No. It's not a morality centered around "will this materially benefit me" [only]. It's a morality centered around what is the most pragmatic and practical solution that would benefit everyone involved. In this case, it is very clear what is good for me is also good for the system. As it's much worse for the system to leave than to stay and let someone else do something that I don't want to do. And it really doesn't hurt my colleague that much (if any), especially as they also basically don't participate, which then facilitates faster hiring and actually solves the systemic issue at hand.
You make lots of assumptions that I don't accept. For one thing, you make the assumption that there's some zero-sum that pursuit of self-interest is always in direct conflict with the greater good. In most systems of care, this is not the case. In particular, doctors who don't burn out, even if they work at a sub-optimal capacity, contribute much more than if they left or burn out.
It's very expedient for you to call others sociopaths without direct evidence and without consideration of the full circumstances. Which is fine, to each his own. If I were ever to manage someone like this, I'd certainly make sure that person's authority is circumscribed, as people like this are easy to spot and tend to create conflict because the tendency of everyone else as potentially morally inferior and sociopathic.
Yeh, one might wonder why it is that trainees are especially afraid of declaring illness, especially unreliable illnesses like mental illness. Because supposedly it would carry a "reputation" if you in fact become unreliable. Your rigid rules have very clear collateral damage, for which you decide to turn a blind eye. Thankfully, not everywhere is like where you live, and in many communities, your actual clinical skill and CV are clearly more important than amorphous backdoor "reputation", which oftentimes is unreliable and carries personal biases (if not overt malignant intent).
We return once again to a really critical point. You weren't talking about someone with a mental illness. You are talking about just fabricating a medical excuse for your own purposes. Don't you think that plays some role in the negative reactions of others to any future claims of mental health related disability. This is really fundamental to our disagreement. I know you keep saying "other people can't reliably tell the difference", which, sure, that's true.
But acts that are wrong are wrong regardless of whether or not they are detected by others. Even a Peter Singer-level consequentialist should be able to agree with that.
I appreciate you laying out your logic for why you feel this is beneficial for the system as a whole and why that is the grounds on which you base your assertions. Previously several of your arguments for why you were correct were that you personally were financially and professionally successful and that anyone saying otherwise was bitter that they were not ("I'm winning and you're mad about it") or because the strategy was very effective for the individual in practice. So you can perhaps understand why this sounded a lot like "this is okay because I got mine." The former is a principle argument, the later is still sociopathic or at the least very selfish.
For the record I don't think you're a sociopath, you wouldn't be engaging to this extent in this conversation if you were in all likelihood. It's the previous lines of reasoning that were troublingly close to completely lacking in any consideration for the values beyond increasing one's personal status and wealth.
I don't make any assumptions about zero-sum situations. I am generally all for making sure incentives for individual actors align with desired outcomes because I recognize self-interest tends to be a powerful motivator and needn't necessarily come in conflict with right action. As a virtue ethicist I do think that doing the right thing for the right reasons is ideal on a number of grounds, not the least of which is that doing it because you have cultivated a good character is a more reliable and consistent source for generating good behaviors than the calculus of "is this going to enrich me right now?" But acting rightly because you will get rewarded for it by the system is a start and good practice for actual virtue.
Similarly, calling out from time to time a la mental health days is not very troubling from my perspective. That strikes me as absolutely consistent with what you are talking about (correct me if I'm wrong) about having give or flexibility in the system to allow physicians with other demands or challenges to continue to function within it. In fact, I would say that embodies practical wisdom and is consistent with virtues like humaneness or compassion.
I know you say it's just a detail, but what everyone has been objecting to is a very different scenario that you outlined. Namely, you said that if someone received a work assignment they don't like, just keep calling out sick until you are reassigned instead or raising any objection or finding a new job. I am sure you have no truck with virtues like solidarity with peers that are obviously in conflict with this. You probably also don't believe in cowardice or mendacity as vices.
However, you say you are worried about stigma against mental health and invisible disabilities. A lot of that comes from the fact that it is often almost impossible for someone on the outside to be sure someone's report of their experience is veridicial or not. This leads to the usually unfounded suspicion of "faking" and a lot of grief for people are genuinely suffering. We agree this is bad and harmful to everyone involved, most especially the disabled person themselves. If we could snap our fingers and dispel that stigma tomorrow, I am sure even you and I could agree to snap away in unison.
Do you see how encouraging people to actively and deliberately fake an illness for instrumental reasons tends to increase rather than decrease stigma?
This is the opposite of not disclosing drug or mental health issues to parents or an employer. This is not concealing a weakness for perhaps justified fear of retribution or punishment. That's often simply wise. This is actively pretending to have a disability you do not have in order to secure preferential treatment (i.e. you are exempted from shifts your colleagues now have to work). Simulating weakness to get your way, for all it can obviously be effective in many situations, is the kind of thing we teach people not to do in DBT.
Maybe I can clarify the intuition. Say my local grocery store has some handicapped spaces that are never used. I notice this over the course of months and one day when it is snowing or raining heavily and miserably cold I decide I don't want to schlep across the parking lot. So I whip out my blue marker and gin up a handicapped parking tag on the spot and take one of those unused handicapped spaces.
Assuming arguendo that no one with a substantial impairment to mobility visits the grocery store that day, so we are not directly inconveniencing anyone, is your contention that there is nothing wrong with this?