Sometimes it feels as though discussions in the diabetes are seasonal. Like clockwork, we see the same conversations happen at the same times. Without missing a beat, almost as soon as a scientific conference is over, someone will comment about how difficult it is for PWD to get to conferences (true, however this year, #dedoc° voices could have assisted a number of the people who were stating that), and then there are discussions about disclosure by PWD who are fortunate to attend, even though pretty much every advocate I know who attends these sorts of things does a stellar job of disclosing. 

And of course, the nature of the first big meeting of the year, ATTD, means that there inevitably will be noise about the gap in technology access. And you bet this is a discussion that we need to be having on regular rotation. 

After attending my first ATTD, I wrote a piece about the complete and utter dichotomy of being at a conference that was only talking about the latest and greatest in technology while, at the same time, whilst the community was in the midst of its usual Spare a Rose month of fundraising. I struggled to balance the idea that we were talking about automated insulin delivery at the same time as urging donations so people could just get insulin!

Today, I’m revisiting the piece I wrote after last year’s ATTD, where my worlds of diabetes technology and language matters merged, and combined this with the over-representation of those at the super-dooper-tech-y end of the diabetes technology spectrum. (‘Super-dooper-tech-y’ is, obviously, a very technical term.)

I don’t for a moment think that meetings with a strong tech focus should end, or that those who are innovators in technologies should take a seat and let others speak. I don’t believe that at all. I will be forever grateful to the pioneers who continue to push the envelope and make things better for people with diabetes. But I do think that we need to ensure that there is equal attention to those who – by choice or because of their circumstances – are not walking around with an algorithm driving their diabetes.

If we truly believe that all diabetes stories matter, then we need to hear from people doing diabetes in every way possible. Perhaps if we make more of an effort to find and hear those stories, we will stop minimising our experiences, and starr seeing that whatever we are managing to do is truly enough…

DISCLOSURE 1 (for ATTD 2020) 

I was an invited speaker at #ATTD2020, and my registration was covered by the conference organising committee. My airfare and part of my accommodation to attend ATTD was covered by Lilly Diabetes so that I could participate in the DOCLab advisory group meeting which took place on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Other accommodation was covered by DedocLabs (I am an advisor for the #dedoc° voices program) and Novo Nordisk (I am a member of DEEP). I have not been asked to write or speak about any of the activities I attended, or anything I have seen at the conference. 

We all do a good job at undermining ourselves at times. We use a four letter word that diminishes what we are doing, and limits the value of our experience and expertise. That four letter word is ‘just’.

In diabetes, we hear it all the time: ‘Oh, I just have type 2 diabetes’ as though it is insignificant and doesn’t have any challenges. ‘I’ve lived with diabetes for just a couple of years’ because we think there is only currency in decades of living with the condition, when really any length of time with diabetes is meaningful.

And we are all about minimising our experience when it comes to the treatment of our diabetes. ‘I just use diet and exercise to manage my type 2 diabetes’ or ‘I’m just on tablets’ or ‘I’m just on injections twice a day’ or ‘I’m just on MDI’. The list goes on and on. And on.

I realised just how ridiculous we have become with this when I heard myself, during a conversation with a fellow Looper, ‘Oh, I just use Loop’. (More on that later…)

At the Ascensia Social Media Summit at ATTD we spoke about this, specifically how there is almost a stigma within the diabetes for those seen to not be using the shiniest and brightest and newest of technologies. It seems that some people almost feel embarrassed if they are not constantly updating their technology toolkit with the most recently launched product.

The idea that anything that we are using today is ‘yesterday’s technology’ is wrong. Blood glucose monitoring can’t be ‘yesterday’s tech’ if it is what most people are using to track their glucose. And syringes and pens can’t be considered the ‘old way to deliver insulin’ when that is how the vast, vast majority of inulin-requiring people with diabetes get insulin into their bodies. Plus, every single one of us using a pump must be able to deliver insulin this way because machines break.

Somewhere in discussions about our treatment technologies, we seem to have forgotten that, actually, not everyone wants to be using the latest kit. And that is okay. There is a spectrum of diabetes technology, and as long as we are on it somewhere and managing our diabetes the way that works best for us, then elephant stamps all around!

There is clearly an over-representation of people at one end of that spectrum dominating on and off line conversations. Spend a couple of hours in a diabetes Facebook group and it would be a reasonable assumption that most people are wearing pumps and CGM. But that’s not true.

And it could appear that DIYAPS is the way to go for most people with T1D, when the fact is that numbers are relatively low. It’s hard to estimate exactly, but there may be somewhere between 2,000 and 3,000 worldwide how have ‘built their own pancreas’. That is just a drop in the type 1 diabetes ocean.

It’s fantastic for those of us interested in this technology to be able to (virtually) congregate and talk amongst ourselves. I learn so much from my peers in these groups – just as I have with all aspects of life with diabetes. The lived experience continues to trump any other way of learning about diabetes.

Of course, that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be talking about technology used by limited numbers. Of course we should. We want others to know about it so they can make an informed choice about whether it may be right for them.  We want our HCPs to know about it and to support those of us using all sorts of technologies and treatments.

Where it becomes problematic is when there is the misconception that this is the norm. Or when those not using the newest technology feel that they are wilfully doing diabetes the ‘old way’. It’s unfair to think for a moment that those who are not using the tech ‘don’t care’ enough about themselves – especially when decisions are made based on a very good understanding of what is available and what they have decided works best for them.

So, back to my ‘Oh, I just use Loop’ comment. It was directed to someone far more technologically advanced than me; someone who runs all sorts of other programs alongside their DIYAPS. They generate lots of reports and make lots of changes and seem to have far more bells and whistles than I even knew were available.

I nodded as they told me all they were doing and then, when they asked me how I manage my diabetes, I answered that I just use Loop. I heard myself saying it and stopped and corrected myself. ‘I mean…I use Loop. It works for me. Perfectly.’

We don’t need to make excuses for doing diabetes our own way. If we truly have choice (which I know is not always the case), and we have made the choice based on what we believe to be the best possible treatment and technology for us at that moment, then surely that’s a great thing. We shouldn’t ever be made to feel less committed to our own health and wellbeing. That’s not how it works.

DISLCOSURE 2 (for ATTD 2019)

I was invited by Ascensia to co-chair the Diabetes Social Media Summit at ATTD (#ATTDDSMS). I did not receive any payment or in-kind support from them for accepting their invitation. I have co-written a piece for the blog, however this was not edited (apart from inevitable jet-lag-induced typos) and all words are those of mine and the piece’s co-author. You can read that piece here.