[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[IP] Re: is diabetes considered to be a disability
> There may be some
> professions that would also required special circumstances, ie: being given
> time to eat a special snack, check BGs, do injections or whatever. So, even
> though you might not consider yourself 'disabled' there may be certain
> circumstances that do require special consideration.
I agree. I'm sure one could debate forever the semantics of what
constitutes a "disability", but to me the bottom line is that (depending
on our job) our diabetes MAY require minor accomodations from our
employers. Because of that, IMO it merits being included in the ADA.
I wouldn't want an employer to be able to legally refuse to let us check
our bg's or have snacks on the grounds that "diabetes is not a
disability". (If it's not a "disability", why do we need "reasonable
accomodations" because of it?)
I don't know the exact wording of the ADA, but it seems to me that ANY
medical condition which could require "reasonable accomodations" should
be included. I don't see the logic in limiting it to conditions
commonly thought of as "disabilities". IMO it should be just as illegal
not to make accomodations for someone with diabetes (or any other
medical condition that might not be thought of as a "disability") as it
would be not to make accomodations for someone in a wheelchair.
I was surpised (and pleased) to hear that diabetes is specifically
mentioned in the ADA. I'd actually thought there was some controversy
over whether it was included or not. It makes me feel a little more
secure knowing it is. I hope that means that other medical conditions
requiring accomodations are covered as well.
Another point -- to me, I don't find it offensive to hear diabetes
classified as a "disability", at least not in this context. Does having
diabetes mean that we can't live full, happy, active lives? Of course
not. And millions of people with (other) disabilities live full, happy,
active lives as well. Like those with "diabilities", we have to do some
things differently. We can't decide to pig out on pizza and cookies at
3am (at least not without some planning, extra bg checks, and the
possible consequences of high bg's if we under-bolus, or low bg's if we
over-bolus). We always have to be on the lookout for hypoglycemia. If
we're going to be leaving the house for any length of time, we have to
make sure we have our meters, insulin, glucose, etc., with us.
Activities like camping and backpacking require some extra
considerations. But so what? Everyone has challenges in their lives.
The unfortunate thing is that the term "disability" has come to have the
connotation of a pitying insult. It's easy to make fun of political
correctness, but that might have something to do with why terms like
"challenged" and "differently abled" have cropped up as alternatives!
However, what really matters is the intent of the person using the
term. Calling someone "challenged" (or whatever other term anyone might
come up with) is just as insulting as "disabled" if it's used in an
insulting or patronizing way!
One last note in relation to all this -- in that KOMO special about
diabetes last Friday, they had one lady joking tbat "she was not
diabetic, she was pancreatically challenged!" LOL I thought that was
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml