The crash of Germanwings flight 4U 9525 - mental health assessment for airline pilots

The crash of germanwings flight 4U 9525 has left Europe and the rest of the world heartbroken, especially since the revelation that co-pilot Andreas Lubitz appears to have crashed the flight deliberately. For me personally this tragedy feels and is very close to home, as I'm a spanish born, living in Germany and someone very dear to me took the very  same flight just one day before the crash. Most likely it was the same plane, maybe even flown by Andreas Lubitz.

In the last few days we have learnt many things about the crash, among others the co-pilot had a known history of depression. This has raised the question, whether  regular psychological tests for pilots should be mandatory. Personally I was shocked that this wasn't mandatory worldwide already and so far has only been implemented in some countries such as the US. 

Being an advocate to end the stigma of mental illness and someone who has suffered from depression herself I can't help but feeling anger at this situation, because in many ways it means that again society has failed. There are many speculations about the reasons why Mr. Lubitz has done what he did, but one thing we know for fact: He was in no way fit to fly a plane full of people. 

It is known that he had a sick note for the day of the crash and had been in treatment for an undiclosed illness. He had interrupted his initial training to be treated for depression and supposedly it was recommended that he should undergo regular psychological checks. Why hasn't this happened? How can it be that nobody saw what was going on? The answers to these questions are hard to find but we need to face the reality. 

Mental illness is still a taboo because it bears a stigma. Here in Germany one of the first things that you are told when you start a therapy is not to inform your employer because it could lead to respercussions at work. In a situation where you are supposed to find help secrecy is again encouraged, which results in the patient leading a double life. One where you try to seek help and fight a disease and one where you pretend that everything is in order. This also leads involuntarily to the feeling that a mental illness is something to be ashamed of, which in turn leads to isolation in my own experience.

In Germany you can have up to a waiting time of 3 years to get a therapy spot through the standard health insurance. This means three years during which a mental illness goes untreated. If you make a therapy through standard health insurance there is a "record" of it, but you can choose to private therapist and pay yourself. Then there is no official record, which is said to have been done by the co-pilot. If he did that to hide his illness or simply because he didn't get a therapy spot we will never know.

Many mental health organizations have raised concerns that the present media coverage might increase the stigma and that many pilots fly safely despite having fought mental illness in the past.  This is true but in my opinion this incident shows that we have to rethink the past regulations, since one deliberately caused confirmed crash is one too many.

There are many physical illnesses such as epilepsy which keep people from becoming a commercial pilot, why not setting similar standards for mental illnesses? It has been proven that around 50 % of the people who at one point in their life suffered from depression will suffer a relapse. After a second episode the likelyhood of a third episode happening is even higher.

Of course many people don't suffer a second episode and aren't suicidal but in a situation where hundreds of people's lives depend on one person there should be a zero tolerance. This may sound drastic but what many people forget is that stress is a common trigger for a mental illness and being responsible for so many lives certainly is a huge stress factor. 

In this respect the regulations also failed Andreas Lubitz. Of course he has committed a terrible action but condemning him as a mass murderer is certainly the easy way of handling this. The fact is that he was a man with a known past of mental health problems and he was in treatment for an undisclosed illness. How could it be allowed that he was put in a stressful situation where he was responsible for so many lives? He was a sick man that should not have  been in the pilot seat in the first place, even if this would have meant crushing his dream. Sometimes people have to be protected from their own, especially since a mental illness affects your view of the world and you don't see things clearly.

Personally I believe that someone with a known past of mental illness should be banned from flying commercial flights indefinetely and that pilots should have to undergo regular intense, psychological checks, so that it is impossible for them to hide an illness. Also when a patient is responsible for other people's lives due to their job e.g. pilots, bus drivers, doctors etc. and he or she suffers from any medical condition that could endanger other people, the employer should be informed without delay. This might have an effect on many people but as stated before in these cases a zero tolerance policy should be the rule.

The Gender Question - Why feminism is hypocritical these days

Some time back I wrote my first post on feminism. Personally I thought the topic was fairly simple but through the feedback on my post I learnt about the various fractions like feminists, women against feminism and men rights advocates just to name a few. 

This was extremely surprising to me because I think this matter is rather simple: 

Equal rights and duties for both genders!

So why is there such a variety of groups and opinions with this topic? I believe this is because many people use this topic as a valve to vent their frustration because the matter concerns everybody. 

