The Cebu Pacific Discrimination Incident

It was all over the news. On their December 23 flight to Hong Kong, two children with special learning needs were discriminated against by an airline, citing aviation safety policies. Accompanied by their mothers, the airline staff tried to make them disembark from the plane because there was a rule against having "more than 1 mentally-ill patient" in the flight. The airline staff apparently put two and two together and concluded that having both children on board would be a problem, hence the action they made against them. Of course, the airline drew flak from all quarters. There's even a move to take away the airline's franchise because under Philippine law, what they did was illegal.

I won't argue against the discrimination tag. The children were already on board and the process by which the airline staff facilitated the disembarkation was humiliating. This does not even include the emotional distress that was caused to the mothers, who for all intents and purposes where just anticipating a normal flight. What I'm interested in, actually, is how the airline phrased its safety policies.

"Mentally-Ill" vs Mental Disorder
I don't have the actual documents in my possession, but I'm just a bit confused about the actual aviation safety policy that the airline cited. For example, if it was really written that the airline should only allow up to one "mentally-ill" patient on board , then it has to go at length to define the characteristics of what mentally-ill was. Popular notions of the term connote derangement and psychosis, but the confusion arises with how it could be interchanged with the formal sense of the term, that is, mental disorder.

Why is this difference important? For one, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR), Mental Retardation (in which Down's Syndrome falls under) and Pervasive Developmental Disorders are classified under childhood mental disorders. If the definition is as vague as it was cited by the news, then there's a reason for the confusion. Simply said, by virtue of using the term "mentally-ill" it encompasses mental disorders, hence, childhood disorders.

Discrimination really happened
This doesn't create a way out of the situation though. It is specifically cited under the Magna Carta of Disabled Persons (RA 7277, under Philippine law) that:

It shall be considered discrimination for the franchisees or operators and personnel of sea, land, and air transportation facilities to charge higher fare or to refuse to convey a passenger, his orthopedic devices, personal effects, and merchandise by reason of his disability.

With both Down's Syndrome and Global Developmental Delay defined under the Magna Carta, then by Philippine law, the airline really did discriminate against the children because of their conditions.

What needs to be done
I'm now recommending that, aside from retraining their front liners, the airline should re-word their policy about "mental-illness" to something more specific. If they are really serious about this policy, then they have to learn more about what mental disorders could prove a problem for a flight.I suggest that they list down the specific mental disorders (not including childhood disorders) that cannot be allowed to board once there is already a passenger with a similar condition. Their staff should also be trained to observe people more, and not just to rely on physical appearance to distinguish one condition from another. If Cebu Pacific did just a fraction of these recommendations then it will save them a lot of hurt and disgrace in the future.

For everyone else, I suggest that we learn more about special education and about individuals with special needs. The passengers who were in the same flight as the children can't just be absolved by virtue of their ignorance - even a little empathy should have gone a long way.