Another media slam...

logic and emotion are not incompatible. The emotional reasons are logical and valid.

It is easy to tell someone to lighten up if you are not hurt yourself. How about a bit of empathy and compassion here?

eta: sensitivity is not a negative trait. its a positive trait and shows fellow feeling and awareness of how ones words and action affect others. I am proud of being sensitive.

just in case anyone was wondering

With regard to my logic vs emotion argument, I meant this. Logically, it makes sense to deliver the message that over eating causes diabetes because most people will only devote a small amount of time to a subject they don't have a connection with. The important info needs to be delivered to prevent further cases and to save money. That is logical. My complaint about the emotional arguments is that yeah, it might be tough for some people to handle the perception that they caused their condition. But it makes no odds does it? It would be entirely illogical to deliver a detailed description of all of the types and what may or may not cause them, if you have a few seconds to make an impact. Anyone who is interested can find the full information quitee easily. So logically, it makes far more sense to put out brief details that get the point across, rather than worry about upsetting a few people. Maybe I am a cold to the emotional side. That may be because I was seen injecting at school at the age of 7 and for the next year was banned from birthday parties because I had "AIDS" apparently (it was the 80s and posters with needles on them warned of AIDS). You know what, I would take being thought of as a thin fat person over that at the age of 7. Anyway, I think @TorqPenderloin is being entirely logical when he suggests grabbing a beer. I'll have an extra cold one to go with my emotional state

zoze_j said:

It is a forum for all diabetics, you're right. And I agree on what you said about the news article. But I'm not changing my opinions or principals for someone who's probably never been bullied for their condition, or been made to feel bad about it. And before I get it thrown at me, I am not throwing a pity party, just pointing out some of the reasons I get so pissy about things. General ignorance & confusion over diabetes obviously doesn't bother some people in this group (well done you!) but it does me!

Click to expand...

I could easily be offended by that remark
'someone who's probably never been bullied for their condition, or been made to feel bad about it.'
I won't, as I accept you have no idea about my life, or what's been said to me, or how my condition has affected my life, but I will throw it back to you to consider how emotions suck you in, and make you say things that on reflection, can be seen differently by others.
And if anyone can be steered from becoming diabetic, by any way, I support it, especially after my experiences.

jekyll79 said:

OK, let me put it another way. What does it matter if some people don't understand the difference between type 1 and type 2, and what causes them? It irritates me a little when I hear type 1s moaning about people approaching them and accusing them of having a poor diet because it doesn't happen very often at all. In my 30 years of being diabetic (injecting and blood testing in public) very few people have made a comment to me about causing it myself. Those that have got close usual;y say something along the lines of "but you don't look fat". Great. Thanks. What is the issue? I think 2 people have used it against me in arguments and I really don't care. I'm clearly not fat. Who cares?!

However, something I do care about are the NHS' resources. I don't have a pump. I don't have a CGM. I have the same medication that I have has for the last 25 years (I used to use syringes but upgraded to a pen when I was a kid). The NHS don't have endless resources. So, if "diabetes" is the threat for eating and living poorly, I don't care so long as it has an effect. Eating and living poorly IS a cause of type 2. It IS a major cause of it. If we could reduce the number of people getting type 2, maybe the NHS would have the funds to provide ALL type 1 diabetics with the equipment that practically ALL kids and the *needy* diabetics are offered. Personally I don't want a pump, I just want a CGM. I think CGMs are the biggest advancement in diabetes treatment and would massively aid in reducing long term issues. However I can't get one without buying one myself.

On the not of being classed as disabled, I have this to say. I can run 5km quicker than many non diabetics my age. I can play many non diabetics my age off of a tennis court. I run my own company. I have worked all over the world. I have never needed a carer. Any issues I may have with diabetes I deal with on my own, not impacting anyone else. So no, I am NOT disabled. However, because there are a lot of diabetics who claim disability to their advantage, I am now noticing a lot of areas where diabetic freedoms are being restricted. A simple example of this is booking a holiday. I like to take part in active holidays. However, because I am diabetic I have to jump through hoops in order to go. Hoops that people who are obviously closer to a heart than I am, never have to jump through. At the minimum it costs me £50.00 extra (that is the minimum) and several trips to the doctors (when you work for yourself, time off costs money) just to get a medical form filled in.

There are many irritations to be found living with diabetes. I don't understand why people have to go on and on and on and on and on and on and on....................................................................and on and on and.........on and on about "awareness" about what causes it. Who cares? If I asked many diabetics to tell me all about cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy, they couldn't. Does it matter? No. What does matter is that a message is sent out to the public to stop more type 2s from being created.

