You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Stigma’ category.
As details of the coronavirus pandemic started to be revealed, the message for people with pre-existing chronic health conditions wasn’t good. It became apparent pretty early on that we were in the ‘at risk’ group. When the ‘only the elderly and those with health conditions need to worry’ lines were trotted out on every forum imaginable, many people with diabetes worried, because we were part of that ‘only’.
And so, people with or affected by diabetes tried to collect the best information about how to keep ourselves safe. One of the most common topics of discussion in diabetes online discussion groups, was about seeing diabetes healthcare professionals. Was it safe? Should we go? What about flu shots? And HbA1c checks? As telehealth services popped up, some were relieved, others were confused. Some people felt they didn’t want to be a burden on their HCP, and indeed the health system that we were told was about to be inundated and overwhelmed. Some diabetes clinics were suspended, only taking appointments for urgent matters.
Last week, Monash University released a report that showed that people with diabetes are not seeing their GP at the same rate as this time last year. The development of diabetes care plans is down my two thirds, and diabetes screening is down by one third.
I was interviewed for a television news story yesterday about these finding. Before agreeing to be the case study, I contacted the reporter to get an idea of just how the story was going to be pitched. ‘We’ll be highlighting the findings of the report, how there are concerns now that there will be an influx of people with diabetes needing to see their doctors in coming months, and how it is understandable that people may be anxious about exposure to coronavirus if they do go to the doctor, and therefore are cancelling, postponing or not making appointments at the moment.’ She paused before finishing with, ‘We’re not blaming people at all.’
They were the magic words I needed to hear and gave her our address, after informing her that the interview would have to take place on the front veranda or in the garden because we were not accepting visitors into our house still.
The under two-minute new story was pretty factual and outlined details of the study. (The grab from me they used had me explaining how I had made the decision to postpone my annual eye screening by a few weeks, rather than the appointments that I had still decided to keep such as my flu jab and telehealth appointments). But overall, it was a good story – factual and definitely not blaming.

Sunday afternoon at the (home) office.
And so, perhaps I was feeling a false sense of safety when I read a newspaper report today that mentioned the study. Speaking about the fallout from people not seeing their GP during the pandemic, a doctor quoted in the story said:
‘The last thing we want is a tsunami of serious health issues and worsening chronic conditions coming after this virus, simply because people have stopped taking care of themselves or consulting their GP.’
I read that, re-read it and then couldn’t get past these nine words:
Simply. Because. People. Have. Stopped. Taking. Care. Of. Themselves.
How could a health professional think this about people living with chronic health conditions at any time, but even more so, how could they think that during the confusion and anxiety of living through a global pandemic where outcomes for those same people are likely to be worse?
People may not be going to see their GP, but it is not in defiance or because they have made the wilful decision to stop taking care of themselves. In fact, I honestly don’t know of anyone who has ever made that decision – pandemic or not.
Delaying my eye appointment isn’t an example of me not looking after myself. It is a reflection of the real anxiety I am feeling about exposure to coronavirus – anxiety that became heightened last week when restrictions were eased, and then only got worse again when I heard the news about deaths of people with diabetes. And I know I am not the only person who is feeling the way I am at this time.
And any other time that I have been accused of ‘not taking care of myself’, I was doing the absolute best I could in that moment, considering all the other things that were going on in my life. And yet, it took me a long time to find a diabetes healthcare professional who acknowledged that when I am not in the right place to be managing my diabetes, we first need to start through those other things first. She never blamed me. She just helped me through.
A health professional making the comment that people not attending appointments are ‘not taking care of themselves’ is actually a much bigger problem than just when looked at in the context of COVID-19. It happens all the time.
Stop blaming people with diabetes. Just stop the blame. Stop blaming people if they don’t get diagnosed early. Stop blaming us if we develop complications. Stop blaming us if we develop complications that didn’t get diagnosed early. Stop blaming us for not caring for ourselves.
But then, I guess, it won’t be quite so easy for HCPs to wash their hands of any responsibility they may have for the health outcomes of people with diabetes if, instead of pointing fingers, they hold a mirror up for a moment.
Today, my social media feeds are full of this screaming headline:
As soon as I saw this, I threw my phone away from me and put my head back under the doona. Aren’t Fridays meant to be about celebrating a week well done and looking forward to the weekend?
Instead, I woke to far too many notifications about diabetes and death – words I really don’t like to see together, especially not so early in the morning. Fortified with coffee, I took a deep breath and in I went, reading the article from top to bottom.
I’ve had a knot in the pit of my stomach all week. It moved in and made itself comfortable when the Australian PM started talking about easing lockdown restrictions. I’ve spent the last few days trying to work out how I can manage this anxiety in a sensible way, and not do what I really want, which is to build a cellar under our house, stock it with coffee, prosecco and Nutella, and move in there until sometime in 2030.
