Thanks for posting this. Very interesting. Here in the UK they are being very tough on disability benefits too.

I am torn though. Part of me says that type 1 diabetes in itself should not be a reason to claim benefits or not work. They say in the article that if there are any complications then the person will be considered for benefits based on those. I could be missing something but I cannot think of a reason why a type 1 diabetic would be "unable to perform any gainful activity" for a period of 12 months or more, which is the criteria for getting on this list.

I can tell you that Maria has Brittle Diabetes. I have seen her sugar plunge to 20 and soar to 650 in a very short period of time...this is very dangerous and stressful situations cause her sugar to become erratic. She has suffered ketoacidosis and died three times during treatment. She is a lot more stable when her stress level is kept at about the same level. So, she needs her benefits.

Ah right. I was only speaking about type 1 which is all I have experience of.

Interesting post. I would have to agree that for the most part I cant really think of a reason why diabetes in and of itself would make you disabled to a state of needing disability. It really is the side effects that would make you incapacitated.

I still hope we keep the disability label though to afford us the ability to do blood tests and treat lows when needed under the American Disabilities Act, otherwise I could do away with that label all together for this disease, even though it kind of fits as I have never really seen it as an enabling or even apathetic in how it treats me which leaves it to be a disabling one.

Foxtrot1013, I havent come across someone so brittle in their diabetes as you have mentioned with Maria. I am wondering does she have other conditions or medications that exacerbate her numbers? If so would these other conditions qualify her for it?

I see diabetes as a disability, it does affect my day to day activity and limits it. However this particular list, as far as I can understand, is a list of particularly disabling conditions which will probably result in death within a year. Diabetes is not *that* disabling.

Smith, I don't get what you mean about The American Disabilities Act allowing you to treat lows and do blood tests (I am in the UK). Do you mean that if diabetes was not considered a disability under the act, you would be expressly prohibited to do these things? Even though treating lows is just a matter of eating or drinking a sugary substance?

Lizzy, you pretty much summed it up. In our go go go and lawyerized country basically an employer could have denied you the right to go off and do a blood test or take off to treat lows well you could its just it would be viable grounds for them to fire you as you arent working when you are doing that, but with the American Disability Act they legally cant count it against you and have to let you do those things.

Most employers are good about it especially about treating lows as who wants someone passing out but I did run into one place where it was an issue as I was a cashier and of course its not right to be ringing up customers items when you are sucking down a juice box or eating something or even worse, telling the line of paying people to please hold while I treat a low.

Originally they were going to fire me as it was consistently happening but then I asked if they could scheduled my break for an hour later as it would match it up to when my insulin was peaking (this was back in my non-pumping days) and all would be fine.

They were hesitant about doing that as it would be a special favor to one employee and it would be too hard to accommodate everyones requests for when they got a break. I then pointed out it wasnt a favor. It was the law and all was good as the other requests could be denied as they werent medically related and order could be kept without it appearing as if favoritism was going on.

That is terrible smith. In the UK we have the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) and employers have to make reasonable accommodations for their disabled employees, which would include giving us time off to test and treat hypos. I have similar issues though as I work in a library - the rules are no food or drinks, so it looks bad if staff are glugging back sugary drinks on the desk! It is usually OK as my colleagues are nice and I just call one of them and ask for cover. But in one part of the library we have old/rare books and I have been told off by a senior colleague as I had my Lucozade out on the desk.

I'm wondering if you have a continuous glucose monitor. That would stop you from going so high and so low. As soon as you hit 80 (or whatever preset number you choose) an alarm goes off and you can treat your low before it happens. Same goes with the high. I couldn't be without it. The one day it wasn't working I went from 160 to 31 for no apparent reason. My CGM is my one true companion.