Cystic Fibrosis And the Army

CajunPenguin

I'm not yet old enough to join the army but I want to and I have cystic fibrosis. Am I eligible?

goldie fish

NO.
http://www.military.ie/careers/fitness-testing-centre

CajunPenguin

goldie fish wrote: »

NO.
http://www.military.ie/careers/fitness-testing-centre

Yeah, what about it? I can do that? I'm not a really sickly CF person,I play football, I go to the gym etc. etc.

kieranfitz

CajunPenguin wrote: »

Yeah, what about it? I can do that? I'm not a really sickly CF person,I play football, I go to the gym etc. etc.

Doesn't matter dude that's going to be way up there on the no-no list, sorry.

long range shooter

goldie fish wrote: »

NO.
http://www.military.ie/careers/fitness-testing-centre

Jesus my grandmother can do those test in her sleep

Donny5

CajunPenguin wrote: »

I'm not yet old enough to join the army but I want to and I have cystic fibrosis. Am I eligible?

Cajun, you should call your local manpower office and ask them. All I'll say is that you shouldn't get your hopes up.

SerialComplaint

You have a legal entitlement not be discriminated against as a result of any disability, such as CF. I had a quick look at the Employment Equality Acts, and I don't see any exclusion from the Acts for the Defence Forces. Call the Equality Authority if you need to confirm this.

This would mean that the same fitness or medical tests that apply to other candidates apply to you.

Yitzhak Rabin

SerialComplaint wrote: »

You have a legal entitlement not be discriminated against as a result of any disability, such as CF. I had a quick look at the Employment Equality Acts, and I don't see any exclusion from the Acts for the Defence Forces. Call the Equality Authority if you need to confirm this.

This would mean that the same fitness or medical tests that apply to other candidates apply to you.

The DF has exemptions to discriminate based both on age and disability.

Very sorry OP, but as a sufferer of CF you are ineligible for service in the DF.

Donny5

SerialComplaint wrote: »

You have a legal entitlement not be discriminated against as a result of any disability, such as CF. I had a quick look at the Employment Equality Acts, and I don't see any exclusion from the Acts for the Defence Forces. Call the Equality Authority if you need to confirm this.

This would mean that the same fitness or medical tests that apply to other candidates apply to you.

You are absolutely wrong on this. The Employment Equality Acts do apply to the DF, but only disallow discrimination on seven grounds: gender; marital status; family status; sexual orientation; race; religion;membership of the Traveller community. The DF can and does discriminate on the grounds of age and disability, and it must if it is to remain a military organisation and not a social club in green.

The relevant legislation is Section 37, Paragraph 5 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, as amended by the Equality Act, 2004:

(5) In relation to discrimination on the age ground or disability ground, nothing in this Part or Part II applies in relation to employment in the Defence Forces.

You shouldn't get the guy or girl's hopes up with your half baked ideas.

PoleStar

I think the point should also be made that Cystic Fibrosis is a long term illness as opposed to a disability. So would it really be discrimination per se anyway?

I doubt it would pass the medical assessment.

Donny5

PoleStar wrote: »

I think the point should also be made that Cystic Fibrosis is a long term illness as opposed to a disability. So would it really be discrimination per se anyway?

I doubt it would pass the medical assessment.

Nope, this is the definition of "disability" from the Employment Equality Act:

“disability” means—


(a) the total or partial absence of a person's bodily or mental functions, including the absence of a part of a person's body,


(b) the presence in the body of organisms causing, or likely to cause, chronic disease or illness,


(c) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of a person's body,


(d) a condition or malfunction which results in a person learning differently from a person without the condition or malfunction, or


(e) a condition, illness or disease which affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgement or which results in disturbed behaviour,


and shall be taken to include a disability which exists at present, or which previously existed but no longer exists, or which may exist in the future or which is imputed to a person;

Cystic Fibrosis falls under (b).

SerialComplaint

Donny5 wrote: »

You are absolutely wrong on this. The Employment Equality Acts do apply to the DF, but only disallow discrimination on seven grounds: gender; marital status; family status; sexual orientation; race; religion;membership of the Traveller community.

The relevant legislation is Section 37, Paragraph 5 of the Employment Equality Act, 1998, as amended by the Equality Act, 2004:

Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.

Donny5 wrote: »

You shouldn't get the guy or girl's hopes up with your half baked ideas.

That's why I told him or her to check with the Equality Authority.

PoleStar wrote: »

I think the point should also be made that Cystic Fibrosis is a long term illness as opposed to a disability. So would it really be discrimination per se anyway?

