Delta airlines...wanted to vent

[SueM in MN]

Thanks for all the support and for on the info for accommodations while flying. I never knew ADA didn't apply to air travel and that it was covered by something else. I just was frustrated that between all the things that went wrong between the website and the booking and being on hold for an hour, she then disagreed with me about it being a disability. I explained what accommodations I needed, I shouldn't have to argue the why. That's not why I bought the tickets. Lol.

And I didn't cry disability. I called in and told her that I had a disabled child and told her what accommodations I needed. Very matter of fact. It's such a normal way of speaking and life for me.

I find it interesting that so many posters don't call it a disability. When we were first DX we were told that the NW has one of the highest populations of T1D in the world, next to...it's either Norway or Sweden...I always forget which one. And this may be regional, but almost every family I know with T1D calls it a disability....when you say medical condition I think of pregnancy, or a mild case of psoriasis. Things that are inconvenient, temporary and not adversely affecting quality of life long term. It feels like it down plays what it is, or that it's shameful...something to hide. And when there are T1D parents fighting the school system to accommodate their service dogs, or having their children suffer multiple low induced seizures on the school bus for lack of care, or trying to make sure the school systems don't relocate and essentially segregate all the T1D children to a single school in the district...the terminology medical condition doesn't really do it justice. Calling it what it is, a disability adds more credibility to it's complications and impacts on life.

I hope my post doesn't come off as snarky...that's not my intent in the least. But it's YDMV 'your diabetes may vary'. And some of the responses to the post kind of come off as 'diabetes isn't a disability...', I don't know if it's intentional. But it is a disability and it is deserving of the same effort for accommodation and protection as any other disability. If a person in a wheelchair tells me they are disabled, I wouldn't argue them over it.

I guess the reason that most people are calling diabetes a medical condition, not a disability is that your definition of medical condition is not what most people would use. Most people would not call Pregnancy a medical condition unless the person had complications.

Let me try to explain a bit better.

Most people would call all these things medical conditions:
Asthma
Diabetes
Cancer
Cerebral Palsy
Epilepsy
Heart disease
Lupus
Multiple Sclerosis
Etc.

All those medical conditions can cause a disability or not, depending on how the medical condition affects them.
My ypungest DD has Cerebral Palsy, but that is part of her medical diagnosis, not her disability. As a result of Cerebral Palsy, she has stiffness of her legs and arms and poor control of her muscles, which means she can't walk, talk or care for herself. Those are her disabilities, not Cerebral Palsy.

One of her past daycare providers had Cerebral Palsy that made one of her arms weak. She worked around it by lifting things in different ways and did not consider herself to be disabled. So, same medical condition, difference on disability. DD also had a doctor who had cerebral palsy, which affected one leg, which he wore a brace for. He also did not consider himself to be disabled, (unless he needed to walk a long distance).

My youngest DD also has epilepsy, which causes her to have between 4 and 5 seizures a month. When she has one, she may be non-functional for the rest of the day. The facts that her seizures are not controlled, that she has that many seizures each month and that the aftermath of her seizures is debilitating is her disabilty related to epilepsy.

My older DD and my DH both have friends with epilepsy. In both cases, their epilepsy is well controlled and they have gone without seizures for a long enough time to drive a car. They need to continue to take anti-seizure medication, but don't consider themselves disabled because their medical condition is controlled.

It's the same with any other medical condition - some may be affected enough that they have a disability related to their medical condition. Others don't.

Children who are having seizures from low blood sugar on the bus may have disability related to their diabetes, but most people with well controlled diabetes consider themselves to have a chronic medical condition that they need care for, not a disability.

 

[smitch425]

I guess the reason that most people are calling diabetes a medical condition, not a disability is that your definition of medical condition is not what most people would use. Most people would not call Pregnancy a medical condition unless the person had complications.

Let me try to explain a bit better.

Most people would call all these things medical conditions:
Asthma
Diabetes
Cancer
Cerebral Palsy
Epilepsy
Heart disease
Lupus
Multiple Sclerosis
Etc.

All those medical conditions can cause a disability or not, depending on how the medical condition affects them.
My ypungest DD has Cerebral Palsy, but that is part of her medical diagnosis, not her disability. As a result of Cerebral Palsy, she has stiffness of her legs and arms and poor control of her muscles, which means she can't walk, talk or care for herself. Those are her disabilities, not Cerebral Palsy.

