That's a very harmful way of looking at the situation.
Someone getting treatment means they can stay alive, and have a decent quality of life.
I'll agree that discrimination law is not enforced enough, but the UK and the US (and probably other nations) have laws preventing discrimination against people with mental health problems during recruitment or employment.
I strongly recommend people with a mental health problem to seek treatment.
> it is irresponsible to counsel people to seek treatment without carefully weighing the upside and downside.
But people may lack capacity to judge the situation properly, especially if they don't seek early treatment and become more ill.
It's irresponsible to counsel people to not seek treatment (thus continuing to suffer MH problems) because of the hypothetical risk of problems in future.
> Someone getting treatment means they can stay alive, and have a decent quality of life.
If they would die otherwise or have a terrible quality of life, then yes, it's worth seeking treatment regardless of any stigma. But many people who seek treatment would not die or suffer serious harm otherwise; mental illness is not some kind of 100% death sentence, and it comes in a range of severities. Whether seeking treatment reduces or increases future risk becomes extremely sensitive to the precise condition, and estimates of the likely benefits and... anti-benefits of treatment. And that depends in part on the country and the legal regime.
The UK and US have some anti-discrimination laws. In addition to those, they have laws actively mandating discrimination against people who have been diagnosed with a mental illness, in a wide range of legal situations. Therefore it is critical that anyone who is considering applying that label to themselves, in such countries, considers the legal ramifications. Perhaps we'd like to live in a world where "seek professional advice, this is always the right decision and won't be held against you" were true, but in the US/UK, at least, it is not. Those countries choose, deliberately, to hold such diagnoses against people who receive them.
In other countries, like the Nordic countries, I would give the opposite advice. If you are a Norwegian citizen, seeking professional advice is nearly always the correct decision, because the care is good (and free), and the downsides minimal and strongly policed.
But Dan, that's the problem. It appears that here at least, there is a problem whereby U.S. law actively discriminates against those who have had a mental illness. If the law discriminates against you, then it might be sometimes better not to get help.
That's the concern. I have depression, and it's made me pause. I live in Australia - who knows what information the Australian government is sharing with the U.S.?
Here the problem is not with her seeking treatment for her mental illness.
The problem is with someone giving her confidential medical records to the US, and with the US having a sub-optimal entry system for people with MH histories.
I fully respect the decisions the people make about their own lives. But I strongly feel that we don't fight stigma by not confronting the organisations that perpetuate that stigma.
> I have depression, and it's made me pause.
I agree it's scary and weird. I agree there's a bunch of stuff around "when to disclose an illness" during employment.
Someone getting treatment means they can stay alive, and have a decent quality of life.
I'll agree that discrimination law is not enforced enough, but the UK and the US (and probably other nations) have laws preventing discrimination against people with mental health problems during recruitment or employment.
I strongly recommend people with a mental health problem to seek treatment.
> it is irresponsible to counsel people to seek treatment without carefully weighing the upside and downside.
But people may lack capacity to judge the situation properly, especially if they don't seek early treatment and become more ill.
It's irresponsible to counsel people to not seek treatment (thus continuing to suffer MH problems) because of the hypothetical risk of problems in future.