• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

IS T2 (NO MEDS) DIABETES CLASSED AS DISABILITY?

That is a very interesting question and one to which I do not know the answer.

It brings on the spectre of people being classed as disabled or not disabled according to what they eat. Well controlled T2's might lose any benefit because their readings do not qualify them.

I needed another headache, thanks.
 
I would have thought that once diagnosed, you'd be covered. It's the condition that is covered, not the treatment. I think that it is covered because it is a chronic condition. The fact that it is well controlled shouldn't be an issue. There are many on insulin who are well controlled so are they covered ? I agree though, good question and these are only my opinions. I could well be wrong (again ) !
Mo


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Q007 said:
I was told it isn't ?
Click to expand...


If you have diabetes you are covered by the DDA:

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Ad ... 0-2009.pdf


''Is diabetes termed as a disability?
Yes it is. It is termed as a hidden disability. Many people with diabetes would not class
themselves as disabled, nevertheless, they can fall within the scope of the DDA and therefore
benefit from the Act’s protection. Unfortunately, people with diabetes do sometimes face
discrimination in the workplace, so the definition is there to protect their rights. The DDA
outlaws discrimination against disabled people in a number of different areas, of which
employment is one. ''
 
Yes, I think it's covered but I wouldn't want to see anyone making a big deal about it beyond their true needs which will vary greatly. I could say that those treated by the standard NHS diet will become really disabled in time but I won't :D
 
no way would i call myself disabled, db doesnt stop me from doing anything whatsoever apart from eating certain things and thats a good thing imo, if the complications ever kick in then maybe thatll be different
 
Andy12345 said:
no way would i call myself disabled, db doesnt stop me from doing anything whatsoever apart from eating certain things and thats a good thing imo, if the complications ever kick in then maybe thatll be different
Click to expand...

I have to agree.

I don't regard myself as disabled. A couple of years ago when I would have needed a taxi to the bus stop yes but that wasn't diabetes related.

Like Andy says maybe if I get complications down the line.

At the moment it is a feature not a fault.
 
Same here Andy but it just means you are entitled to certain levels of protection under employment law. I would think only a very small percentage need to use this act. Most diabetics get on with life. There are a few employers however that do make life difficult for some employess, not allowing time off for appts etc so it is good to know the law is on our side should we require it.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
If the question is in relation to benefits then the answer is probably no
CAROL
 
It's variable. most Diabetics are not entitled to any beeneits, but are covered by the DDA.
Even complications are treated differently by different authorities. my T1 husband with 2 Charcot feet and kidney failure was not allowed a blue parking badge, evn though his GP sent a letter.
Hana
 
DDA was superceeded some years ago by the equalities act. There are 5 points you have to prove to be classed under the act diabetics fall in 3 of them easy the other 2 you have to show how you fall into


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
noblehead said:
Q007 said:
I was told it isn't ?
Click to expand...


If you have diabetes you are covered by the DDA:

http://www.diabetes.org.uk/Documents/Ad ... 0-2009.pdf


''Is diabetes termed as a disability?
Yes it is. It is termed as a hidden disability. Many people with diabetes would not class
themselves as disabled, nevertheless, they can fall within the scope of the DDA and therefore
benefit from the Act’s protection. Unfortunately, people with diabetes do sometimes face
discrimination in the workplace, so the definition is there to protect their rights. The DDA
outlaws discrimination against disabled people in a number of different areas, of which
employment is one. ''
Click to expand...

Afternoon,

I don't declare myself as disabled to anyone because of Diabetes, because I'm not, in my opinion, disabled in anyway. I don't feel any different apart from very tied (recently) when I eat. I plan to join a business soon and my status would then become employed and therefore duty bound to declare disabilities. I would only declare diabetes if a health questionnaire came my way.

The lesser of my skills set is employment law, but lies or deemed 'deliberate' withholding 'reasonable' information such as a serious health issue could indeed be classed as gross misconduct - even if dis discovered years later that you lied on the application form.

Never give an employer a reason to say no you is my usual advice, but within reason. Indeed the enclosed document from NOBLEHEAD shows that diabetes is quite clearly a disability, type 1 or 2 no discretion between the two.

I really would like to bottom this one out, thank you for the information so far. Kind wishes, Q..


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 
Back
Top