One of her past daycare providers had Cerebral Palsy that made one of her arms weak. She worked around it by lifting things in different ways and did not consider herself to be disabled. So, same medical condition, difference on disability. DD also had a doctor who had cerebral palsy, which affected one leg, which he wore a brace for. He also did not consider himself to be disabled, (unless he needed to walk a long distance).

My youngest DD also has epilepsy, which causes her to have between 4 and 5 seizures a month. When she has one, she may be non-functional for the rest of the day. The facts that her seizures are not controlled, that she has that many seizures each month and that the aftermath of her seizures is debilitating is her disabilty related to epilepsy.

My older DD and my DH both have friends with epilepsy. In both cases, their epilepsy is well controlled and they have gone without seizures for a long enough time to drive a car. They need to continue to take anti-seizure medication, but don't consider themselves disabled because their medical condition is controlled.

It's the same with any other medical condition - some may be affected enough that they have a disability related to their medical condition. Others don't.

Children who are having seizures from low blood sugar on the bus may have disability related to their diabetes, but most people with well controlled diabetes consider themselves to have a chronic medical condition that they need care for, not a disability.

I agree. In the case of my brother, we NEVER ever said he was "disabled" until he went blind. He had diabetes which to us (and most people, I think) is a medical condition. The term "medical condition" is used for someone with a medical diagnosis of an illness. I have never in my life heard anyone refer to pregnancy as a "medical" condition.

OP, not everyone with diabetes is disabled. Diabetes is a medical condition. There are certainly diabilities that occur because of that condition, but the terms themselves are separate. In my brother's case, for example, when asked what his disability was we would reply with "he is blind", not "he has diabetes". Again, I think in your airline situation, it was the terms you were using that threw the agent for a loop. Especially when you were using the words "protected class". "Classes" for airlines are "First, Business, Economy", etc. It's no wonder why the girl was confused.

 

[buffettgirl]

We've never called diabetes a disability. Sorry. almost every family I know with type 1 diabetes does NOT call it a disability and in fact goes out of their way to make sure it's never seen as a disability.

I guarantee you that Jay Hewitt does not call it a disability.

I guarantee you that Gary Hall Jr. doesn't call it a disability.

I guarantee you that Sean Busby doesn't call it a disability.

I guarantee you that Jay Culter doesn't call it a disability ( though maybe in his case he should lol)

I could go on and on and on. Needing an accommodation at school or otherwise, does not make a person disabled. We might need an accommodations during a school state testing, so that if needed, he can leave the classroom to see the nurse or he might need an accommodation that he's allowed to have food on the school bus. We're allowed to fly with items that aren't allowed to the general public, and you might need to sit next to your child on the plane so you can monitor him. But none of those things make our kids disabled. NONE of those things.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Thanks for all the support and for on the info for accommodations while flying. I never knew ADA didn't apply to air travel and that it was covered by something else. I just was frustrated that between all the things that went wrong between the website and the booking and being on hold for an hour, she then disagreed with me about it being a disability. I explained what accommodations I needed, I shouldn't have to argue the why. That's not why I bought the tickets. Lol.

And I didn't cry disability. I called in and told her that I had a disabled child and told her what accommodations I needed. Very matter of fact. It's such a normal way of speaking and life for me.

Given the relative frequency of diabetes in the United States (and odds are the woman you spoke with lives in the Atlanta area), it's entirely possible she has diabetes - and doesn't consider it a disability, or herself disabled.

 

[melancholywings]

I guess the reason that most people are calling diabetes a medical condition, not a disability is that your definition of medical condition is not what most people would use. Most people would not call Pregnancy a medical condition unless the person had complications.

Let me try to explain a bit better.

Children who are having seizures from low blood sugar on the bus may have disability related to their diabetes, but most people with well controlled diabetes consider themselves to have a chronic medical condition that they need care for, not a disability.

Thank you for taking the time to write it out. I understand what your saying but I don't believe I'm using the term incorrectly if this is the definition:

According to the ADA 'Disability means'
http://www.diabetes.org/assets/pdfs...roving-diabetes-is-a-disability-east-2007.pdf
All of these laws define an individual with a disability as follows: (1) a
person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (referred to below as an “actual disability”); (2) a person with a record of such an impairment; or (3) a person who is regarded as having such an impairment.

