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

RE: [IP] in-law newly dxed type 2


I agree with you completely. It seems that older doctors were actually
taught that type 2 is a "mild" form of diabetes and that "keeping it under
200" is the proper goal. I believe this generation of docs will have to be
gone on to their reward before type 2 is taken as seriously as it should be.

I cannot believe that a doctor would be checking urine for sugar unless
checking for ketones as well. Even then one cannot conclude that the sugar
is 100 based on no sugar being in the urine. Strange indeed. I agree that a
different doctor is needed.

Here in Kentucky I know a gentleman in his mid forties who had quintuple
bypass surgery about 4 years ago. He also has type 2 diabetes. His doctor
visits are the 5 minute variety. He never gets an HBA1C, has never had his
feet checked, never had any of the tests diabetics should be having even
after heart bypass surgery! He recently started going to another doctor and
is now being properly evaluated. Isn't it amazing that for so long he has
been allowed to go unchecked even though he makes regular visits to his


> OK. This is one that "gets my dander up." (And I should say
> here that this
> "vent" isn't directed at you, Deborah.)
> Diabetes is diabetes is diabetes. While we come at it from different
> directions (autoimmune disease vs insulin resistance or
> insufficient insulin
> production), we all need to keep our BGs under control and in
> normal ranges
> *as much as we can manage to do so*. We're all at risk for the same
> complications. Studies on both type 1 and type 2 have proven
> that tight
> control leads to lowered risk of complications. We all use
> two of the same
> control methods: diet and exercise. Most type 2s also use
> medication -- and
> about 40 percent of type 2s eventually need to take insulin.
> It seems to me that there is a general feeling out there
> (even among the
> health care practitioners) that type 2 isn't as "bad" as type
> 1. Therefore,
> it isn't given as much attention. I say it's *all* "bad." And
> the really
> "bad" thing about type 2 is that it often isn't discovered
> until after
> complications have set in. In fact, I met a woman yesterday
> who'd just
> learned she has diabetes. She already has neuropathy. And her
> doctor didn't
> test her for diabetes -- she found out when her daughter,
> whose son has DM,
> tested her.
> At any rate, to answer your question, one book that I recall that's
> specifically about type 2 is called, "Diabetes: Type 2 and
> what to do." I
> believe it's by Toohey and Bierman. But why not just get a
> book about DM? My
> personal favorite is "Diabetes is not a piece of cake" by
> Janet Mierelles
> (not sure of the spelling). It's very well-written, has some
> great cartoons
> in it and uses a lot of anecdotes.
> As for the doc who is checking for sugar in the urine -- tell your
> father-in-law to find a doc who knows something. :-)
> Jan

for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml