What I don't understand is why officers who have already been employed by the force are permitted to get insulin pumps and continue working, and also the fire department has no problem with the pump.

"We'll make sure we take a hard look at this," said Dietl, adding that the medical restrictions are meant to protect both the job applicants and the public. "The last thing we want to do is create an unfair barrier to employment."

Seems like they already have.

The law doesn't make sense because it states that if you go on the pump AFTER you're hired, then it's OK to be on the pump. But you can't be hired if you're already on the pump. Also, it's OK to be hired if you take injections instead of being on the pump. None of it makes any sense like I said before.

It sounds to me like the law took effect back before the pump was seen as an effective way of receiving insulin. The law is a little antiquated and should be reviewed again by a new panel of experts who are informed of the new, more effective ways of insulin delivery.

PR for the police department and the state will dictate that the powers-that-be will become embarassed and change the law.

I don't understand it because of the issue that Hannah raises.

It seems like clear discrimination to me. It's OK if you have diabetes. It's OK if you have diabetes, join the police and THEN start on a pump. But it's not OK to have diabetes and use a pump BEFORE joining the police.

Where's the logic in that?

I would be going to court-how many people on the police force do you think have diabetes? My guess is that there are lots, they may just use injections instead!!

That's BS! Control is... control. No matter how someone chooses to keep it. I would even argue that a pump makes the most sense for the job.
-Able to be carried around with you at all times
-Easy access to insulin rate changes
-Quick ability to start any BG corrections needed.
Hennick has my support, I hope he fights for job. And subsequently fights to educate about diabetes!

Yeah, it's ridiculous. BUt not uncommon. One of the things I heard when I went on the pump was, "Wow, that must mean your diabetes is really bad." Umm, no. It means I want to keep my diabetes from becoming really bad.

My life is all about how a person can thrive while living with a chronic illness (my site is cicoach.com) and I thought I'd just about heard it all. This story show us how the workplace (code word for human resource policy) =hasn't caught up with the 21st century. More people are living productive lives with chronic illness because of meds, surgery and treatment options. That is the good news. But, there remains this idea that if you don't fit the mold, don't bother trying to fit into our world. As one comment-er said, where's the logic? There isn't any. But hopefully the media attention will change this policy. Now if we can only get this kind of attention on all of the other blocks that people with chronic illness run into - so they can just keep on working.
Rosalind www.keepworkinggirlfriend.com

Don't ask, don't tell - don't ask, don't tell.

The big answer behind a lot of gross politics is don't ask, don't tell. Sure, it's infamous for the military, but isn't this the same thing. If you go use insulin in the bathroom or a private space and force yourself to be sneaky, then no one needs to ask, and no one needs to tell. When I read the article it seemed to be about keeping secrets and feeling shameful about who you are.

It's ludicrous in all cases.

I'll never forget my mom raising her voice to me over the phone last month telling me never to mention the word "pump" again because I am not a "brittle diabetic". And the sad thing is, up until somewhat recently, I though something along the same lines that most of my family and co-workers believe, which is that pills = diabetes lite, insulin = getting worse, pump = out of control diabetes. I wish Hannah luck educating those around him otherwise.

Seems to me that if he can complete the police academy (one of my best friends is a commissioned officer in TN) without any trouble, it shouldn't be a problem. Sometimes the academy can be very demanding physically and that may be a problem. For instance, getting up and running for 10 miles in the morning BEFORE breakfast. But that would seem to be an issue no matter what the treatment of the diabetes. The law is probably just outdated. Laws can't always keep up with the changes in the "real world". I hope that for this young man's sake they re-evaluate their law and let him attempt to be a competent officer.

Great post. Kudos for Hennick for fighting back.

"Paul Dietl...said...that a panel of medical experts concluded in 1995 and again in 2002 that those who wear insulin pumps to monitor their blood glucose levels can't be hired as police officers." Unless Dietl is talking about CGM (which seems unlikely given the 1995 decision, a pre-cgm era), this info is wrong. In 1995, diabetics wore pumps exclusively to deliver insulin, not to monitor blood sugars. Someone has their machines mixed up...and it's either Dietl, the panel, or the Globe.

There's tons of misinformation out there. Thanks for creating a space to debunk these myths.

That article had me so riled up that I dropped everything I was doing and posted it, fingers flying. Unbelievable. And the fact that there are no such rules in place for firefighters makes even less sense--aren't both jobs ones where lives are on the line?

The irony is there was an article of the front page of the Globe a day earlier about how diverse the new pool of Boston Police recruits is! (Not the same police dept. Hennick was applying to, but ironic nonetheless!)

My goodness! I was watching TV this afternoon, and saw a commercial for Liberty medical supplies, and thought to myself, "It seems like on all the commercials advertising diabetes supplies, older Type 2 people are the actors". Nothing wrong with encouraging older, Type 2 people to test more often, but it just makes the "stereotype" of a diabetic in the US that much stronger. There isn't much media exposure of mainstream TV (dLife is great!) that educates the general public about us younger Type 1's. I am sure I have some serious (unfortunate) misconceptions about people dealing with other conditions that aren't true, but you tend to accept what you see and hear over and over. I really hope this PD takes the time to learn the truth about the Type 1's who are dilgently taking control of their diabetes and are more health-conscious than maybe some other people. Thanks are passing on this info!

Folks, you should think "type 2" versus "type 1" -- that is usually what clueless reporters mean when they mention "severity" of diabetes.

