It's been an odd few weeks here on the Beedies front. When my doctor sent me to see the endocrinologist a few weeks ago, it was with the grim admonishment that I was most likely going to have to go on insulin. My comfortable little world of better living through pharmaceuticals was going to be swept away, and in its place I would find myself trudging through a grim dystopia of syringes in my bathroom, sad little bottles in the butter tray of my fridge and a pocketful of Jolly Ranchers to fend off hypoglycemic death.
I am perhaps overstating the possible state of affairs.
After two visits with the endo, however, it appears that the future might not be quite as apocalyptic as I feared. First of all, I gather that the world of insulin has changed quite a bit since my childhood, when I would watch my grimacing father stab himself in the leg every morning with a large, angry-looking needle. I've been assured by more than one insulin-dependent person that injections nowadays hurt less than the lancing device I use to test my blood sugar. (This might be true even if I changed my lancet more frequently than I vote.)
Even better for me, however, are the results of the blood tests that my endo ran, tests which showed that my pancreas is in fact producing insulin on its own. Whatever new therapeutic approaches we take from this point on, they won't include insulin. Not in the near future, anyway.
I'm not entirely sure why I seem to equate going on insulin with failure. I understand that insulin is just another tool to fight my diabetes, albeit one that brings a whole new bag of issues with it. I know part of my reticence originates with my own childhood relationship with my father, whom I always thought was a type 1 but only recently discovered was actually an insulin-dependent type 2, diagnosed when he was in his late twenties. The more I read about it, the more it sounds like he might have been one of those mysterious "type 1.5" diabetics. He was a fit, healthy, athletic young man who didn't drink or smoke. Genetics did him it, it would seem, and no matter what type of diabetes he had, it left him well and truly screwed, and dead at fifty-one.
Ultimately, I'm not sure why it really matters what type of diabetic he was, but then, my own status as a diabetic seems to be a matter of some debate. There was an article that appeared in the LA Times (but apparently originated in the Chicago Tribune) which discussed the "civil war" between type 1s and type 2s, although when you actually read it, it seems to be less of a war and more of a club membership issue. The article mentioned a post on another diabetes site, and going there and reading the comments yielded even more bile.
"I'm sorry, but I hate Type 2," one person was quoted as saying. "I call it the wuss version." She goes on to decry the nerve in suggesting that type 2 might be anywhere near as challenging as what she'd been dealing with since childhood. "IT IS NOT THE SAME. NOT EVEN CLOSE. HOW DARE YOU." All caps, so you know she's serious.
That last point is one that I heard elsewhere, too. Another diabetes blogger recently declared that type 1 diabetics who had been diagnosed as children develop an identity as diabetics, the depth of which type 2s who are diagnosed as adults can never understand or share. And of course there's the oft-made observation that type 1s don't CHOOSE to be diabetic, with the barely concealed implication that all us fat, lazy, irresponsible type 2 fattybetics got exactly what was coming to us.
That's a gross oversimplification, of course, bordering on outright untruth. Unhealthy living is indeed a major contributing factor to the development of a lot of type 2 diabetics (including myself, I'm sure), but ultimately genetic predisposition usually sets things in motion. I may have hastened my own fate with my boozy college lifestyle and my propensity for eating like a Texan, but my skinny quarterback of a father and his own tiny mother (dead from diabetes when he was only twelve) almost certainly set the ball in motion. And I'm hardly alone.
More important than the accuracy of such attitudes, however, is simply how counter-productive that whole approach really turns out to be. I'm no scientist, but it seems like a no-brainer to conclude that research that assists one type of diabetic will ultimately help us all. In reading short-sighted diatribes against "the other type", I am saddened, It breaks my heart, watching so many people demonstrate so little regard for the suffering of their fellow human beings (let alone diabetics), and so little interest in building a stronger, more effective community, one that might actually have some real power and a real chance to effect change.
Ultimately, the "debate" is nothing more than an easy trip down the low road. "Us vs. them" is easy. Building a bigger, better "us" is real work. When your vested interest goes no further than making sure that your Diabetes Club remains as exclusive as possible, and that the invitations to your sad little pity party only go to the right people, I think the thing that you'll eventually find is that the sympathies of a larger world won't be with you. If I weren't diabetic and I read that article, my first impression of the diabetes community would probably not go much further than "What a bunch of titty babies."
For the record, I was diagnosed with type two diabetes when I was 37, after a life spent developing dietary and behavioral habits that I had to then unlearn, and fast. I had a childhood free of diabetes, yeah, and I'm grateful for that. But I have it now, and it sucks now, and if that's not enough for you to identify me as a diabetic in your eyes, I'm not sure why I should care. If you and I both die as a result of our diabetes, we'll both be equally dead.
