GERMANS are renowned – and sometimes heavily satirised –for their excessive efficiency and their capacity for obeying orders. So why was a man with a history of mental illness allowed to fly a passenger jet?

Andreas Lubitz was suspended from the Lufthansa training course in 2008 for exactly that reason. He then underwent a year-and-a-half of psychiatric treatment – which he continued to receive until the day he committed mass murder. He also had eye trouble which eventually would have left him unfit to do his job. We still don’t know the names of all the illnesses that Lubitz was suffering from, but we do know that he concealed his ill-health from his employers, to the extent of throwing away doctors’ sick notes.

We know also that Germany’s Federal Aviation Office declared that Lubitz’s medical condition and his need for regular psychiatric examinations had been noted in his pilot’s file. So why was he allowed within a mile of the cockpit of a passenger plane?

Let me offer a comparison: I think it’s a variation on the “cured psychopath” syndrome. This is the one in which someone who has a history of mental illness – illness which has led him to commit heinous crimes – is given a course of treatment, subsequently subjected to “professional analysis” and pronounced cured. Only to proceed to commit further heinous crimes.

Of course we should be compassionate to those who suffer from mental illness, or from any sort of illness. But while sympathy and compassion are one thing, taking risks with the lives of hundreds of the travelling public is quite another. The problem arises because advanced western societies long ago threw common sense out of the window and replaced it with a politically-correct, touchy-feely, therapeutic culture. According to this, someone who has had mental trouble in the past should not be judged in the light of that fact. It is frequently said that society must not “stigmatise” people.

And again we must emphasise that no one, whatever their condition, should be treated inhumanely. But stigma – in the sense of some clearly identifying and warning sign – is necessary for the safe conduct of public life. There are people who have a history of habitual drunkenness. No one in their right senses would allow such people to fly passenger jets – no, not even if they were to protest that they hadn’t touched a drop for three months. The risks and the costs in terms of human suffering and death are just too great.

In any case, medical authorities tell us that depressive illness cannot be cured. At best it can be somewhat alleviated and partially controlled. But “control” means precisely what it says, and so if a patient stops taking his medication, chucks away his sick notes and – as in Lubitz’s case – disobeys doctor’s orders, then he is out of control.

Some will say that I’m being very harsh and callous. Have I no sympathy for those suffering from mental illness? Of course I have sympathy for them. Do I think that such people should be helped to play their full part in the life of society? Indeed, everything possible should be done to repair and rehabilitate broken lives. Specifically, Lubitz might have been offered a ground job with Germanwings or helped and encouraged into another line of work.

People who have had treatment for mental afflictions should be afforded every opportunity in life and work. They just shouldn’t be allowed to fly airliners.