Posted on 05/26/2009 12:24:12 PM PDT by jessduntno
Every hour of every day, someone is diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, the most severe form of a disease that annually accounts for more than $100 billion in health care costs in the U.S. alone. Usually striking before the age of 30, type 1 diabetes takes a harsh toll on people. Not only will they be insulin-dependent for life, but devastating life-limiting and life-shortening complications such as blindness, amputation, heart disease and stroke, and kidney failure are an ever-present threat. Insulin is not a cure for the diseaseit is merely life support.
Type 1 diabetes is destructive both to children and to childhood. Controlling the disease requires 24/7/365 vigilance and imposes a grueling regimen. It includes eating a carefully calculated diet, checking blood glucose levels several times each day (by lancing a finger) and insulin injectionsas many as six per dayor delivery of insulin through a pump just to stay alive. It means children and families living by the clock, day and night, for the rest of their liveslives that turn out to average about 15 years less than normal.
You can't outgrow type 1 diabetes. As JDRF International Chairman Mary Tyler Moore has said, "Diabetes is an all too personal time bomb which can go off today, tomorrow, next year, or ten years from nowa time bomb affecting millions...one which must be defused." The only solution is a cure. That's why JDRF has a singular mission: to find a cure for diabetes and its complications through the support of research as soon as possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at jdrf.org ...
Even when insulin is injected regularly, type 1 diabetes usually results in a drastic reduction in the quality of life and shortens the average life span by 15 years.
With the realization that Type 1 diabetes doesn't make for a lengthy SCOTUS tenure, the left is going to want to know her BUN and creatinine levels, as kidney failure is the largest contributor to the increased mortality. If these turn out to be elevated, look for tax return problems to be uncovered that jettison the nomination.
“You keep floating that stupid balloon for the left, and make all on the right look like doofus because thats all you are doing with trying to argue this women is unfit because she has Type 1 diabetes.”
Thanks, but I think your opinions suck.
Diabetes can be a serious condition. This woman is overweight which is a no-no for diabetics. One thing the media has been doing for a few years is claim diabetics brought their condition on themselves, by overeating (esp. junk food), being obese and living sedentary life styles. Trying to villianize a class of people where the real culprit is probably a family history and therefore genetic predisposition to the blood/metabolism disorder. Mary Tyler Moore and Halle Berry are notable Type 1 diabetics.
I exercise three to four times each week and have no overweight issues. I get a checkup and eye exam every year. From time to time I experience low blood sugar and keep a piece of candy within reach.
“I hate to be cruel, but her type 1 diabetes is a good thing for our side, since she likely will not have a long life. My SIL has type 1 and is 54 and has lost a leg and her eyesight. She has had three heart attacks. Her days will likely be short on this earth.”
Truth is not cruel unless unspoken. My heartfelt sympathies to all who suffer from this...I know it can have a wide range of effects...
I guess you need to ask Bobby Clarke or Jay Cutler about doing a demanding job with type 1.
It's a nicer tone you've assumed since earlier calling people idiots. But, assuming for the moment that it is a serious threat to her longevity, why in the world would you consider that a minus for somebody appointed by a radical, freedom hater like Obama? Or are you concerned that her medical condition will interfere with her ability to legislate from the bench, as she has admitted on tape that she is all for?
“It’s a nicer tone you’ve assumed since earlier calling people idiots.”
I see that you did not read the entire thread. I was not addressing longevity only, but the unpredictable nature of the disease. There have been more words put into my mouth on this thread than I like...and some very insulting attacks...it’s very emotional...which is why people do not want to go here...another trait of the left...turn you into a monster for asking for a simple truth...you have read some of the responses, in just a few of them we have seen a VERY wide range...
Adiposity [obesity] and mortality in type 1 diabetes.
Overweight increased by 47% and obesity increased sevenfold. There were 146 deaths. In unadjusted models, BMI (modeled continuously) showed a quadratic relationship with mortality
It is hard to tell from just the abstract, but it appears that there in obese Type 1 diabetics, mortality is further increased over normal weight Type 1's.
You are welcome to think what you want of my opinions, and articulate that as ungracefully as you like. While that may make you feel better, it does not make yours any more valid, but you are welcome to have them.
Trying to oppose this woman over her ability to produce or not produce insulin just makes you look foolish, its an act that will be percieved as knuckle dragging at best.
If she goes blind from diabetes complications, or loses her feet, or even has a stroke and dies while sitting in the supreme court chamber itself hearing a case, will that threaten the sanctity of the Supreme Court or the United States of America? Nope, not one iota. This nation and its institutions are bigger than one person, no one person becoming incompasitated or dying in office is a threat to the republic, and that’s by design. Arguing she is unfit because she may get sick in office is laughable.
There are pleanty of reasons to opose this choice for the court, trying to use her diabetes as one is a lost argument that only makes you look a fool.
THE PRESENCE AND SEVERITY OF CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE PREDICTS ALL-CAUSE MORTALITY IN TYPE 1 DIABETES.
Excess mortality was only observed in individuals with chronic kidney disease. Individuals with normoalbuminuria showed no excess mortality beyond the general population (SMR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5 -1.1), independent to the duration of diabetes. The presence of microalbuminuria, macroalbuminuria and end-stage kidney disease was associated with an increased standardised mortality ratio (SMR) of 2.8, 9.2 and 18.3 times respectively.
Whether or not Sotomayor has albumin in her urine is a fact of great pith and moment.
“Trying to oppose this woman over her ability to produce or not produce insulin just makes you look foolish, its an act that will be percieved as knuckle dragging at best.”
I would agree if that were the point. Build all of the straw men you want, your point still sucks.
Sadly, this also means health issues and a shortened life span.
Type 1 and type 2 are not at all the same disease. They just have a similar, but by no means identical, manifestation. Surely there’s a genetic component to type 2, but probably the same genetic component that leads to obesity. There is an undeniable life-style component. Being overweight and over-consuming carbs for years on end just exhausts the body’s ability to deal with it all, and insulin resistance begins. I’m sure there are a few, but you don’t see too many buff, athletic, health food nut type 2s.
My girlfriend is a Type I; it’s much easier to prevent a spike than a drop.
Diabetes ping
[Metabolic syndrome]...was associated with a 2.1-fold increased risk of cardiovascular events and a 2.5-fold increased risk of cardiovascular- and diabetes-related mortality, after adjustment for traditional risk factors and diabetic nephropathy.
Type 1 increases kidney and heart risk, but so dies hypertension and high cholesterol.
That can happen even if you take care of yourself occassionally. It has to do with the bloodsugar level. If you are more active you can use up your calories and then still have the insulin which will continue to lower your bloodsugar. It is a balancing act and why most diabetics carry something with them to take care of the lows.
“...why is this one picked out as something special?”
Once again, I am sorry if this hit some type of nerve, and I really don’t understand why this can not be discussed...but this is not being “picked out” anymore than W’s once-problematic drinking - something that was never even diagnosed as alcoholism - was. Why is it unreasonable to ask if there may be a problem with the ability to doing a job - or whether there could be a problem based on the presence of a disease that is so far ranging in the possibilities of developing issues for a LIFETIME appointment on the SCOTUS? I have read, experienced and heard of a lot of differing issues...why should this not be an issue with her appointment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.