Is T2 really fatal???

Guilty said:

So sad. If I die from heart failure/ liver failure / stroke. It would probably be made more likely by my diabetes. But would cause of death be Diabetes? I used to think it wouldn't be listed.

Click to expand...

That's a question that would only be answerable by the doctor completing your death certificate.

-The immediate cause of death would be the heart failure (etc) and that would go in Part 1.
-If the certifying doctor believed that diabetes had directly contributed to the heart failure, that would also go in Part 1.
-If the doctor beieved that diabetes had contributed, but only indirectly, that would go in Part 2.
-Conditions present at the time of death, but not contributing, should not be recorded on the certificate.

So the real answers, as with so many things, are "it depends" and "it's a bit more complicated than that".

KennyA said:

That's a question that would only be answerable by the doctor completing your death certificate.

-The immediate cause of death would be the heart failure (etc) and that would go in Part 1.
-If the certifying doctor believed that diabetes had directly contributed to the heart failure, that would also go in Part 1.
-If the doctor beieved that diabetes had contributed, but only indirectly, that would go in Part 2.
-Conditions present at the time of death, but not contributing, should not be recorded on the certificate.

So the real answers, as with so many things, are "it depends" and "it's a bit more complicated than that".

Click to expand...

The cerifying doctor would most likely not be an endocrinologist, so if you die from something associated with diabetes (but also common in the general population), diabetes will almost definitely be listed as soon as that doctor saw diabetes on your record.
Regardless of BG history, even if you manage completely non diabetic numbers.

Antje77 said:

The cerifying doctor would most likely not be an endocrinologist, so if you die from something associated with diabetes (but also common in the general population), diabetes will almost definitely be listed as soon as that doctor saw diabetes on your record.
Regardless of BG history, even if you manage completely non diabetic numbers.

Click to expand...

I think in practice you're probably and unfortunately right. If "everyone knows" that diabetes contributes to deaths then it's more likely that the presence of diabetes would be recorded. This would lead to over-reporting of diabetes as a contributor to deaths, and the over-reporting would itself confirm that diabetes is a contributor to mortality as evidenced by...er...the number of death certificates that mention it. Circular "logic".

There has always been an issue with things being defined by the official record - you can go back to 1897 and Durkheim's On Suicide for an early example of what gets noted by official statistics not necessarily being accurate reflections of the things they're supposed to record.

It's part and parcel of the widespread use of "diabetes" to imply both "high blood sugar" and "obesity". I've had a suspicion for some time that "diabetes" is being used as a weasel word by government and media to mean "generally unhealthy and overweight". This solves a problem for them, but creates one for us.