It would be covered by the definition of disability in the Employment Equality Acts, though it's a moot point given the general exclusion for the Defence forces.

PoleStar wrote: »

I doubt it would pass the medical assessment.

Donny5 wrote: »

The DF can and does discriminate on the grounds of age and disability, and it must if it is to remain a military organisation and not a social club in green.

This is why we need anti-discrimination legislation to cover the Defence Forces and other organisations - because people make judgements based on labels, not on individual abilities or disabilities. There is no reason for the Defence Forces to discriminate based on age or disability. There are very good reasons for the Defence Forces to discriminate based on ability - functional tests of abilities that apply to everyone.

goldie fish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

This is why we need anti-discrimination legislation to cover the Defence Forces and other organisations - because people make judgements based on labels, not on individual abilities or disabilities. There is no reason for the Defence Forces to discriminate based on age or disability. There are very good reasons for the Defence Forces to discriminate based on ability - functional tests of abilities that apply to everyone.

What a load of bollox. You are saying you'd happily leave a 5 year old, with no arms or legs join the army and carry a machine gun?

Praetorian Saighdiuir

SerialComplaint.....

Don't bother fighting this one. Under NO circumstances will the Director of the Medical Corps in the DF allow someone with a disability/long term illness to join up.

There is a looooong ass list of things that will preclude a person from joining the DF and im pretty sure CF is on it (I may stand corrected).

There is no point digging out equality acts or anything else to "technically" get around this. It would be wrong of anyone here to get the OP's hopes up.

Sorry OP, people have been turned away because of something simple as being a coeliac.

Donny5

Even if CF isn't on the list, militaries are very good at catch-alls, and all the recruitment and cadetship requirements include the following:

Candidates must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect, abnormality, physiological condition or past history of serious illness likely to interfere with the efficient performance of his/her duties.

SerialComplaint

goldie fish wrote: »

What a load of bollox. You are saying you'd happily leave a 5 year old, with no arms or legs join the army and carry a machine gun?

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I'll highlight the most relevant bit for you.

"functional tests of abilities"

CajunPenguin

Well, ****.

goldie fish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Perhaps you didn't read my post. I'll highlight the most relevant bit for you.

"functional tests of abilities"

Right if you want to play it that way
Age discrimination: Under international law, you cannot use child soldiers
Discrimination based on illness or disability: Illnesses and disabilities, as part of their symptoms already restrict certain abilities. That is why they are called DISabilities.

SerialComplaint

goldie fish wrote: »

Right if you want to play it that way
Age discrimination: Under international law, you cannot use child soldiers
Discrimination based on illness or disability: Illnesses and disabilities, as part of their symptoms already restrict certain abilities. That is why they are called DISabilities.

I'm not playing at all, and I'm certainly not proposing child soldiers.

I'm simply pointing out that blanket bans based on labels are pointless and obnoxious. If a person is unable to do a job, they should not be eligible. If they are able to do a job, they are eligible. Almost every disability spans a broad spectrum of severity. Many people at the milder end of the spectrum will be very capable of most jobs, including the Defence Forces. People at the other end of the spectrum will not be capable of most jobs.

People are individuals - they have individual abilities and disabilities. Recruitment should be based on their abilities, not their disabilities.

goldie fish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I'm not playing at all, and I'm certainly not proposing child soldiers.

I'm simply pointing out that blanket bans based on labels are pointless and obnoxious. If a person is unable to do a job, they should not be eligible. If they are able to do a job, they are eligible. Almost every disability spans a broad spectrum of severity. Many people at the milder end of the spectrum will be very capable of most jobs, including the Defence Forces. People at the other end of the spectrum will not be capable of most jobs.

People are individuals - they have individual abilities and disabilities. Recruitment should be based on their abilities, not their disabilities.

So you don't have a clue what a job in the defence forces involves then?

KickstartHeart

long range shooter wrote: »

Jesus my grandmother can do those test in her sleep

That's because they are entrance level tests. Entrance level tests in most armies are a piece of p**s just to make sure that your'e not a lazy slob. Your fitness is built up then from training.

When you are in the Defence Forces your'e subject to a much harder yearly fitness test which you must pass. The details of the fitness test you have to do when serving are on military.ie also. Its a graded test. It involves a 10 kilometre route march with kit, press ups, sit ups, and a 2 mile run.

SerialComplaint

goldie fish wrote: »

So you don't have a clue what a job in the defence forces involves then?