Click to expand...

People probably wouldn't know about cystic fibrosis or cerebral palsy, whether they were diabetic or non diabetic, that's because it's not all over the newspapers, social media, or on tv programmes.
I personally have never had anything negative or nasty said to me, I was diagnosed at 31 and missed the school and college lot. My granddaughter was diagnosed at 2 1/2 yrs, she is a happy 7 year old, but some children at school make silly remarks, but her friends are 'nice' about her diabetes I do wonder what it will be like for her in 4/5 + years time. If any negative remarks are made, I hope she will give as good as she gets and swats them like flies

I'm sure you're all lovely people and I'm sure we'd get along just fine if we ever met. I mean that sincerely (for once, no sarcasm intended).

I'll leave on that note.

urbanracer said:

Wonder no more...
http://www.idf.org/membership/eur/iceland

You can use that site to look up an compare any country you'd like, as long as they are members of the IDF.

Click to expand...

Interesting how Iceland appears to be below the EU and world until old age, then it catches up quite suddenly, Implies youngsters are possibly leading a healthier lifestyle but by old age it all accumulates. Possiblydemonstrates exercise playing a significant role here. Thanks for the link.

zoze_j said:

Sorry, I didn't mean you! I meant it as a general remark for those people who are like, suck it up & asking why I'm offended. I'm sorry it was misconstrued I wasn't lashing out at you

Click to expand...

We are not all going to agree on everything, it's down to personality and also upbringing. If I had been bullied or taunted and treated as 'different' who knows how my feelings would affect me now.
It has been an interesting thread and I have enjoyed reading it

copepod said:

Iceland doesn't have any Macdonalds now, but did have some outlets until the financial crash. It does have Icelandic owned burger joints.

Click to expand...

Aren't copepods rather cute, small, aquatic crustaceans?

SunnyExpat said:

I could easily be offended by that remark
'someone who's probably never been bullied for their condition, or been made to feel bad about it.'
I won't, as I accept you have no idea about my life, or what's been said to me, or how my condition has affected my life, but I will throw it back to you to consider how emotions suck you in, and make you say things that on reflection, can be seen differently by others.
And if anyone can be steered from becoming diabetic, by any way, I support it, especially after my experiences.

Click to expand...

I understand where i am and what i have to do to improve my life. I have to make lifestyle choices and lifestyle changes, so for me it is without doubt a lifestyle issue. Simples.

Just in reference to the word 'disabled' that some either agree or disagree with. You'll find most diabetics aren't just diabetics and live with other health conditions like myself so a lot of us are disabled because we have limitations. Diabetes itself is considered a disability because of the definition in the law of what a disability is. Our pancreas doesn't do it's job or our bodies don't know what to do with the insulin... sometimes it's both.

Here our Disability Discrimination Act 1992 states:

disability, in relation to a person, means:

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.

______

So as you can see it covers a wide range of people.

Also the definition is there to protect us. What are you going to do for example if you're refused something or treated different because you're diabetic at work? Eg. we have more medical appointments to attend in some cases than the normal healthy person would. Eg. GP, endocrinologist, podiatrist, ophthalmologist, etc.

I'm a factual person and even I struggled with the term disabled at first. But now I'm living with multiple limitations I actually am ok with the word. I am not able to do what ordinarily people can in some cases. And technically people with diabetes can't control the disease without treating the condition which is required whether you're fully capable to do everything or not.

Mep said:

Just in reference to the word 'disabled' that some either agree or disagree with. You'll find most diabetics aren't just diabetics and live with other health conditions like myself so a lot of us are disabled because we have limitations. Diabetes itself is considered a disability because of the definition in the law of what a disability is. Our pancreas doesn't do it's job or our bodies don't know what to do with the insulin... sometimes it's both.

Here our Disability Discrimination Act 1992 states:

disability, in relation to a person, means:

(a) total or partial loss of the person’s bodily or mental functions; or

(b) total or partial loss of a part of the body; or

(c) the presence in the body of organisms causing disease or illness; or

(d) the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease or illness; or

(e) the malfunction, malformation or disfigurement of a part of the person’s body; or

(f) a disorder or malfunction that results in the person learning differently from a person without the disorder or malfunction; or

(g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person’s thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour;

and includes a disability that:

(h) presently exists; or

(i) previously existed but no longer exists; or

(j) may exist in the future (including because of a genetic predisposition to that disability); or

(k) is imputed to a person.

To avoid doubt, a disability that is otherwise covered by this definition includes behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability.