Diabetes is seen as an impairment and disability by law. If it was not then schools would not be required to accommodate which includes testing in the classroom. Or to have staff to help administer shots.

I agree. In the case of my brother, we NEVER ever said he was "disabled" until he went blind. He had diabetes which to us (and most people, I think) is a medical condition. The term "medical condition" is used for someone with a medical diagnosis of an illness. I have never in my life heard anyone refer to pregnancy as a "medical" condition.

OP, not everyone with diabetes is disabled. Diabetes is a medical condition. There are certainly disabilities that occur because of that condition, but the terms themselves are separate. In my brother's case, for example, when asked what his disability was we would reply with "he is blind", not "he has diabetes". Again, I think in your airline situation, it was the terms you were using that threw the agent for a loop. Especially when you were using the words "protected class". "Classes" for airlines are "First, Business, Economy", etc. It's no wonder why the girl was confused.

If you Google there are many arguments for and against calling pregnancy a medical condition. And I didn't say she was disabled - I said she had a disability.

We've never called diabetes a disability. Sorry. almost every family I know with type 1 diabetes does NOT call it a disability and in fact goes out of their way to make sure it's never seen as a disability.

I'm going to just post a link about other diabetics talking about this exact same thing because I'm tired of defending myself and how I choose to manage my child's T1D, our emotional approach to it - which has made her very emotionally confident in who she is as a person. She takes pride in it, she doesn't call herself 'disabled' but knows that she has a 'disability' which means she has to do things differently than many of her classmates.
I am not alone in calling it a disability. And just because you don't - it doesn't mean I'm wrong in doing so:

http://www.tudiabetes.org/forum/top...3967:Comment:2648761&x=1#583967Comment2648761

 

[smitch425]

Thank you for taking the time to write it out. I understand what your saying but I don't believe I'm using the term incorrectly if this is the definition:

According to the ADA 'Disability means'
http://www.diabetes.org/assets/pdfs...roving-diabetes-is-a-disability-east-2007.pdf
All of these laws define an individual with a disability as follows: (1) a
person with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities (referred to below as an “actual disability”); (2) a person with a record of such an impairment; or (3) a person who is regarded as having such an impairment.

Diabetes is seen as an impairment and disability by law. If it was not then schools would not be required to accommodate which includes testing in the classroom. Or to have staff to help administer shots.



If you Google there are many arguments for and against calling pregnancy a medical condition. And I didn't say she was disabled - I said she had a disability.



I'm going to just post a link about other diabetics talking about this exact same thing because I'm tired of defending myself and how I choose to manage my child's T1D, our emotional approach to it - which has made her very emotionally confident in who she is as a person. She takes pride in it, she doesn't call herself 'disabled' but knows that she has a 'disability' which means she has to do things differently than many of her classmates.
I am not alone in calling it a disability. And just because you don't - it doesn't mean I'm wrong in doing so:

http://www.tudiabetes.org/forum/top...3967:Comment:2648761&x=1#583967Comment2648761

I am sorry if you are reading these comments as something you need to defend. No one is trying to verbally assult you or say you are wrong. We are just pointing out that what you said to the Delta employee likely confused her because many (if not most) use different terminology when describing diabetes. You started the thread because you felt the Delta employee was in the wrong. We were trying to help you feel better about why she reacted the way she did. That's all.

 

[haredi]

I think the OP was posting because she was frustrated that the agent did not understand, and the entire booking process had been a hassle. Frankly, as an airline passenger, I would prefer to have a 10 year-old that is diabetic sit next to a parent, than have something happen in flight while the parent is a few rows away.

That being said, I think that saying "my daughter has diabetes and we need to sit next to each other in case there are any issues" may have had a quicker response with no resistance from the agent. My son has ADHD, and when he was 10 I always made sure that we sat together. If I had to, I went up to the agent at the gate and explained that My DH or myself needed to sit next to him to prevent causing a difficult flight for other passengers. It always worked without fail except for one time, and we were lucky enough to have a passenger move to accommodate us.

 

[BillSears]

impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities

I guess here is where I tend to disagree with you. Diabetes may cause an impairment but just having diabetes is not an impairment. What is the impairment that you feel diabetes creates? It has to be something that substantially limits a major life activity. Just like with the GAC a diagnosis isn't what is important, what's important is how the diagnosis affects you.