Perhaps instead of making this a battle between you and me, we could concentrate on the issue in hand. Would you like to expand on what specifically is it about a job in the Defence Forces that is impossible to define in terms of functional abilities?

goldie fish

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Perhaps instead of making this a battle between you and me, we could concentrate on the issue in hand. Would you like to expand on what specifically is it about a job in the Defence Forces that is impossible to define in terms of functional abilities?

I couldn't be arsed, because I'm not a doctor, and it is the job of a doctor to make the final decision.
The requirements are there so as not to give people false hopes. Save them the trouble and expense of going through a recruitment process only to be told at the final hurdle that they are medically unsuitable.

SerialComplaint

goldie fish wrote: »

I couldn't be arsed, because I'm not a doctor, and it is the job of a doctor to make the final decision.
The requirements are there so as not to give people false hopes. Save them the trouble and expense of going through a recruitment process only to be told at the final hurdle that they are medically unsuitable.

Indeed, no-one wants to give anyone false hopes. If there are functional requirements around what the applicant must be able to do, then that is clear for everybody.

There is no need for any exclusion in the anti-discrimination laws for the Defence Forces if the functional requirements are clear.

Bagenal

I would imagine most people that have a reasonable intellectual ability would have at least some notion of a job in the Defence Forces involves, even if they only garnered that notion from watching some film or other that had even the mildest portrayal of a military nature. Soldiers carry and fire weapons, hump loads over great distances etc. etc. etc.
There's no need to say that there's jobs such as drivers, cooks, radio operators that could be done by someone that hasn't fully functional abilities because first and foremost these people are soldiers and can/will be called upon to carry out the job of a soldier.
While some people might argue about the discrimination allowed under various acts/laws to the Defence Forces I am pretty sure if these discriminations were not there and a person with a disability was allowed in and subsequently was injured or killed while serving then those same people would be arguing about having people with disabilities in the Defence Forces. In fact I would argue that a person should be a minimum of 21 years of age to be allowed join. People need to look at the realities of a soldiers job not just the nice glorified bits of doing parades in the dress uniforms and such like.

johnryano

CajunPenguin wrote: »

I'm not yet old enough to join the army but I want to and I have cystic fibrosis. Am I eligible?

listen kid don't be too down about it. the army is a **** job, regardless of how any of these walter mitty's talk it up.

plenty of other things you could find a good career in.

fair play keeping your fitness levels up and staying healthy. maybe you could do a college course in fitness training.

Bagenal

johnryano wrote: »

listen kid don't be too down about it. the army is a **** job, regardless of how any of these walter mitty's talk it up.

plenty of other things you could find a good career in.

fair play keeping your fitness levels up and staying healthy. maybe you could do a college course in fitness training.

Explain why it is "a **** job" ? It can be a very satisfying and rewarding career. I know of people who have joined up with just a basic education and who now are well educated and have good life experiences from being in defence forces worldwide.
Who are the "walter mitty's" ? I imagine at least 1 poster on this thread has at least some military knowledge/experience from seeing the same username on another site.

Donny5

KickstartHeart wrote: »

That's because they are entrance level tests.

No, that's the annual fitness test, 10km march and all. It really is not all that difficult.

johnryano wrote: »

listen kid don't be too down about it. the army is a **** job, regardless of how any of these walter mitty's talk it up.

Lol.

johnryano wrote: »

plenty of other things you could find a good career in.

fair play keeping your fitness levels up and staying healthy. maybe you could do a college course in fitness training.

Despite his earlier silliness, he's right about this. There is a whole world of opportunities out there for you that don't involve uniforms, and most of them pay better than soldiering.

CajunPenguin

johnryano wrote: »

listen kid don't be too down about it. the army is a **** job, regardless of how any of these walter mitty's talk it up.

plenty of other things you could find a good career in.

fair play keeping your fitness levels up and staying healthy. maybe you could do a college course in fitness training.

hey, there's an idea! thanks, but I've wanted to join the army since I was about two and no horror stories or bad pay could change my mind. I think that's saying something, regardless of what you think of the job

OS119

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I'm simply pointing out that blanket bans based on labels are pointless and obnoxious. If a person is unable to do a job, they should not be eligible. If they are able to do a job, they are eligible. Almost every disability spans a broad spectrum of severity. Many people at the milder end of the spectrum will be very capable of most jobs, including the Defence Forces. People at the other end of the spectrum will not be capable of most jobs.