And if we both somehow manage to survive and live our lives on our own terms, the richness of those lives will be up to us to determine. We'll make that choice, not our disease, and not the labels by which we choose to self-identify.
Re: The Civil War article. In my opinion, a complete waste of time and ink, that could have been spent on reporting on research, or appropriate support for all people with diabetes. An even better use of space? A better, more accurate explanation of both types (the ones in this article are, at best, oversimplification and actually promote some of the MYTHS around type 2) I don't like that they say that type 2's onset can be reversed - it can't - once you're in, you're in. In addition, how can you say one type is more devastating than another and go on to say people with the other type have more complications? The issues with the article go on and on.
But that isn't even the point, is it? The point is, we'll never get anywhere as a community if we keep building walls and if we see ourselves as at war, in some made up fight that so many of us didn't and wouldn't choose. I'm infuriated that the type 1s in this article are presented as representative, when I believe, in reality, they hold minority opinions. I'm more infuriated that there are type 1s out there making judgments about others cloaked in the idea that somehow they're more "worthy" of holding a title that honestly none of should really want - that of identified and self-identifying diabetic. There are so many more interesting, more fun, more productive things to associate with self, aren't there?
While I agree with the notion that "us vs. them" is a pointless endeavor and serves only to divide instead of unite folks, this blogabetes posts misrepresents where I was coming from in the post referenced here--as the unidentified "diabetes blogger [who] recently declared that type 1 diabetics who had been diagnosed as children develop an identity as diabetics, the depth of which type 2s who are diagnosed as adults can never understand or share. "
That is not what I said--and it bothers me that such a talented, intelligent writer who happens to know me would do the same thing the LA Times article does--taking sentiments out of context in order to prove a point.
I know the reason Diabetes Daily began the discussion referenced in the LA Times article--and I know why I wrote my article--and both were written in a spirit of togetherness--not to divide and say one is worse or better than the other---or to imply that certain types are part of some exclusive pity party. I take offense at that gross misrepresentation.
I did say that growing up with a chronic illness changed me and that I believe being sick as a little kid and growing up before your time has written on the slate of who I am--and has given me a sense of identity as a diabetic. However, I clearly state I speak only for myself and my focus was more on childhood illness as a contributing factor--not a Type 1 vs. Type 2 debate--there are many kids with Type 2 diabetes now--as much as I wish that were not the case--and I would never say they don't "count" or don't "deserve" some sort of diabetic label. That's ridiculuous.
Part of what I said in my article http://www.healthcentral.com/diabetes/c/63356/124717/lessons-diabetes is this:
"Like many with Type 1 diabetes, I've grown up (and around) diabetes. Being diagnosed with a life-threatening disease and managing a chronic illness as a child changes you. It just does. Having diabetes--especially as a little girl--has written on the slate of who I am. This isn't a bad thing, per say. But it matters, I'd argue, in ways it just doesn't for people diagnosed with diabetes late[r] in life. While I don't speak for anyone but myself, the diabetics in my life who grew up with diabetes tend to connect to their diabetes differently than diabetics who didn't grow up with it. The distinction matters only insofar as we use it to understand one another better--to come together in unity instead of letting differences cause derision."
Sadly, the way these topics are being handled by the media and individuals seems to add to the sting instead of alleviate it.
We're better than this.
Amylia, what I wrote was in response to your original post, not the drastically changed (and considerably softened) version that you are quoting here. I stand by my post.
Amylia, Rob is right. I actually had to go back and read your post again, because what you quoted here is not what it said originally. My comment above was referencing what you'd written when it was first posted at Health Central. And with all due respect to David E and Diabetes Daily, how is any article with a screaming headline of "Which Is Worse: Type 1 or Type 2 Diabetes?" not going to be divisive? The question itself puts people on guard, and they automatically answer (typically taking a side in doing so). Beyond that, if you have to make an update to an article calling the question you posed in it "unproductive" why write the article at all? I appreciate what you're trying to do here, in providing some context around the edits you made to your post - but I think it's insincere to call Rob out without first explaining that you DID make some pretty serious edits to your original post.
The original post read:
"Being diagnosed with a life-threatening condition and chronic illness as a child changes you. It just does. Having [Type 1] diabetes--especially as a little girl--has written on the slate of who I am. This isn't a bad thing, but it matters, I'd argue, in ways it just doesn't for people diagnosed with diabetes late[r] in life. Ask most Type 2 diabetics how much a part of their identity their diabetes is, and chances are it won't be much. And while I don't speak for anyone but myself, the Type 1 diabetics in my life--who grew up with and around this disease--connect to the disease differently.
To me, it's similar to how being an identical twin or an American or a female influence my sense of identity. Just because I didn't choose to be diabetic or an identical twin or an American or a woman doesn't mean these aspects of who I am don't count when considering who I (think) I am."
You made no comment on the distinction only mattering insofar as we use it to understand one another better.