For example I'm a paraplegic(diagnosis) and cannot feel or move anything from my waist or lower. This prevents me from walking(effect) which is a major life activity. So what is the major life activity that having diabetes impairs and how does it impair it significantly?

 

[buffettgirl]

I guess here is where I tend to disagree with you. Diabetes may cause an impairment but just having diabetes is not an impairment. What is the impairment that you feel diabetes creates? It has to me something that substantially limits a major life activity.


For example I'm a paraplegic and cannot feel or move anything from my waist or lower. This prevents me from walking which is a major life activity. So what is the major life activity that having diabetes impairs and how does it impair it significantly?

so I can answer this partially, as we use that terminology to receive accommodations at school.
As I'm sure you know (but I'm going to post for anyone who doesn't) section 504 of the ADA says this:

The Section 504 regulatory provision at 34 C.F.R. 104.3(j)(2)(i) defines a physical or mental impairment as any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and endocrine; or any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. The regulatory provision does not set forth an exhaustive list of specific diseases and conditions that may constitute physical or mental impairments because of the difficulty of ensuring the comprehensiveness of such a list.

Major life activities, as defined in the Section 504 regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.3(j)(2)(ii), include functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. This list is not exhaustive. Other functions can be major life activities for purposes of Section 504. In the Amendments Act (see FAQ 1), Congress provided additional examples of general activities that are major life activities, including eating, sleeping, standing, lifting, bending, reading, concentrating, thinking, and communicating. Congress also provided a non-exhaustive list of examples of “major bodily functions” that are major life activities, such as the functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions. The Section 504 regulatory provision, though not as comprehensive as the Amendments Act, is still valid – the Section 504 regulatory provision’s list of examples of major life activities is not exclusive, and an activity or function not specifically listed in the Section 504 regulatory provision can nonetheless be a major life activity.

So for a person with type 1 diabetes, their pancreas does not produce a key hormone which is necessary to stay alive. That's a pretty big major life activity. LOL. If a child is having a low blood sugar and is unable to care for or treat himself then it does limit a major life activity ie; caring for oneself. However, as far as ADA is concerned, endocrine function and it's inability to function properly is also a major life activity. So according to ADA having non-functioning pancreas is the same as having any other non-functioning body system. So in that regard it qualifies AS a disability.

Still, in my opinion, doesn't make that person disabled. Big difference. HUGE difference.

 

[kritter47]

I am sorry if you are reading these comments as something you need to defend. No one is trying to verbally assult you or say you are wrong. We are just pointing out that what you said to the Delta employee likely confused her because many (if not most) use different terminology when describing diabetes. You started the thread because you felt the Delta employee was in the wrong. We were trying to help you feel better about why she reacted the way she did. That's all.

Exactly. Most people don't consider relatively common medical conditions like diabetes and asthma to be in and of themselves disabling, particularly outside of the context of what those conditions affect (things in the air for asthma, meal time for diabetes, to paint with a very broad brush).

For instance, I'm asthmatic. It qualifies as a disability under the ADA. But functionally, I am not "disabled" except in very specific circumstances, and I would confuse the heck out of anyone if I referred to myself as such. Much like diabetes, I require accommodations in certain situations (such as a smoke-free area to sit for me, or an area to dispose of sharps for you), but most of the time I function as a healthy adult.

When I run into a specific situation where I might have difficulty (say, a hotel with a limited number of non-smoking rooms that wants to hold some back), I don't pull out the ADA or use generic terms. I explain my specific problem and why I need a type of accommodation for it. A better approach for you next time might be to open that part of the conversation with "I need to sit next to my child because she is diabetic, and I need to be there to help her manage her blood sugar and insulin during a long flight so that she doesn't have any problem." Being specific about what the accommodations you need are and why they are necessary is often much more likely to result in help than a generic "my child has a disability, and I need to sit with her" as the opening line of the dialog. That often leads to arguments about semantics, like the one you got into.

And as far as the "has what is techincally considered a disability but is not disabled" discussion, I'm a two-fer on that because I also have Asperger's Syndrome. But through a lot of trial and error growing up that helped me develop adult coping mechanisms, I have reached the point where I do not require accommodations except for my convenience, and I never ask for those because I can function (albeit at a higher stress level, but we all have our demons) without them. Both that and asthma are diagnoses that can cause situational disability, but I function without a pronounced disability probably 90-95 percent of the time.

