Does Type 1 diabetes get too much funding?
Wednesday May 17, 2006
There's a disturbing article in the New York Times today about Type 1 diabetes and Type 2 diabetes and the discrepancy in funding and public acceptance. It's one of those stories that makes empowered, activist parents look selfish, and that always ticks me off. But the attitudes that place one disease over another in terms of worthiness for research dollars and cure are troublesome, too. The gist of the article is that advocates for people with Type 2 diabetes are concerned that Type 1 diabetes gets all the research funding, although there are many, many more patients with Type 2. Meanwhile, advocates for children with Type 1 diabetes feel that the media's emphasis on Type 2 leads people to believe their children are fat, lazy, and brought their illness on themselves by poor diet, whereas in fact they are often thin and developed diabetes through no action of their own. I know that when there's a finite pool of money for research, these sort of disputes are bound to crop up. But the idea of one disease being more deserving of funds because it's more prevalent, or another being more deserving because the victims are somehow more "blameless," makes me wonder whether there's any possibility of solidarity among special-needs parents. Underneath it all, are we all really thinking, "My children with special needs is better than your child with special needs?" I've read enough Email list exchanges to fear that it may be true, subtly if not directly. What do you think? Is this article a fair depiction of the diabetes debate? Do you see kids getting services or research that you feel is unfair, or that your child's disability doesn't get enough attention? Answer back in the comments. ... More on diabetes
Comments
I think entirely too much is being read into the NYTimes article. I have read several comments posted online about how people never realized that the term “diabetic” was actually insulting to children, etc., which fail to acknowledge why having different names might actually be appropriate.
First, I think its important to realize that the NYTimes article failed to acknowledge the fact that a medical error was responsible for the two conditions even sharing the same name. The reality is that because they share 1 common symptom of elevated blood glucose, early doctors just assumed that patients actually had the same condition and gave their condition the same name. It wasn’t until the mid-1970’s that researchers were able to prove definitively that the type 1 diabetes and type 2 diabetes shared no etiological relation whatsoever. Beyond the treatment goal of maintaining non-diabetic blood glucose levels, there really are few similarities.
Second, beyond the complaint that type 2 may be seen more as a “lifestyle” disease, the reality is that there ARE issues for patients with each condition which are unique, and because of the sheer numbers of patients with type 1 increasingly are finding there are fewer physicians who are up-to-date on the unique issues related to their condition. Isn’t that a legitimate complaint?
my daughter just turned 7 when we found out she had type 1 diabetes it has been a up hill battle for the last two years. as in type 2 diabetes diet, exercise and losing weight doesnt help at all she will take insulin for the rest of her life and has a lifetime of needles to look forward to