This article and the subsequent commentary twisted that knot tighter and pushed it in deeper. ‘I live here now,’ it seemed to be saying. And then added, ‘Get better WIFI; it’s patchy in here.’
The fact that the article raises more questions than it actually answers hasn’t helped. More details – details that may help to better understand exactly what is going on – won’t be published until next week. And so, without enough content to provide explanations, advice and information that might help PWD feel that perhaps it’s not all hopeless. Instead, The Guardian offered some throw-away lines about the associations and causes of type 1 and type 2 diabetes:
‘NHS England’s breakdown, published for the first time on Thursday, did not specify how many of the 5,873 diabetics who died had type 1 diabetes, an autoimmune condition not related to lifestyle, and type 2 diabetes, which is closely linked to being overweight. Fuller details will be published in an article in a medical journal next week.’
This just seems like an opportunity for people to appease people with type 1 diabetes, and point the finger and further stigmatise people with type 2 diabetes, instead of acknowledging that people with ALL types of diabetes might possibly find this news confronting. What is the relevance here to being overweight? If there is a correlation, please let us know and does it impact people with type 1 diabetes who are also overweight?
I am not for a moment saying that this sort of information should be hidden away or swept under the carpet. Of course, I want to understand how diabetes and COVID-19 interact. But there has to be a better way to get information to the masses without adding to the anxiety and worry. And definitely in a way that doesn’t sensationalise, point fingers and add to social stigma.
The article goes on to highlight the link between Alzheimer’s disease and deaths due to COVID-19, and as I read the quote from Alzheimer’s Research UK’s director of policy and public affairs, Samantha Benham-Hermetz, I wanted to reach into my MacBook and give her a metaphoric, and therefore socially distant, hug. She said:
‘This shocking news will no doubt bring even more worry and fear to people affected by dementia and their loved ones, during an already challenging time.’
I know that I and so many of my friends living with diabetes, and their loved ones, have been feeling worried and scared since this all started, and this article has the potential to add a lot more. The fact that this response was acknowledged out loud (and I think it’s fair to say that people affected by diabetes would be feeling the same as those affected by dementia) made me feel so grateful and heard.
Statistics are statistics, and data are important; I know that. But sharing data with the masses only works if it is done effectively and communicated in a way that doesn’t leave people feeling hopeless, but rather empowers us to make decisions that contribute to minimising risk.
My heart breaks for my friends with type 2 diabetes, and their families, who not only have to digest this headline and information, but also need to consider how the cavalier and simplistic definition of type 2 diabetes will now be interpreted by the general population who already are so quick to blame and stigmatise.
I live with diabetes, and I understand that I am high risk of complications, and so it seems, death if I get COVID-19. But mostly, more than anything else, I am a person trying to make sense of all of this and stay safe, healthy and sane – just like everyone else.
P.S. Hey – Guardian UK – I fixed this para for you:
‘NHS England’s breakdown, published for the first time on Thursday, did not specify the type of diabetes with which the 5,873 people who died were diagnosed. Fuller details will be published in an article in a medical journal next week.’
Last Friday night, I sat around with three other women with type 1 diabetes and we had a chat. When I say ‘sat around’ I mean Zoomed, but other than the fact that we were seeing each other through computer screens, it could have been any other time I was meeting up with women with diabetes for a casual chat.
The reason for this gathering was so that I could be interviewed for a new Australian podcast. Mamabetes was launched just last week, and is a project by three amazing Aussie advocates, Ashleigh, Rachel and Carleigh, all who are living with type 1 diabetes.
I was a little surprised when they reached out to me. My kid is fifteen and my experience of pregnancy and diabetes is a little old now. But they wanted to speak with me about stigma and language, and how that can impact on all sorts of diabetes experiences – including pregnancy.
I’d never met any of the women before and other than a short conversation with Ashleigh a couple of days before, the first time we chatted was when Zoom brought their gorgeous faces and happy smiles into my study at home. I’d been sent a brief outline of what they hoped to get from our discussion and a few broad questions for me to consider before we got started. We were going to chat for about fifteen minutes and see where our conversation took us.
I’m sure that we could have stuck to that timeframe if we really wanted, and to the questions I’d been offered as a guide. But an hour later, we were still chatting, and we’d taken off on some wonderful tangents, as happens when people with shared interests and experiences come together.
The podcast episode with our chat dropped this morning and I’ve been listening to it in bits and pieces in between the Zoom existence so many of us seem to be living at the moment. We cover lots, so do have a listen! Click on the image below to go to the podcase, and the Mamabetes other socials are listed for you to follow along.