______

So as you can see it covers a wide range of people.

Also the definition is there to protect us. What are you going to do for example if you're refused something or treated different because you're diabetic at work? Eg. we have more medical appointments to attend in some cases than the normal healthy person would. Eg. GP, endocrinologist, podiatrist, ophthalmologist, etc.

I'm a factual person and even I struggled with the term disabled at first. But now I'm living with multiple limitations I actually am ok with the word. I am not able to do what ordinarily people can in some cases. And technically people with diabetes can't control the disease without treating the condition which is required whether you're fully capable to do everything or not.

Click to expand...

You have misunderstood that I am afraid. That is not how you assess if someone IS disabled, that is how you assess if someone has been discriminated against due to a disability which could be permanent or transient (....hence "d" which can quite easily cover the presence of bacteria or having a bug). Someone who has stomach bug is not legally classed as disabled, but this act would protect them from being discriminated against.....or it is supposed to. However, in the real world this is not how it works.

This act has been misused by people and therefore there are "workarounds" to prevent employers getting caught by this.
As an example, when you apply for a job the interviewer doesn't have to give you a reason why they are not hiring you. "You were not right" or "We had a better candidate" are easy reasons to use. If you go in with the "I am Diabetic and I am disabled" stance, you won't get anywhere unless the company is not very competitive. If, however, you go in and say that you are Diabetic but don't need any special treatment, that creates a much better impression......and it is true. 30 years of not letting Diabetes stop me from doing anything proves that. Around 20 years working with a sickness record better than most of my colleagues also proves that. I have seen people use Diabetes at work to take weeks off a year for appointments, for hypos (Really? Take some sugar and get to work), to avoid working late, to avoid travelling.....it is ridiculous. Using the disability label is BAD for the diabetic and BAD for diabetics everywhere.

Now I might come across as a super controlled Diabetic. I'm not. I have the same issues as everyone else on here. However, when I was a kid I had a doctor who drummed it into me that I had to fight to get everything I wanted and to fight NOT to be marginalised. My parents and I had to fight to go on school trips, fight to go on Scout camps, I spent a large part of my childhood proving that I was absolutely normal and as capable as everyone else. Therefore it infuriates me when I see people using it as an excuse. If it was just their lives they were affecting, I wouldn't care. But it isn't. It affects us all in the long run since rules cannot be made to accommodate individuals and they are usually made for the lowest common denominator. My holiday example (in a previous post) is just one of the things I have seen happen in the last 10 years. So, while I accept that some people struggle more than others, I am not about to overlook those who are dragging people like me down because it is easier that way. It might sound harsh, but all I am doing is fighting to keep the quality of life I have fought for from childhood.

I should point out that my complaint is with type 1s who abuse the definition of "disabled". I appreciate that people can have compound issues which can be limiting. That is a different ball game altogether.

jekyll79 said:

You have misunderstood that I am afraid. That is not how you assess if someone IS disabled, that is how you assess if someone has been discriminated against due to a disability which could be permanent or transient (....hence "d" which can quite easily cover the presence of bacteria or having a bug). Someone who has stomach bug is not legally classed as disabled, but this act would protect them from being discriminated against.....or it is supposed to. However, in the real world this is not how it works.

This act has been misused by people and therefore there are "workarounds" to prevent employers getting caught by this.
As an example, when you apply for a job the interviewer doesn't have to give you a reason why they are not hiring you. "You were not right" or "We had a better candidate" are easy reasons to use. If you go in with the "I am Diabetic and I am disabled" stance, you won't get anywhere unless the company is not very competitive. If, however, you go in and say that you are Diabetic but don't need any special treatment, that creates a much better impression......and it is true. 30 years of not letting Diabetes stop me from doing anything proves that. Around 20 years working with a sickness record better than most of my colleagues also proves that. I have seen people use Diabetes at work to take weeks off a year for appointments, for hypos (Really? Take some sugar and get to work), to avoid working late, to avoid travelling.....it is ridiculous. Using the disability label is BAD for the diabetic and BAD for diabetics everywhere.

Now I might come across as a super controlled Diabetic. I'm not. I have the same issues as everyone else on here. However, when I was a kid I had a doctor who drummed it into me that I had to fight to get everything I wanted and to fight NOT to be marginalised. My parents and I had to fight to go on school trips, fight to go on Scout camps, I spent a large part of my childhood proving that I was absolutely normal and as capable as everyone else. Therefore it infuriates me when I see people using it as an excuse. If it was just their lives they were affecting, I wouldn't care. But it isn't. It affects us all in the long run since rules cannot be made to accommodate individuals and they are usually made for the lowest common denominator. My holiday example (in a previous post) is just one of the things I have seen happen in the last 10 years. So, while I accept that some people struggle more than others, I am not about to overlook those who are dragging people like me down because it is easier that way. It might sound harsh, but all I am doing is fighting to keep the quality of life I have fought for from childhood.

