Sure. And some things that do make you legitimately disabled won’t automatically stop you from flying, certainly as a private pilot but also with room for commercial pilot activities if you disclose them. I am and always have been colorblind, which is technically disqualifying for a bunch of stuff, but once that was ascertained I had the opportunity establish it wasn’t a problem and get those restrictions removed. Thank goodness that wasn’t an expensive test. Actually, I’ve heard these days that they no longer make people with deuteranomalous trichromacy like myself take light gun tests anymore because we were passing them so consistently, which if true is a sign of enlightenment on someone’s part.
So I wonder if some of those disabling conditions are situations where if you disclosed the problem it would be something surmountable, but the sin here was not disclosing them. You might have someone who had an impaired function of their hand due to war-wounds but the impairment wouldn’t necessarily be a problem as far as manipulating the controls, as an example. Or someone with reduced vision in one eye but who was able to compensate for it so, again, it would not be a problem in the real world.
Of course, just because the FAA is OK with something does not mean the airlines are - many of them impose more stringent requirements than the FAA. In which it’s not just the problem of disclosing a problem to the FAA (which may only be bump in the road rather than the end of the road) but now it’s on your record and future employers will hold it against you.
Here’s an actual, real life example of this sort of thing: United Airlines has not and likely never will employ a former space shuttle pilot. Other airlines have hired these guys, and universally say they are fantastic pilots. Why won’t UA hire them? Because UA demands that pilots have uncorrected 20/20 vision at the time of hiring with absolutely no need of any sort of corrective lens. Well, former shuttle pilots are pretty much into “needs bifocals” territory just based on their ages (mid-40’s and up), and spending time in space can, for reasons we don’t fully understand yet, have a detrimental effect on your vision. No one has gone blind, but spending time in space does increase the odds of you needing “corrective lenses”. So UA won’t even consider hiring any of those excellent pilots - despite all the airlines screaming about pilot shortages. Here’s the stupid thing - a pilot hired with perfect vision at 30 by UA who, in his 40’s, needs reading glasses will often be retained by UA. So they do, in fact, allow pilots who need “corrective lenses” in at least some circumstances, but refuse to hire any unless they have absolutely perfect vision despite that not actually being a factor for safe operation of airliners.
As I mentioned, there’s much talk of a pilot shortage. I don’t think the medical requirements are the sole factor, here, but it seems to me that we really should review the current system and revamp it, and also try to knock some sense into airline hiring people. This isn’t 1947 with a crapload of young guys feeding into the airlines after a major war where they all got training, the typical US pilot these days has always been a civilian, and they tend to be older when they finally get to the airlines than in the past. Regulations that were set down 50, 60, or 70 years ago are due to be reviewed thoroughly.
We also need, as mentioned up thread, some mechanism where people can discuss/reveal medical (including mental health) issues without having their tickets summarily yanked and their careers ended before a review of some sort. You’re not going to get honesty if the result of being honest is personal ruin.