Asheigh, Rachel and Carleigh are creating something really important here, and providing women with diabetes a place to learn and connect – around an issue that is relevant and important to many. Thanks to these three dynamic women for doing this, and for inviting me to be a part of their second podcast episode.
Go follow…
Recently, the Australian of the Year was announced. This year, the gong was awarded to Dr James Muecke, an eye surgeon from South Australia, who was acknowledged for his work raising awareness of type 2 diabetes and its links to preventable blindness.
I didn’t really know of Muecke before the announcement, but clearly, he is very accomplished, and his work reaches beyond Australia’s borders. He co-founded social impact organisation, Sight for All, which raises funds to deliver vision-saving programs and eye health projects to people in under-resourced countries.
However, it is Muecke’s work in linking type 2 diabetes and blindness that received the majority of the media coverage, with (as can always be relied upon) some pretty average reporting. Interviews with and soundbites from the newly crowned Australian of the Year did focus on a simple and incorrect equation of sugar equalling diabetes, and this certainly did seem to concern a lot of people responding to what they were seeing online.
I sighed as I read through a lot of that commentary, dismayed as the calls to differentiate between the types of diabetes drowned out Dr Muecke’s award, with repeated bleats that ‘Sugar didn’t cause my/my child’s type 1 diabetes’.
Sugar didn’t cause anyone’s diabetes – it’s just not that simple. I appreciate wanting people to understand that drinking too much Coke isn’t why type 1 diabetes develops. But equally, I want people to understand that it isn’t why type 2 diabetes develops either.
Asking for clarification of the different types of diabetes isn’t always necessary because it doesn’t always matter. You bet that it does matter at times, but other times, it really doesn’t.
We see this time and time again. Think about the time that café in Sydney thought they were being cute by calling a dessert ‘Diabetes’, or the time that guy on that UK cooking show referred to something as ‘Diabetes on a plate’. Was this really the time to get all uptight because the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes were not specified? Were the calls to stop stigmatising type 1 diabetes by not clarifying that ‘our’ diabetes isn’t because we ate that dessert? Does it matter in these moments if the person stigmatising and misrepresents diabetes doesn’t point out which sort of diabetes?
It really doesn’t. If the dessert was called ‘type 2 diabetes’ or the recipe was ‘type 2 diabetes on a plate’, it still would have been wrong. It still would have been stigmatising.
And yet, every time another lousy comedian, or celebrity or chef makes a diabetes joke, or the media gets diabetes wrong, or the Australian of the Year explains diabetes in the wrong way, the predictable cries, and rapid soundbite responses only feed into the stigma, prejudices and misconceptions of type 2 diabetes.
We can do better – we need to do better. And we can, by being more thoughtful in our response to correct people getting diabetes wrong.
I should point out that this goes beyond people with (or parents of children with) type 1 diabetes. Lots of other diabetes stakeholders get into it too. Some health professionals trip over themselves in their endeavour to speedily demand clarification of type, (even when it is not necessary). This has always left me somewhat befuddled and wonder if they think this will win them brownie points with the cool kids on Twitter. Surely HCPs working in diabetes understand that sometimes putting ‘type 2’ before diabetes is not actually rectifying what is factually incorrect in the original statement. And that should matter, a lot more than the ‘likes’ from the type 1 diabetes Twitterati they seem so eager to impress!
We can get it right, and get it right quite easily. When the Australian of the Year announcement was made, the comms team at Diabetes Australia absolutely nailed the messaging, striking a balance between commending Dr Meucke for his award, acknowledging how wonderful it was to see the Australian of the Year platform being used to highlight the link between diabetes and diabetes-related eye disease (with a plug for KeepSight!), and adding a note to clearly and eloquently explain the complexities of type 2 diabetes, the role that genetics and other non-modifiable risk factors play in its diagnosis, and reminding people that type 2 diabetes is not caused by eating sugar.
I think the team got it right – the information was correct and accurate and did not in any way add to the stigma of diabetes. (Disclaimer: I work for Diabetes Australia and I’m talking about my colleagues. Whilst I sometimes work with the comms team, they are all far smarter and better at communicating than I could ever hope to be. Which is possibly why they won’t let me near any of our socials. That, and they worry I’ll swear, or share an Effin’ Birds cartoon…)
Each type of diabetes – and there are many! – has its own complexities and some of the time we need to make sure that it is clear which diabetes we are talking about. But next time you find yourself about to take to the keyboard to correct some misinformation, ask if you are actually adding to that misinformation. And if you see someone demanding such clarification, ask them if they are aware they are contributing to type 2 diabetes stigma. Because I think a lot of the time that is exactly what is happening.

Complete digression, but the title of this post reminded me of these books, which anyone who has been around kids in the last 15 or so years would know about!