I should point out that my complaint is with type 1s who abuse the definition of "disabled". I appreciate that people can have compound issues which can be limiting. That is a different ball game altogether.

Click to expand...

Generally speaking you seem to be saying here you just don't like the word used yourself. That's your choice. It doesn't change the fact though that diabetes is classed as a disability should anyone ever need to get help as a result of discrimination. If you are ever in the position, you will be referring to the discrimination act in your country that defines what 'disability' is.

As for viewing disability as BAD and how diabetics misuse the definition of disabilities... that I'm sorry is just your opinion and not factual. Not unless you are saying you personally know someone who is abusing things. You wouldn't know people's situation which could well be different to yours. I personally know diabetics in my own life and none of them have taken advantage of it. It's just something that you learn to live with.

My view is that the term 'disability' or 'disabled' is simply stating a fact and it is not a negative thing. I've got a few disabilities I'm living with. I may not be happy with them, but I have them and that's a fact. If I'm asked if I have any disabilities according what a disability definition is then the answer is going to be YES. Also I need to be aware of my duty of care to disclose my disabilities that I have in a work situation or anything else that could impact others. Eg. I may get hypos, but I'm good at controlling my diabetes. I am not perfect though and there may come a time I need help with that.

Disability refers to both short term and long term. So making the comment of "Someone who has stomach bug is not legally classed as disabled" is not true because technically they had a short term disability at that time which meant they couldn't function as well. So should they have an issue that arises from that, they can say they had a short term disability.

You make reference to type 1's having the stigma of it... what about all other diabetic types? They do as well if that is your view of it. Although 'disability' is not a stigma... just a fact. With diabetes you need to inject insulin to function because your body doesn't do it, so do I but I don't have type 1. That means yes I may be functional, but that's because I have to take care of my diabetes to be functional. If we couldn't take care of our diabetes we would be dysfunctional soon enough. Some of my other disabilities I have no control over as I do with diabetes mostly. So at least I can say first hand that with diabetes you have the ability to control it. But then on saying that other things do impact on diabetes unexpectedly at times. So despite your best efforts you may be unfortunate to have a hard time controlling the disease. I have that experience myself from time to time with extra illnesses added into the mix.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/Pages/disability-living-allowance.aspx

This is a good link.

jekyll79 said:

If you go in with the "I am Diabetic and I am disabled" stance, you won't get anywhere unless the company is not very competitive. If, however, you go in and say that you are Diabetic but don't need any special treatment, that creates a much better impression......and it is true. 30 years of not letting Diabetes stop me from doing anything proves that. Around 20 years working with a sickness record better than most of my colleagues also proves that. I have seen people use Diabetes at work to take weeks off a year for appointments, for hypos (Really? Take some sugar and get to work), to avoid working late, to avoid travelling.....it is ridiculous. Using the disability label is BAD for the diabetic and BAD for diabetics everywhere.

Click to expand...

The equality act 2010 (uk) provides the test for whether you are disabled and therefore benefit from protections from discrimination and reasonable adjustments to accommodate the disability is whether without treatment the condition would have an adverse impact on your ability to carry out day to day activities. Without treatment, a type 1 would be dead. So we are protected under the equality act.

Confirming that you are diabetic is confirming that you are diasbled to the HR bod doing the paper work. When I was diagnosed the first thing work did was send me down to HR to check if I needed any reasonable adjustments, a room to inject in. I said no, so long as no one minded me injecting at my desk.

When I go to events (gigs) & I'm told I'm not allowed to bring sharp objects or food in and I say I'm diabetic so I need my needles & my dextrose tablets & they agree & let me in - what's happening there is a reasonable adjustment under the equality act because I'm disabled. I don't necessarily have to use the disability label to get that, but that is why I get it.

When I have been late for work because I have been unconscious in a night time hypo and the only thing bringing me round is my colleagues phoning me to check where I am (in their words, to check I wasn't in a diabetic coma) the reason my tardiness didn't get put on my record is because of a reasonable adjustment under the equality act for my disability (& my colleagues are nice people).

When I roll out of bed having been roused to consciousness I probably should take time off for the hypo. In hindsight, downing a bottle of lucozade while running to work was probably not the safest or most sensible approach. I certainly felt less than fully functional for the rest of the day and probably wasn't much use in work. I took that approach because I was hypo and wasn't thinking straight. I would hate to think that someone else in a similar position decided not to take time off needed because of some burden of not wanting to give diabetics a bad name.

