It is not often that I say, “New York Times, check yourself!”

But there is a moment for everything.

On October 17, The New York Times New York print edition published an entry in its “Ask Well” column that bears clarification and correction. The piece, “How Do You Die From Diabetes?,” was published on the New York Times website on October 13 and can be found at this link.

The problem here starts the way they often do: right at the beginning. The title’s “How Do You Die” misses the plot.  NYT, have you buried the lead? Consider, instead, “How Can You Die From Diabetes,” because diabetes is not a terminal condition. This is not solely a semantic distinction. Conversation is a vital part of our social discourse. In doing so, we must be sure that we’re engaging in conversation from a informed perspective. The outcome is better for all of us.

Diabetes is a subject I know well. I have lived with a type 1 diabetes diagnosis for almost 14 years. And while I haven’t died from it, I have spent each of the past 5,087 days since my diagnosis learning about and managing the condition from a medical, practical, emotional and intellectual perspective. Yet this is not about me, or my diabetes, or my feelings towards death. Type 1 might very well be my Grim Reaper, but death by diabetes is not a foregone conclusion for anyone with type 1 or type 2.

It seems that now is a particularly important time to elevate fact over assumption or fabrication in our social discourse. Working with facts about diabetes empowers people who have it. It also educates the public about the condition. Facts enable us all to be more constructive.

I’ll start with a basic, which is that type 1 and type 2 diabetes may have a shared name, but just like Serena and Brian and Pharell and Robbie are all Williams, they are not all one and the same.   The New York Times piece mentions both type 1 and type 2, defines only the latter and makes little effort to meaningfully distinguish between the two. Type 1 diabetes is a chronic autoimmune condition characterized by a pancreas that is not able to produce insulin, a hormone that’s necessary for vital life functions. Type 2 diabetes is a metabolic disorder in which insulin is produced but cannot be effectively used by the body.

In each case, people with diabetes must regulate their blood sugar levels. Here, too, the New York Times piece bears clarification. It states that people “who have diabetes cannot regulate their blood sugar levels.” I have a correction to make here. People who have diabetes cannot auto-regulate their blood sugar levels, and there is a big difference. People with type 1 rely on synthetic insulin, via injections or insulin pumps, in order to control their blood glucose. In type 2, the issue is, initially, more one of insulin resistance.

Patients with diabetes are tasked with managing their condition on a daily basis. Trust me, it gets old very quickly. A sense of empowerment and self-determination is a big motivator. An empowered patient understands that diabetes will not, necessarily, be their demise. This understanding makes the more challenging decisions involved in diabetes management, including maintaining a disciplined diet and a regular exercise routine, a little lighter. Responsibly sharing the message about what diabetes is and what the consequences can be ensures that people living with the condition are in a position to frame their choices in the healthiest way possible.

This affects everyone.

Diabetes costs the US healthcare system around $245 billion yearly. A well-informed public understands that these costs can be decreased if we’re empowering patients, be it in small ways by the conversations we have about diabetes, or larger ways, by advocating for helpful tools. These tools can alleviate the burden on not only patients, but also the medical community, the healthcare system and even taxpayers.

There are a few important initiatives that come to the fore:

• Healthcare reform: healthcare reform initiatives should provide adequate protection for people with pre-existing conditions, diabetes included. There is an important moral argument to be made here, but I’ll address only the practical one in this piece. Adequate protections for people with pre-existing conditions like diabetes afford patients access to lifesaving healthcare. This has ripple effects on us all.

 

• Drug prices: diabetics don’t have to die from diabetes, but they will if they can’t afford the medication they need in order to manage their condition. The price of insulin nearly tripled between 2002 and 2013, according to The Journal of the American Medical Association. It continues to rise. In May of this year, drugmakers Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly increased insulin prices by 8%, and drug companies stand to profit, with the value of the diabetes drug market expected to exceed $55 billion this year. Yet patients, healthcare providers, the healthcare system and tax payers do not profit, in any sense of the word, when we lack the regulatory infrastructure to ensure life-saving pharmaceuticals are sold in a way that’s affordable and sustainable for those who depend on it.

So what can you do?

If you are so inclined, reach out to your representative in Congress about healthcare reform and pharma price fixing. To be sure, people with diabetes are not the only ones who stand to benefit.

But at a minimum: let’s encourage a dialogue that is factually correct, and hold each other accountable for doing so. November is recognized in many countries as Diabetes Awareness Month. As we hear more about diabetes in the weeks to come, let’s engage with each other in an informed and responsible way, so that our discourse can be productive, and, who knows, even empowering.