Sadly feminism is always linked to strong negative feelings, even with women. Because some women that call themselves feminists look down on women who decide to become fulltime mothers and wives. In my opinion this is extremely hypocritical because it denies women their freedom.

Originally feminism began to give women equal rights, meaning also the right to choose what to do with their lives. So if a woman is being critized for deliberately choosing to become a homemaker isn't this just as bad as when a woman used to be critized for wanting a career? Just because you can do something, in this case have a career, doesn't mean you have to do it. Otherwise we would only have doctors and lawyers and no gardners or horsetrainers. It is condescending to judge someone by what they decide to be their meaning of life.

A lot of diehard feminists also express a very negative attitude towards men. They literally consider them the enemy and behave as if we were at war. This starts by seeing sexism where there is none and reducing all matters to the gender question. But not everything has to do with the gender question, because after all our gender is just one part of our identity. 

Besides why would we, women, want to subdue men? Do these feminists want revenge for the hundreds of years were men have subdued women? Personally I believe that to be just pityful. I consider myself a modern, strong woman and the last thing in life I want is a docile partner, who always says "what ever you want, darling." Because I am a strong woman I want an equal partner, just like the word says. Otherwise it would say servant or minion. 

I believe that these women, who call themselves feminists, are afraid of accepting men as equal partners. If they let go of their "menhate" and without anyone else to blame they might have to look at themselves to find the reasons why things go wrong. In a way they have still one more step to go which is letting go of the fight and take responsibility for their own situation. This is what makes us mature and strong women, equal to any men. 

Equality also means equal duties. It shudders me, whenever I hear of divorces in which the man looses everything even if the woman cheated on him or what not. I believe that it is time to adjust that as well, so that laws protect both parties equally in a divorce. Also the mother shouldn't automatically get the custody of the children, this should be awarded to the better suited parent, regardless the gender. 

Of course there are many parts in the world, where "the fight" is still on and it is important to fight for equality in those. Therefore I support and applaud campaigns like "he for she" and Emma Watson's inspirational speech in front of the United Nations. 

However in the "western world" it is time we realized what we have reached already. Maybe it is time to give up the priviledges such a women's quota we got in the past, because they are now outdated. Only then will we truly have reached gender equality. 

AIDS - the forgotten pandemic

Having been born in 1978 I was a teenager during the nineties which was perhaps the height of the AIDS and HIV panic. It started in the eighties but it wasn't until the nineties that its true meaning hit the world. 

The fact that AIDS still remains a deadly disease has now been forgotten or at least repressed. Since new drugs have been made available, that if therapy is started at an early enough stage, can provide an almost normal life expectency people have started to see HIV more like an inconvinience rather than a deadly virus, while the truth is, it still is.

First of all people tend to forget that you are only fine IF you receive treatment, for that you have to get tested and know about your infection. So think about it: How many of you have been tested after having unprotected sex? How many of you have ever thought: "This one time won't do any harm." The thruth is that one time can be enough. 

Why are we risking having unprotected sex at all? After all there are also many other STDs one can get. Don't get me wrong, of course unprotected sex in a relationship is fine if you have checked everything but in these times people often don't get married until their thirties and no matter how you put it everyone has "casual sex" at one point or at least a handful of partner before finding "the one". There is nothing bad about it as long as people are sensible about it.

The good thing is that in the meantime we have also learnt what interactions with someone who is HIV positive are safe and which can be made safe by using condoms. These days most people know that things like kissing or sharing a bathroom are safe, while sexual contacts without proper protection are highly risky. 

The irony is that people are relaxed enough to actually have casual sex and not think anything about it twice but usually are reluctant to talk about protection because the partner in question might be offended by it. This is because suffering from an STD or HIV is still stigmatized and talking to your partner about protection implies that you consider the option of him or her suffering from it.

What most people don't consider however is that they themselves might suffer from a disease that has not yet been diagnosed. So speaking about protection with your partner is not only for your protection but also for theirs.

If we consider all this, why are we living the way we, as a society, are living? The truth is simple: Because it is comfortable. We don't want  to miss on casual sex or short lived relationships but also are not willing to go through the embarrasment or discussion of speaking about protection with our partner. In reality however we should realise that the freedom being sexually active comes the responsibility of being sensible about it and protecting others as well as ourselves.

HIV is a virus that could fairly easy be extinguished if people would act responsible in their sexual relationships. I am not speaking about only having one partner in life or being puritanic. What I mean is that the openess we apply to sex these days should be also applied to speaking about proper protection.