I have had a week off this year to go on a DAFNE course. I knew all the stuff on the course (& better, obviously) but the hospital was insisting I went on it before referral for a pump - which I am absolutely desperate for. I would have taken holiday if necessary, but because I hated the thought of my colleagues, who I work equally as hard as, using their 25 days for skiing & sunbathing while I get left with only 20 because my stupid diabetes means I have to go to hospital for a week to learn how to weigh mashed potatoe. So I asked and I got a reasonable adjustment of 5 days off for free, not out of my holiday entitlement, to go on the course. There were 8 people on the course and all but the one self employed guy had been given the same reasonable adjustment of free time off to go on the course. There was one guy on the course who obviously really needed it - he had to ask 3 separate times if insulin would lower his blood sugar & was running so high he got false hypos if he dropped to 8 - he said because of childcare he simply would not have been able to come on the course if he hadn't been granted the reasonable adjustment for the disability. I don't think that is using or abusing a label of disability, I think that is entirely the right thing & exactly what the protections are designed for.

I'm not really sure about the increased cost of your holiday that you refer to. I assume that's insurance costs? I don't think that has anything to do with a label of disability or not because insurance costs are calculated on statistics and risks & don't take semantics into account.

@catapillar if you were up for a role in your company where they needed somebody who could, at a moments notice, fly off to Switzerland to do something, work through the night on it and take a flight the next day (again at a moments notice) to the US to do something similar, you wouldn't be considered. Well, I say that. You would be considered "on paper", but anyone else applying who could justifiably take on that role would get it over you. Why? Because why would any employer want to take on someone to carry out a role when they had had experience of them (or people like them) ......

• taking days off for hypos
  
• taking days for medical courses
  
• taking days off for medical appointments
• insisting on eating at certain times religiously
• insisting on their personal routine never being altered

(the above being just a few things that I have personally seen Diabetics do. I could list even more ridiculous things I have seen people on here say they do)

Diabetes soon goes from being the condition I know it to be (a manageable, condition that should not impact on others) to a condition where people think that any missed meal will lead to a fit and a hypo means you need hours to recover. By the way, a bottle of lucozade is absolutely fine to fix a hypo on the way to work.

As I said before, all of the laws in the land cannot prevent an employer from picking someone over you if they give a good enough reason. Good enough reasons can be as easy as "We felt they were a better fit" and unless you can get your hands on detail by detail stats to compare you with the successful candidate, your Equality Act 2010 means ****** all. You might not like it, but that is a fact.

While I don't think the Act is a bad idea in its entirety, it is the same as letting children know they have rights at school (and we have seen what that has done to behaviour in schools in the last 20 years). People take the **** whenever they can. Whenever I have been employed, I have worked in high pressure roles similar to the one described above. There was no room to show flaws and I didn't need to. Yes, my employers have known I am diabetic. But if I have needed to attend an appointment, I have worked it around my job (when you are flying a lot, that is hard). I haven't just taken whatever appointment they have given me, I have made sure I have only attended the essential ones (we all know some are a complete waste of time and could be done over the phone) and I have made sure that if anyone has been put out, it has been me. It is MY condition, not my employer's or my colleagues'. That has been entirely workable, has allowed me to do pretty much whatever I have wanted to do (with regard to my career) and has not created a bad name for diabetics.

If disability could be assessed on an individual basis, then I really wouldn't care. I wouldn't be potentially dragged down by the actions of diabetics who want to coast or be carried by others. The way the system works is that it drags people down to the lowest common denominator. I'm with you on the ridiculous "courses" the NHS make people go on to get pumps. For anyone with even an average IQ, all that would be needed is a flyer and an algorithm (I used to count carbs with the aid of a little "carb book" when I was about 8). But because we live with this system of bringing everything down to that of the lowest ability, we suffer. The system should be engineered to drag everybody up, not down.

With regard to holidays, no it isn't insurance. One of the holidays was the Inca Trail. I had to get a medical form filled out. A doctor won't do that for free. They charge £50 where I am. So I had to attend 2 appointments; 1 for the doctor to talk with me about the holiday (could have been done on the phone) and the other to pick up the documentation that had been filled out a week later. The form had no more than 5 lines on it telling the holiday company what my medication was and doses. When I arrived on the tour, the guide didn't even know he had diabetic. The whole reason for that form is the litigious world we live in where people blame others for their own issues.