People are individuals - they have individual abilities and disabilities. Recruitment should be based on their abilities, not their disabilities.

while i have some sympathy with your view, you have to remember that by and large Armies recruit people with the hope that they will stay for perhaps 20 years - and the cost of the training is a bloody good reason for that. Armies want to recruit someone who they can have reasonable confidence (injuries aside) will be still be able to do the job in 20 years time - recruiting someone who at the age of 20 already has health 'baggage', and hoping that after 20 years of pretty arduous service they'll still be in decent nick is likely to be a pretty bad bet.

its harsh, and for some its not fair - this lad may well be able to do 20 years in the infantry and be as fit at 40 as he is at 20, but he may not, so why take the risk when the next guy in the que is as fit, as enthusiastic, and as well qualified?

CajunPenguin

OS119 wrote: »

while i have some sympathy with your view, you have to remember that by and large Armies recruit people with the hope that they will stay for perhaps 20 years - and the cost of the training is a bloody good reason for that. Armies want to recruit someone who they can have reasonable confidence (injuries aside) will be still be able to do the job in 20 years time - recruiting someone who at the age of 20 already has health 'baggage', and hoping that after 20 years of pretty arduous service they'll still be in decent nick is likely to be a pretty bad bet.

its harsh, and for some its not fair - this lad may well be able to do 20 years in the infantry and be as fit at 40 as he is at 20, but he may not, so why take the risk when the next guy in the que is as fit, as enthusiastic, and as well qualified?

beause not many people are joining up and I'm more detemined and enthusiastic than any person "in the que"

OS119

CajunPenguin wrote: »

beause not many people are joining up and I'm more detemined and enthusiastic than any person "in the que"

sadly you are incorrect - there are lots of people looking to join up, its just that the PDF isn't doing any large scale recruiting at the moment - and whether they are fitter, more determined and more enthusiasic than you is something you don't, and can't, know.

i'm not slagging you down, its quite possible that your physical condition, and the mental strength you have to show to ensure that physical condition make you a superb candidate - but the Army can't look into the future and neither can you, and the harsh, nasty truth is that there is almost certainly someone else also looking to join who doesn't have your 'red flag', but who has the same physical and mental potential as you.

by all means try, and know that whatever progress you make past the initial 'no' is a credit to yourself and makes things a little easier for the next guy in your position - but don't get your hopes up, and don't think that just because you may well be the right guy for the job, the Army will see it that way.

SerialComplaint

OS119 wrote: »

while i have some sympathy with your view, you have to remember that by and large Armies recruit people with the hope that they will stay for perhaps 20 years - and the cost of the training is a bloody good reason for that. Armies want to recruit someone who they can have reasonable confidence (injuries aside) will be still be able to do the job in 20 years time - recruiting someone who at the age of 20 already has health 'baggage', and hoping that after 20 years of pretty arduous service they'll still be in decent nick is likely to be a pretty bad bet.

its harsh, and for some its not fair - this lad may well be able to do 20 years in the infantry and be as fit at 40 as he is at 20, but he may not, so why take the risk when the next guy in the que is as fit, as enthusiastic, and as well qualified?

I've no issue with any sensible recruitment that considers the long term abilities of any potential recruit. What I have a problem with is silly rules that assume that any disability rules somebody out, regardless of an individual assessment of the person's ability.

For example, many people would assume that a person who has had one leg amputated could not be part of a police SWAT team. But if you base the decision on the person's individual ability, you may find that the person with the amputated leg is just as capable as other members of the SWAT team;
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/09/officer-prosthetic-leg-bounces-back-rejoins-swat-unit

CajunPenguin

That reminds me, what about the Guards? Will they let me in?

goldie fish

CajunPenguin wrote: »

That reminds me, what about the Guards? Will they let me in?

A chest X ray is part of the garda medical. What would yours reveal?

(Rhetorical question, I don't need to know the answer). The Initial Garda fitness requirements are almost as challenging as that of the Defence Forces.

CajunPenguin

goldie fish wrote: »

A chest X ray is part of the garda medical. What would yours reveal?

(Rhetorical question, I don't need to know the answer). The Initial Garda fitness requirements are almost as challenging as that of the Defence Forces.

ok, look. The fitness tests are NOT a problem. I will do a triathlon if necessary. It's the actual rules

Donny5

CajunPenguin wrote: »

That reminds me, what about the Guards? Will they let me in?

From their recruitment literature:

Such candidates must be of good mental and bodily health and free from any defect or abnormality likely to interfere with the efficient performance of their duties.

