Irresponsibility: BS-testing vs. injecting insulin.

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

Alan Mackenzie - 08 Dec 2005 17:28 GMT

In another thread, I was accused of irresponsibility for suggesting an
unknown diabetic take a one day break from BS testing.

I would agree that were I to suggest this diabetic take a one day break
from insulin injections (should she be an insulin user), this would
be irresponsible indeed.

I get the impression that my accusers would regard the degrees of
irresponsibility of the suggestions in the previous two paragraphs as the
same, and invite them (and others) to comment.

Signature

Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Reply to this Message

Nico Kadel-Garcia - 09 Dec 2005 03:27 GMT

> In another thread, I was accused of irresponsibility for suggesting an
> unknown diabetic take a one day break from BS testing.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> irresponsibility of the suggestions in the previous two paragraphs as the
> same, and invite them (and others) to comment.

Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied, the risks
of the day without tests. If the diabetic is having illness, unexpected
exercise, a meal is late, etc., etc. and then does something like drive,
operate power tools, or drops their newborn baby on the hard kitchen floor
as their fingers shake and slip due to an unnoticed and unhandled low blood
sugar, someone else could get hurt, and the diabetic themself could get hurt
even worse.

It's basic risk analysis. You can't pretend the risk isn't there, you do
have to factor it into the emotional relief of not having to be an anal
tester for one day.

Reply to this Message

Alan Mackenzie - 09 Dec 2005 09:54 GMT

Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote on Thu, 8 Dec 2005 22:27:47
-0500:

>> In another thread, I was accused of irresponsibility for suggesting an
>> unknown diabetic take a one day break from BS testing.

>> I would agree that were I to suggest this diabetic take a one day break
>> from insulin injections (should she be an insulin user), this would
>> be irresponsible indeed.

>> I get the impression that my accusers would regard the degrees of
>> irresponsibility of the suggestions in the previous two paragraphs as the
>> same, and invite them (and others) to comment.

> Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied, the
> risks of the day without tests.

Anybody could have added that information, in a calm factual fashion.
Nobody did. I think the risks of a single day without testing are low.
The risk of somebody for whom those risks aren't low actually risking
them is even lower.

Just for the sake of argument, supposing I'd suggested to a diabetic
known to be T1, that she take a one day break from insulin injections in
this fashion:

>>>> Hey, just hang on a mo! You don't HAVE to inject insulin, nobody's
>>>> forcing you. Why don't you just leave it for a day, see how you
>>>> feel about it the morning after, and take it from there?

(needless to say, I'd NEVER do this), how would you react?

> If the diabetic is having illness, unexpected exercise, a meal is late,
> etc., etc. and then does something like drive, operate power tools, or
> drops their newborn baby on the hard kitchen floor as their fingers
> shake and slip due to an unnoticed and unhandled low blood sugar,
> someone else could get hurt, and the diabetic themself could get hurt
> even worse.

To say nothing of dropping the baby because she can't feel anything in
her fingers any more. Nico, that's just silly. Please stop presenting
remote possibilities as though they were likelihoods.

> It's basic risk analysis. You can't pretend the risk isn't there, you
> do have to factor it into the emotional relief of not having to be an
> anal tester for one day.

"Factor it into the emotional relief"? What the fuchsia is that supposed
to mean? The OP in that other thread was _scared_, to an unknown degree.
All you can do is deny that fear's existence by drowning it in nauseating
politician-speak. "Hey, it doesn't matter that you're scared". Why?
You wouldn't treat your own 4 year old like that.

And there was no mention anywhere of testing arseholes.

Signature

Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Reply to this Message

Ozlover - 09 Dec 2005 20:28 GMT

[deleted]

> Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied, the risks
> of the day without tests.

I don't think/remember that he "in fact denied", so please cite
(complete with Message-ID). [Normally I would re-read the thread myself,
but this (previous) one is very big and you have already been caught
'reading' things which were never written, so the burden of proof is on
you.]

[rest deleted]

Signature

Frank Slootweg

Reply to this Message

Nico Kadel-Garcia - 09 Dec 2005 22:36 GMT

> [deleted]
>> Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied, the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>
> [rest deleted]

In Message-ID: 6g9umd.46.ln@acm.acm, Alan wrote:

OK, let's start at the beginning. You DON'T have to check your blood
sugars. You're an autonomous adult, and nobody's going to put you in
prison if you decide not to. You're also not going to drop dead
tomorrow - Just that your long term chances of avoiding complications
are
reduced if you don't do the testing. Note that many, many diabetics
(quite of few of whom post on this group) did just fine for decades
before home BS testing was even available. Of course, many didn't.

I think I've made my point. Alan completely left out the immediate
consequences of missing a *low* blood sugar.

The other, more sensible things he wrote are obscured, at least when I read
it, by the bad assumptions in statements like these.

Reply to this Message

Alan Mackenzie - 10 Dec 2005 15:09 GMT

Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote on Fri, 9 Dec 2005 17:36:31
-0500:

>> Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@comcast.net> wrote: [deleted]
>>> Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied, the
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>>
>> [rest deleted]

> In Message-ID: 6g9umd.46.ln@acm.acm, Alan wrote:

> OK, let's start at the beginning. You DON'T have to check your
> blood sugars. You're an autonomous adult, and nobody's going to
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> just fine for decades before home BS testing was even available.
> Of course, many didn't.

> I think I've made my point. Alan completely left out the immediate
> consequences of missing a *low* blood sugar.

Yes, I left them out, and I admit I shouldn't have done. That's a far
cry from "in fact denied the risks of the day without tests". Anybody
else (including you, Nico) could have calmly made the deficit good.

> The other, more sensible things he wrote are obscured, at least when I
> read it, by the bad assumptions in statements like these.

The fact you gloss over, is that the OP was scared, and that could mean
anything between mild unease and outright panic. To my reading that was
the prime problem in the original post. Why do you find this aspect so
unimportant?

Signature

Alan Mackenzie (Munich, Germany)
Email: aacm@muuc.dee; to decode, wherever there is a repeated letter
(like "aa"), remove half of them (leaving, say, "a").

Reply to this Message

Ozlover - 10 Dec 2005 15:42 GMT

> > [deleted]
> >> Of course they're not. But you glossed over, and in fact denied,
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> I think I've made my point. Alan completely left out the immediate
> consequences of missing a *low* blood sugar.

True.

But *my* point was that you claimed that he "in fact denied" ("the
risks of the day without tests.") and I doubted that claim. Your (non)
'proof' indeed shows that you 'read' something which was never written,
because he did not *deny* the risks, he didn't *mention* them.

So in future please comment on what someone actually wrote, not what
you think they wrote.

> The other, more sensible things he wrote are obscured, at least when I read
> it, by the bad assumptions in statements like these.

I think you mean you were (and are?) biased, so you paid much more
attention to some points than to other points. That is quite human, but
it's unfair to blame a poster for *your* bias.

FWIW, I thought and think your initial response was way over the top
and your ad hominem attack was, as any ad hominem attack, inappropriate.
I hope that in hindsight you can come at least part AlanM's/'our' way.
If so, then at least some good has come out of all this aggro. If not,
it's all our loss.

Signature

Frank Slootweg

Reply to this Message