As a member of the media, you might think that I would get riled up about news stories all the time. Strangely, though, I don't find that to be true. So I guess it's no surprise that when I do get moved by a story, I get really moved.

There's not often much information in the e-newsletter from Diabetes Health magazine that pertains to me, but I look forward to reading it nonetheless. I usually scan the headlines and teasers, and maybe read a story or two. I sometimes forward it on to my mom and two aunts who help their 90-year-old type 2 mom with her diabetes management.

Today's newsletter, though, had a story that I read several times. The headline, Psychologically Dependent Type 2s Use Too Many Test Strips?, intrigued me; the story, on the other hand, made the fire rage.

Maybe I'm being too sensitive about this. You let me know. According to the story, which cites a study in a UK medical weekly publication, a review of evidence has concluded that for type 2s on oral medication whose A1Cs are below 7.5%, blood glucose monitoring offers "little advantage and may increase the likelihood of hypoglycemia."

Um, what?!? Wait, there's more.

The article also says that the review "could give [general practitioners] the confidence to resist pressure from well-controlled but psychologically dependent patients to allow them to continue self-monitoring."

This makes absolutely no sense to me. Just because a type 2 patient has good control of their diabetes doesn't mean they shouldn't continue to test. This is almost like saying "You're in control. You can ignore diabetes if you just keep doing what you're doing." That just simply isn't the case with this disease. It's unpredictable and it changes and you have to be on your toes. Foods, exercise and medicines that worked for you Monday might not work for you on Friday. If you're not testing, how will you possibly know that?

This really makes me angry. Angry at the "evidence" and angry at the UK medical weekly that published the information. To me, it's irresponsible journalism that encourages people to not be in control of their own bodies. Yes, we pay doctors to tell us what to do, but we're the ones living with this disease, we're the ones who need to know our bodies intimately so we can spot trends, and ultimately self testing is one of the best ways to know which end is up.

Adding more nonsense to the story, the UK publication (which is apparently read by 80% of Britain's doctors) called routine monitoring of blood sugar a "reckless habit" that "forced the National Health Service to spend over $65 million on monitoring agents in the last quarter of 2006."

This is reminiscent of insurance companies who refuse to pay for preventive treatments, but are quite willing to pay for the complications of a disease. Where is the logic?