Are there times when I can be disabled from those? Sure, in specific situations. But I don't consider myself disabled away from those situations. To me, "disabled" implies a lot of things about my non-situational functional ability that some other words discussed do not. YMMV, obviously.

 

[BillSears]

Buffettgirl, that may or may not apply in this case. The Supreme Court has determined that a correctable disability is not considered a disability under the ADA laws. For example:

"In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Court held that a mechanic with medically-controlled high blood pressure was not an individual with a disability. As in the Sutton case, the Court found that as long as Murphy continued to take medication for his high blood pressure, he was not substantially limited in any major life activity - even though he likely would have been bedridden or hospitalized if he were not taking his medication."

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/128934.html

So as long as a diabetic controls their blood sugar levels correctly they would not be considered disabled under the ADA.

 

[buffettgirl]

Buffettgirl, that may or may not apply in this case. The Supreme Court has determined that a correctable disability is not considered a disability under the ADA laws. For example:

"In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Court held that a mechanic with medically-controlled high blood pressure was not an individual with a disability. As in the Sutton case, the Court found that as long as Murphy continued to take medication for his high blood pressure, he was not substantially limited in any major life activity - even though he likely would have been bedridden or hospitalized if he were not taking his medication."

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Jul/1/128934.html

So as long as a diabetic controls their blood sugar levels correctly they would not be considered disabled under the ADA.

ah, the rub there is "impairments that can be easily corrected". Ask anyone with type 1 Diabetes if diabetes is easily corrected - at all. Controlled, perhaps, but using exogenous insulin does not "correct" the fact that the body doesn't produce it. And nor does it come anywhere near being able to replicate what the body does on it's own. And simply supplying insulin doesn't fix the various other issues that go along with lack of insulin producing beta cells. We're handling one tiny aspect . The rest we've yet to find a way to fix. Diabetes control doesn't even aim for euglycemia - we aim for something near to near-normal. We simply cannot be as precise as the body on it's own.

So that's the main difference.

Also, this http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/adaaa_notice.cfm which helps interpret the amendments from2008 to the ADA which further clarifies the rulings from 1999.

And then this: http://www.diabetes.org/living-with...terials/proving-diabetes-is-a-disability.html which lists some 10 so actual cases.


But, be clear, I do not consider my son with type 1 diabetes Disabled. Not in any sense of the word. Yes, the ADA may say that he has a disability and we may use that information in order to protect his rights to be in school and other things. But no way in heck do I consider him disabled. Just wanted to make that part clear

 

[BillSears]

Yea I understand Buffetgirl. I was married to a T1 diabetic so I have seen day to day the things needed to control it.

I think we're all just "discussing" the usage/meanings of words. It's all just a semantics thing because one thing is for sure. We're not going to be setting Delta's policy here on the DISboards.

 

[buffettgirl]

Yea I understand Buffetgirl. I was married to a T1 diabetic so I do have seen day to day the things needed to control it.

I think we're all just "discussing" the usage/meanings of words. It's all just a semantics thing because one thing is for sure. We're not going to be setting Delta's policy here on the DISboards.

oh I totally agree. And for whatever it's worth, I don't even think it's Delta's policy - just an uninformed CS rep on the phone since we've already determined that ADA is not in play here, and that the Air Carrier Access Act is but that the rules for what is considered a disability are similar.

In the end whether a person actually calls themselves disabled is irrelevant since the end result to a person with an impairment which is covered under ADA (or ACAA) is to receive the accommodations which they need. I feel like that might be a incongruous position to take, but it is what it is. ie: I don't call my child disabled, but we do receive accommodation based on the fact that the ADA recognizes that he has a disability.

 

[livndisney]

Semantics aside......

