PoliticsNerd
No-one is suggesting that one would not sympathise with real mental illness. (Labradora)
No, just that you are not, as MissAdventure's post points out, qualified to decided what "real" is.
So who carries the can? If someone takes a job but is unable to carry it out, should the employer continue to pay for work they are not getting? If you make a hair appointment, say, and the hairdresser is off because of stress-related anxiety, do you still fork out for the haircut you don't get? If not, why not? what's the difference? Do you pay the window cleaner when he can't come because of depression, and also pay the replacement one to clean the same set of windows? Or do you expect the replacement to step in free, as well as doing his own rounds?
My guess is that you would expect to pay only for the windows that were cleaned, and would find a different hairdresser who could be relied on to cut your hair with only occasional days off. Maybe the salon owner would find cover, but you would only be expected to pay once per appointment. If this is the case, do your feelings about people regularly taking time off on full pay only apply to those in professional roles? Why is this?
I may not be qualified to decide whether my colleague was 'genuinely' ill, but as you don't know her or the details, neither are you. It doesn't matter, really. I was paid to do my job, just as she was paid to do hers. Why should I pick up both workloads when she continued to get paid, whether she was off with a broken leg or a mental illness? I'm not a charity. Maybe I wouldn't mind so much in the case of the broken leg, as I would know it was a finite thing, and unlikely to recur every couple of years. I did, however, know that the MH sick periods would happen as soon as the qualifying period to get full salary came round again, and it never failed.
People with poor MH should be treated sympathetically, and and shouldn't be stigmatised. But why should they continue for years in paid roles that they are routinely failing to fulfil?
Most professional jobs require qualifications that are awarded on a competitive basis to those who can prove their capability. The people holding them have accepted that not everyone can do the job, and that their own qualifications are only valuable because others have been screened out. That is why the salaries are often higher than for roles that more people can fulfil. It seems unreasonable to expect that the screening out of unsuitable candidates that got them the job shouldn't apply when it becomes clear that they can't continue with it. Which brings us back to a driver losing his sight, or a dancer losing a leg.