I was not trolling, I was asking a serious question - should any employer be duty bound to keep on a member of staff purely because they have a medical condition irrespective of their performance? Surely if the staff member isn't working to the required levels, they shouldn't be expected to be able to keep their job just because they have a medical condition.
Perhaps the wording of the original post was a bit, well, strong, but the OP understood it in the spirit in which it was written, I suggest the self-righteous amongst you try doing the same.
And as OMITN has said - I have seen unfair dismissal close up after my wife was dismissed (and subsequently reinstated at appeal) because her boss thought she was unable to do her job because she was pregnant.
And here was I, thinking I was frequenting a grown-up forum where different views were expected and accepted in the spirit of full and frank discussion. And for WackoAK's sake, I had better hope my 3 week old twin daughters grow up with the same medical condition that precluded us from conceiving without the help of (privately-funded) IVF - poor sperm morphology. Sit and have a think on that one Wacko.