Delta's website says:

"Seating Accommodation for Individuals with Disabilities
We accommodate any request for seating that helps you manage your disability. It is our responsibility to provide you with any available seat in advance, which you are qualified to use. Additional accommodation may be made for:

Passengers who uses an aisle chair to get on the aircraft and can't readily transfer over a fixed aisle armrest can be provided with a seat that has a moveable aisle armrest on aircraft equipped with this feature.
Passengers traveling with an attendant helping them during the flight will be provided side-by-side seating Passengers traveling with a service animal will be accommodated with any available seat but will be provided a bulkhead seat if requested.
Passengers with a fused or immobilize leg will be provided with any available seat they qualify for, on the side of the aircraft that appropriately accommodates their disability, and if requested, a bulkhead seat. "


If I am reading the first post correctly that is all the OP was asking for.

For what it is worth there was a landmark case in California in 2007 where "California courts rendered a landmark decision by legally establishing that children with diabetes were disabled according to both state and federal legal definitions".

http://www.isletsofhope.com/civil-rights/is-everyone-with-diabetes-disabled.html


On a personal note, my aunt was disabled by diabetes. It stole her sight, her legs and eventually her life.

 

[kaytieeldr]

ah, the rub there is "impairments that can be easily corrected". Ask anyone with type 1 Diabetes if diabetes is easily corrected

I know it's late, but I've read these few posts several times and I can't find any (else) claiming or indicating diabetes is "easily" corrected - just that, in and of itself it's not a disability.

Passengers traveling with an attendant helping them during the flight will be provided side-by-side seating Passengers

Not getting into a discussion of what they mean by "attendant", or what a travel attendant would typically do, but in my opinion it would generally be intended to primarily apply to passengers unable to care for, transport, etc., themselves.

That doesn't matter, though. The Delta CSR was having the same problems selecting any seats for the OP, just as the OP was. This sounds like either a system error, or as someone indicated above, the OP was using one airline's reservation number to try to choose seats on the connecting flight. She likely asked how old the daughter is because a rare supervisor override could be used if the passenger who might need help is a child, vs an otherwise capable adult.

People sometimes lie to get what they want.

That the CSR doesn't think diabetes is a disability could be personal (yes, I'm repeating myself); she could have diabetes.

 

[kaytieeldr]

For what it is worth there was a landmark case in California in 2007 where "California courts rendered a landmark decision by legally establishing that children with diabetes were disabled according to both state and federal legal definitions".

http://www.isletsofhope.com/civil-ri...-disabled.html


On a personal note, my aunt was disabled by diabetes. It stole her sight, her legs and eventually her life.

Massachusetts may be liberal, but California has some really flaky or restrictive laws. Just because their Supreme Court decided a case doesn't make it fact, or apply it to the rest of the country.

Sorry about your aunt; just so you're aware, though, diabetes doesn't do that. Diabetic complications (usually from poorly managed or poorly controlled diabetes) do.

 

[buffettgirl]

I know it's late, but I've read these few posts several times and I can't find any (else) claiming or indicating diabetes is "easily" corrected - just that, in and of itself it's not a disability.

That was a quote from the court case that Bill referenced in which the supreme court used the terms "impairments that can be easily corrected".

Not getting into a discussion of what they mean by "attendant", or what a travel attendant would typically do, but in my opinion it would generally be intended to primarily apply to passengers unable to care for, transport, etc., themselves.

correct, a child with diabetes may not be able to care for himself. In any case, we don't have to get into that discussion because the ADA generally regards someone with diabetes as having a disability and the ACAA uses the same language and generally follows suit - see the links to the other court cases from a few posts back where it has been determined already.

 

[livndisney]

Massachusetts may be liberal, but California has some really flaky or restrictive laws. Just because their Supreme Court decided a case doesn't make it fact, or apply it to the rest of the country.

Sorry about your aunt; just so you're aware, though, diabetes doesn't do that. Diabetic complications (usually from poorly managed or poorly controlled diabetes) do.

Both of these comments are your opinion. Which you are entitled to. However laws are laws no matter the Dis board opinion.

As far as my Aunt,I somehow doubt her medical team will agree with your opinion as to what caused her death. It always amazes me when people try and post about subjects they have no experience with.

 

[smitch425]

Sorry about your aunt; just so you're aware, though, diabetes doesn't do that. Diabetic complications (usually from poorly managed or poorly controlled diabetes) do.

That makes no sense. You wouldn't have Diabetic complications if you didn't have diabetes.

Even the best managed and best controlled diabetes patient can go blind and die. If anyone knows that, it's me. I am going to assume that you have no experience with this illness, because if you did, you would never make a comment like that.