[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [IP] Scope of Disability Law Questioned

email @ redacted wrote:
> just some stuff to ponder as we debae on who is REALLY disabled and who is
> just a whiner...are does diabetes count as a "impairment that substantially
> limits a major life activity?"  I personally, happen to think YES IT IS.

(quote from article:) 
> This week, the Supreme Court considers whether Murphy, and workers in two
> similar cases, are protected by law from discrimination even if they have
> corrected their conditions with, say, medicine or eyeglasses.
> The court's eventual rulings will define who is protected under the 1990
> Americans with Disabilities Act: just the severely disabled, or millions more
> with contact lenses, diabetes or hearing aids.

Here's a place where we need to do a BUNCH of education:

It's easy enough for people to see that someone in a wheelchair is
limited in a life activity, even though the wheelchair DOES give him

What they don't see about diabetes is that insulin DOESN'T correct the
condition, and DOES limit not one but many daily activities.

There is no comparison between contact lenses and diabetes -- with
contact lenses, one functions PERFECTLY normally, and doesn't expect to
have any emergencies which would necessitate  either absences from work
or anyone's help. With diabetes, this is clearly not true -- we only
function normally because we work VERY hard at it, and an emergency such
as a hypo, or a severe infection causing BGs high enough for
hospitalization or heaven forbid, DKA CAN and DO happen. And are not the
result of negligence, either!!

One of the things that the people quoted in the article seem to be
ignoring is that the ADA prohibits discrimination against people who are
otherwise qualified to do the job -- NO one would argue that a blind
person could be a truck driver, and if you go blind, no one would argue
that you need to be terminated from your truck-driver's job. 

But when people with diabetes are fired for specious reasons, because
they are absent too much, or because they had a hypo at work, or because
they cost too much insurance-wise, that IS discrimination, and should be
covered by the ADA.

The writer of the article is OBVIOUSLY ignorant about diabetes, and we
need to do a better job of getting the word out. Diabetes = contact
lenses, indeed!!!!  :( 
 ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- 
 Natalie A. Sera, with all her ducks in a row!
 Type Weird, pumping!
 mailto:email @ redacted
 ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c- ._c-._c- ._c- ._(` ._c- ._c- 
 Can YOU find the ugly duckling? (Hint: it ain't the pumperduck!)
Insulin Pumpers website http://www.insulin-pumpers.org/
for mail subscription assistance, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org