uncomfortable – and I say that as someone who hated standing up and presenting to a group myself. We can’t *always* make sure that never happens.
It is really dangerous to go down the line of blaming an institution (or an individual) for a suicide, especially when there are so many variables at play. There is a huge leap from saying that a student has social anxiety (which many, many people have) and the university by not being able to accommodate this and that is somehow directly or indirectly responsible for the student’s subsequent death.
How do you prove that the university knew that this was the right way to accommodate someone’s circumstances (because research tells us that social anxiety isn’t actually helped by avoidance in the longer term and colluding with it compounds the anxiety). Has it been evidenced that they knew this would happen and somehow showed a cavalier disregard for that student’s wellbeing? Then how do you attribute blame that the person then took actions to end their life, especially in the context of the local mental health services were found to be wanting. What about the city, the people around her, the government and anything else that may have played a part? How is this going to help?
I would be really concerned at the implications, because if this is upheld, it theoretically it opens the door to *all* of us being responsible for someone else’s actions around suicide (and not just a negligent healthcare team). How would you like to be blamed for someone else’s death because you didn’t perfectly adjust for their trauma?