So Manny over at the TuDiabetes networking site flagged Friday's post about Steve Sim's story as a launching pad for the whole discussion: Should diabetes be officially treated as a disability?

And wow, what an emotionally-charged debate...

Insulin_pump_3 My first thought was, that's a tough one with "invisible illnesses" on the whole. If we haven't developed any complications, we "diabetics" don't look or feel disabled, do we? But sometimes we do require special accommodations at work, or while traveling. And sometimes people react very negatively to our disease, even to the point of actively excluding us from certain jobs or privileges.

Still, quite a few folks over at TuDiabetes said NO, diabetes should not be considered a disability, as long as it's well-controlled and the person is thriving. They argue that a body becomes officially disabled only when complications like blindness or amputation enter the picture.

Others were incensed by this, arguing that people with diabetes need proactive protection by the law, not least because discrimination is often so irrational -- like in Steve's case, where he was perfectly able to perform his job but got booted for being diabetic anyway, or with diabetic children at school.

A lot of it comes down to the question, how do you define a disability? One civil rights specialist points out that the law uses a three prong test. Covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act or The Rehabilitation Act is anyone who:

(1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities,

(2) has a record of such an impairment, or

(3) is regarded as having such an impairment.*

*Regarded as? That one threw me for a loop.Attitudes

So I check out the link, and found this:

"In 1987 the United States Supreme Court stated, and the Congress reiterated that, 'society's myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairments.'

"For example, a person with mild or well-controlled diabetes is barred from participating in sports at school because of his/her diabetes, despite being able to safely participate.

Even when a person does not have a disability (i.e., their diabetes does not substantially limit a major life activity) if s/he is still being treated as though s/he does, they are covered under the ADA definition ..."

Reading this actually makes me feel grateful. Because for me, the upshot is what Katrina said:

"I don't want to think of myself as disabled and don't want to be looked at that way either. At the same time, if there is ever situation where I am discriminated against -- I'd like to have the law on my side."

Wouldn't you, too?

Disclaimer: Content created by the Diabetes Mine team. For more details click here.


This content is created for Diabetes Mine, a consumer health blog focused on the diabetes community. The content is not medically reviewed and doesn't adhere to Healthline's editorial guidelines. For more information about Healthline's partnership with Diabetes Mine, please click here.