You keep on implying that as a software developer you know better than the people asking you to do work. That even though you are not doing what was asked, you are doing something more important. That may be true, but I'm having a really hard time seeing the difference between the two types of people you are portraying (both seem very self-serving, regardless of motive), and neither of them seem like people I want to work with or have running large organizations.

If somebody had to spend a few extra weeks off work each year to get chemotherapy you'd be a complete bastard to say they were unethical and broke a commitment.

That doesn't change just because it is a mental health issue instead of a physical one. If you can accommodate it then you have the ethical obligation to do so.

Disagree that it's a problem. Micromanagement is the problem. Side effects of high creativity (whether a person is or is not suffering from a mood disorder) aren't problems. If we desire progress for this world, then society should adapt to its best people, not the reverse.

More to the point: if you don't trust people to work on what they consider important, then don't hire them. The idea that every iota of work has to be approved by some silly priesthood is counterproductive and idiotic.

In large organizations there tend to be a lot of pretty arbitrary deadlines and unfortunately overall good work does not seem to offset missing a few arbitrary deadlines. So upper management hammers middle management who in turn hammers the team lead who then either bottles it up or pushes it down onto the plebes below.

In startups being different (ehm sorry not a good "cultural fit") is enough to get you fired so good luck if you expect understanding and support.

I think the best option is to work in a large organization under a respected, strong, and results driven team lead doing important work.

I tend to agree that some bosses are micro managing idiots. But I had a boss who told me what side of the desk my phone had to be on - even though I'm left handed.

I think we're now arguing about the ethical obligation of an employee, which is an open question. Is it (from the most restrictive to the least):

    (1) to subordinate wholly to one's immediate manager?
    (2) to act in the corporation's best interest?
    (3) not to act *against* the corporation's interests?
    (4) not to use one's employment with the corporation to act against its interests?
    (5) not to break laws or compete illicitly with the company?

People I'm describing are at 2-2.5 on that subordinacy spectrum. They're pursuing the joint interest of themselves and the company in a way that attracts middle management opposition. They don't deserve the punishment they'll typically get (termination, possibly worse) for that.

For the amount of words you regularly commit to speculating about mental issues on this site, ever think about just getting out of your own head once in awhile? You know, day-by-day just practicing to stop caring so much about every small emotional upswing & downswing? Ya know, just letting them be what they are.

The way you write about your emotions makes me think you take the sound of hoofbeats and start freaking out about zebras, not rationally concluding horses. Practice getting off the rollercoaster, a "3 hour depression attack" is you magnifying some tiny event into a giant mental battle. And yes, I've experienced panic attacks and depression before, so I explicitly know of the tendency to both fear them and how your mood colors every conclusion you're making about life. You draw up these massive narratives about emotional events that honestly don't need any explanation. They are what they are, the sooner you stop trying to analyze / write a book about them and focus on something else, the sooner they pass.

Maybe you need to stop fighting yourself so hard and just let go, ever think about that? Before you start defensively banging out a giant response too, let my words soak in a little. From an outside perspective, all you ever talk about on this subject is purely conjecture and stems from your own personal projections about the root of mental health issues, there is rarely any objective factual basis for your posts.

This reminds me of my friend's advice to me last fall. I'd sufferred an injury to my back which caused me to have a herniated disk. This in turn put pressure on my sciatic nerve. My friend told me to just walk normally. If I could have, I wouldn't have been limping and cringing with every step.

For people who have long term pain (and who have had the scary dangerous stuff ruled out by a proper doctor) the old advice was "lie flat on your back and don't exercise". This is the worst thing those people can do. Modern advice is "carefully take paracetamol and keep moving as normally as possible; and when you're back to normal get some exercise to strengthen those back muscles".

Again, nothing to do with your pain.

When it comes to changing one's own mental outlook/attitudes/moods, if someone doesn't have faith that reaching out to take those painful steps of courage will, in time, "fix their back", then it most certainly won't be fixed.