Never say never, but extremely unlikely. Again, you should call your local Manpower Office and the Garda College to get the final word straight from the horse's mouth.

krissovo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

For example, many people would assume that a person who has had one leg amputated could not be part of a police SWAT team. But if you base the decision on the person's individual ability, you may find that the person with the amputated leg is just as capable as other members of the SWAT team;
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/02/09/officer-prosthetic-leg-bounces-back-rejoins-swat-unit

He is "rejoining" his old swat unit, not the same as joining swat with a amputated leg. There is a major difference having medical conditions after you have served a period of time in the forces where there is a chance you will placed in a role suitable for your condition. Normally lads who served 9 years or more would be found a new role, between 6 and 9 years was a lottery if you were discharged or stayed in and under 6 was mostly discharged. Some exceptions were lads who had accidents while on active duty.

Some examples I have come across when I served was a MS sufferer who became a clerk, multiple amputees I knew had various roles in the stores or again clerks. A good friend who lost an eye became a mechanic. Some of the lads with injuries did rejoin full active service.

Finally myself, I sustained injuries that forced me out of active service and for a while I was a mess manager until I decided to leave.

wildfowler94

Simple answer is no. Im not doubting your ability but rules say no.
when I went for a medical a guy with some form of diabetes was there and he pleaded his case.... a captain said its simple what if you were overseas and a mission went belly up and you couldn't get medication? im not comparing the two illnesses just saying.

SerialComplaint

krissovo wrote: »

He is "rejoining" his old swat unit, not the same as joining swat with a amputated leg. There is a major difference having medical conditions after you have served a period of time in the forces where there is a chance you will placed in a role suitable for your condition. Normally lads who served 9 years or more would be found a new role, between 6 and 9 years was a lottery if you were discharged or stayed in and under 6 was mostly discharged. Some exceptions were lads who had accidents while on active duty.

He's not 'being places in a role suitable for his condition'. He's back doing the same job as before, having passed the same tests as before - the same tests as every other member of the unit. So the next time the unit gets an application from amputee, instead of rushing to judgement based on a label, they just might make their judgement based on the ability of the applicant.

KickstartHeart

Donny5 wrote: »

No, that's the annual fitness test, 10km march and all. It really is not all that difficult.

Sorry I saw someone put a similar link up here and I thought it was the one that showed the entrance level one. Yeah its not too hard if your'e into keeping fit.

First Aid Ireland

CajunPenguin wrote: »

I'm not yet old enough to join the army but I want to and I have cystic fibrosis. Am I eligible?

Why don't you talk to your local recruitment office? The simple replies of "No" may be a little simplistic, as well as being a little insensitive, though i don't know what you'll be qualified to do. There are lots of ways to serve your country, though, and people with CF shouldn't be precluded from them all. The world revolves slowly when it comes to adapting, and you may just have to put up with it for now, regardless of how fit you are.

It's great that you're so keen to serve in the armed forces, and I hope that you manage to find a career that's fulfilling for you. it's a huge world out there and there are lots of great careers. I'm sure you'll find something, even if it's outside the armed forces.

CIGANO

CajunPenguin wrote: »

beause not many people are joining up and I'm more detemined and enthusiastic than any person "in the que"

Sorry to inform you but 6000+ people applied in 2010 for all branches of the Defence Forces both officer and enlisted and they only took in 400-500 people. I dont think it is looking good for you the Defence Forces wouldn't even take someone in with a history of asthma never mind cf.

xflyer

Well there's a good example on the thread about the Irishman who received the Military Cross for heroism while serving with the Paras in Afghanistan.

He was turned down by the Irish army because he had childhood asthma!

Puts some perspective on it.

source

xflyer wrote: »

Well there's a good example on the thread about the Irishman who received the Military Cross for heroism while serving with the Paras in Afghanistan.

He was turned down by the Irish army because he had childhood asthma!

Puts some perspective on it.

When you have a small force with few vacancies and multiple applicants for each vacancy, then you can afford to be picky.

UK military is massive so they have more spaces to fill every year, and whatever about childhood asthma, I don't think there's a military force in the world that would recruit a person with CF.

Bagenal

http://www.military.ie/careers

Delancey

xflyer wrote: »

Well there's a good example on the thread about the Irishman who received the Military Cross for heroism while serving with the Paras in Afghanistan.

He was turned down by the Irish army because he had childhood asthma!

Puts some perspective on it.

The bit in bold is the key point - asthma in children is relatively common and many ' grow ' out of it.
Unfortunately for the OP anyone trying to join the Army or Gardai with Cystic Fibrosis has 2 chances - slim and none.