Thanks, Julez! I think, unfortunately, we've all internalized to some degree that "good patient" mentality, and I personally cringe when I hear adults talking about being "good" or being "bad", for example regarding dietary choices. I think because of that for some people it's a painful shock when they realize how little the medical profession actually knows about D. But hopefully when the shock wears off it's self-empowering.
Ok, since I have one, and am in an area where this has become all the rage, the term "blood sugar alert dogs".
So what does this kind of dog do? Alert to EVERYONE who has a blood sugar? Or "diabetic alert" dogs. So now dogs can alert to the presence of diabetes? What exactly is the dog alerting to?
Sorry, pet peeve of mine... and I agree with many of the others!
LOVE the non-compliant one! I hate the image of compliant - a "good little girl" with her head bowed down and never asking questions. That's the opposite of me. :)
Hate is a word I do not care for in any language or conversation :(
The term "healthy diabetic", such a contradiction since 'healthy' is defined as without disease or illness. And that word certainly does not apply to us.
I am a "healthy diabetic" so it can certainly apply to us.
The definition of healthy is not defined as without disease or illness - it is defined as:
enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit
evincing health
conducive to health
Being diabetic and being healthy are entirely possible. I don't consider myself to be diseased or ill and don't appreciate being called those things.
Glucose and sugar are not the same. Some refer to the glucose in the body as sugar, but it is not. It has been synthesized after consumption, and it is the way our bodies react to it that makes us different. PWD have an adverse reaction to synthesized glucose. I find the term glucose more definitive for a PWD. Also, I think the term "my sugar" is degrading, as I work SO hard to control the glucose in my body.
Glucose: Glucose is major source of energy for the body's cells. Glucose comes from the foods we eat or the body can make it from other substances. Glucose is carried to the cells through the bloodstream. Several hormones, including insulin, control glucose levels in the blood.
Sugar: a white crystalline carbohydrate used as a sweetener and preservative
It is a bone I pick--I just really do not like the downgrade of the misuse of the terminology.
See my above replies. "MY SUGAR" makes me freak. I work with a lot of folks in very rural areas. I HAVE to be silent, but cringe all the time.
I cringe when I hear "The bad kind of diabetes" Or "He has diabetes real bad" I don't feel there is a worse kind or worse cases of diabetes to be had. Sometimes the treatment is more involved or difficult but diabetes in all forms just plain SUCKS.
David (DNS) is right, words do matter and terms like these just paint some people as being more unfortunate while dismissing the struggles of others.
Never said they were "the same". I said that glucose is a sugar. And it is.
Understand. I don't much like that term, either. Just trying to be precise about my meaning.
I actually do believe there are "worse cases of D" or less severe cases of D from what I read here, I think I have it pretty easy. My blood sugars don't bounce all over the place and they react reasonably predictably to foods that I consume and exercise that I do. While D most definitely sucks, I think it would suck much more if I had the "bad kind" of D that does not respond predictably or well to insulin or requires far more diligence to keep on track.
Yes, it would be much better to just have "a touch of the sugar".
I know when people talk about "the bad kind" they mean Type 1 because "we have to take insulin". But I'd challenge them to deal with insulin resistance!
I also agree with Clare that although the term "brittle diabetes" is dated and in the past sometimes meant there wasn't sufficient knowledge or tools to manage, some of us do have a harder time managing our D than others. I tend to call that "the luck of the draw" because it becomes increasingly obvious that some people can manage their D in fairly predictable ways and maintain incredibly stable numbers, while others work their butts off and are all over the place.
Oh yeah and my personal favorite is "the kind you get when you're a kid or the kind you get when you're older." My response: "I have the kind you get when you're a kid, I just happened to be 58 at the time."
Word! lol - letting it bother us is about as stupid as the word or comment that causes one to defend, feel bad, or resent the sayer.
The worst comments I have ever read or heard come my own kind. It's sad.
Sweet Fur - I agree with your criticism of the labels adopted by people who use service dogs to alert them to dangerous hypoglycemia. I, too, have a hypoglycemia alert dog. Unfortunately, many people have no idea what hypoglycemia means. It seems the acronym, “DAD,” is the most accepted term to describe these dogs, a diabetic alert dog. Whenever I hear that I think that the poor dog has diabetes!
We live with a lot of imprecise labels and terminology. In the end, the most important thing is accurately conveying meaning from the communicator to the receiver.
BTW - living with a dog that helps me with this challenging never-ending metabolic disorder has been one of the most satisfying relationships I’ve ever experienced. I was happy to read your comment.
I used to think that Type 2 diabetes was just as hard to control as Type 1. While we T1’s have to deal with insulin and hypoglycemia, at least insulin is a potent tool to control blood glucose. People with T2 often must rely on diet, exercise, and medication to keep BG’s in check. T2 insulin resistance is a difficult condition to overcome. I know because I became insulin resistant, even though I’m a T1.
I’ve noticed that T2’s that lose weight, limit their carbs, and exercise regularly, often report A1c’s in the low 5% range. I think it takes a lot more work for T1’s to duplicate that level of control.
I have resigned myself to the fact that the general public will continue to be mostly ignorant to the basic concepts of diabetes, both T1 and T2. I’ve even been surprised by people who are close to someone with diabetes and even they’re not solid on the basic facts.
One of my friends has one and posted something about the dog being calibrated to his saliva by sampling it when he’s low.
"Insulin dependent" is a little brief but it is a very useful distinction. I lived through the transition from "Juvenile Diabetes" to "Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus" to "Type 1" and of all of them... "insulin dependent" is perhaps the most apt (seeing as how I now have grey hair and would never be mistaken for a juvenile!).
Even today we probably use words to divide our broad groups too finely. Look at how many use "LADA" to separate from the rest of us "Type 1"'s.
I agree completely when I got my medic alert tag in 1975 it read "diabetes". I was 14 years old at the time, as I got older I had to have the tag changed to "diabetes, takes insulin".
Unfortunately, “insulin dependent” does not distinguish between the autoimmune T1 and the insulin-resistant T2 that both use insulin. In fact, more T2’s use insulin than T1’s. Used as emergency info, that term is fine. But if someone wants to accurately describe each of these diabetes classifications, such as in an academic or research setting, “insulin dependent” can be vague.
Diabetes classifications change over time and I think the current "T1 and T2" is just a stepping stone to the next classification scheme.
I myself do not mind being included with T2's of my age group (e.g. getting very close to AARP eligible!) who also use insulin or who don't use insulin. I don't think it's a slight on me or them. It's possible that many of them are incorrectly classified T1's. These dang complicated classifications and distinctions, I just don't like them, they so often seem unnecessary and limiting rather than enabling.