And it _is_ a fact that even insulin-dependent type-2s are much more robust, in terms of D management, than we type-1s. For instance, an absence of insulin for half a day or more generally is not a bother (they rarely go into DKA or the type-2 aequivalent, hyperosmolar coma); they generally, even when on isulin, are more resistant to and quicker to recover from hypos.

So we might want to stop ranting ans start considering facts instead.

Thanks,
Felix.

i'm shocked that a regulation is enforced that demonstrates so little knowledge about diabetes in general and the pump specifically. and the article never explains why the ridiculous rule was instituted in the first place.
plus, there seems to be a major loophole, since the article clearly states that if you are already a policeman, you can go on the pump. what's stopping policemen from switching from the pump to injections for a few months, and then going back on the pump once they are on the force?

I think we can engage in a little fact-based ranting as well.

My first thought about the shots/pump issue was that the force probably allows people with Type 2, and people with type 2 who take shots, on a case-by-case basis - hence the reference to 'severity'. I doubt that this candidate could go on shots, start the job, and switch back to the pump. They'd probably disqualify him based on his insulin use (dependence).

Regardless of the details (which may very well be muddied by reporting), it appears that the police department has a policy that forbids some or all insulin dependent pwd's.

Why exclude them? Well, maybe they fear severe lows (armed people with guns and severe lows? hmmm) Maybe they fear that the pwd would be at risk in some way. It sounds like their concerns are based in a lack of true understanding about diabetes and diabetes management, though.

Maybe a better understanding will lead to a more fair policy.

A commenter on my blog mentioned that her T1 husband is a pumping police officer. She pointed out that the pump allows him to react to situations as needed.

Something more to think about... I remember dLife doing a story about this.
(Sorry, I don't know how to make the link below, a link...)

From:
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-forecast/jul2005/back.jsp

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and many state anti-discrimination laws, it is unlawful for an employer to have a blanket ban that prohibits anyone with diabetes from holding a given job. Rather, an employer must look at each case individually. The exception is when another federal law or regulation "trumps" those laws. This happens very rarely. One place it does happen, however, is in the military, where people with diabetes are prohibited from serving. However, as Staff Sergeant Mark Thompson's story shows, the military has made some exceptions.

Read about Staff Sergeant Mark Thompson and his pump in Iraq.

My thought as I read the article in the Globe this week, how could this town's police department be so uninformed???

Unbelievable is the first thought on my mind.

Great that Hennick will fight back and not give up.

This case will teach the public that diabetics can do the job. We are diabetiCANS. Not diabetiCAN'Ts.

haha - nice one with diabeticans :)

I get annoyed with the generalisations - things like having a pump equals bad diabetes, etc. What crap! I know we can't expect everyone to know all about D (I didn't understand much at all until I had it myself) but I do expect reporters & employers to make a good go of it.

It actually does worry me that an insulin dependent diabetic could take on a dangerous job. Lows suck. We can't let them take over our lives, but I know I'd be avoiding any job where I could stuff up too badly or hurt people because of a low. Regardless of how tight control is, Lows happen.

You know how it feels when you're in front of other people and have to sneak a lolly or something at a bad time? Perhaps an official occasion or a place where food isn't allowed... it can be embarrassing, awkward and even cause a fuss. Now what about a policeman out on the streets trying to arrest someone, or in a car chase, or some other tricky situation (granted these situations are hopefully rare). Will he feel ok to whip out some gel /tablets / munchies? Can he stop a robbery for a while until he feels better? 'hang on a moment please robbers, I just need to deal to my low, sit there & wait before you lift that TV out the window...'

Lets not forget the highs he'll probably be dealing with even more, to avoid the lows. How much will his high BG slow him down? Make him do things messily because his brain isn't thinking straight?

I sorta sit on the fence with this one... because I also believe we should be able to do anything. When shit happens we should be ok as long as we're prepared... we can handle anything as much as the next person...

So I wish this potential policeman luck to achieve his goals, but I also hope he's on the ball, willing to have tight control all day every day and always be prepared for the lows & highs that'll get in his way.

The argument that I have heard about commercial driver's licenses is this:

Those with diabetes (type 1 OR 2) who are on insulin create a potential hazard with the possibility of hypoglycemia.

I have heard more than one RTD (Denver public transit) driver say that if they "graduate" to insulin from oral meds, they'll lose their jobs. I don't know if that's really true policy or not, but what they say anyways.

I understand exactly. There is nothing I can't do that a non-diabetic can. However I can see why there are restrictions placed on diabetics. Regardless of how well controlled our diabetes is, we are all human and can make mistakes or have one of those foul roller-coaster days. Imagine an insulin dependent driving a school bus full of kids. Breakfast was a little lower carb than expected, so they are heading for a minor low. Hopefully, not low enough for an accident, but low enough to scare the crap out of the kids.

"No pumper cops" is a little harder to see but there is, perhaps, one unpleasant scenario. Cops are frequently on the receiving end of violence. If your pump got hit and damaged then you could just be heading for a nasty, espceially if the damage caused you to get an EXCESS of insulin. The pumper gets a nasty low, probably in a situation where everyone needs their wits about them - not good. If the restriction was placed without a lot of thought then I would be furious but, if there was careful consideration and cogent reasons why the restriction is there then I would accept it.

There is, of course, something we can do that non-diabetics can't - produce sugary urine!That probably isn't an advantage but hey, we're one up on them. :)

I have had a few people say to me, including a woman who has been a nurse for 30 years, "You wear a pump? Your diabetes must be severe." And I say, "No, my diabetes means I have to take insulin." But there are many more people who comment to me how much better a pump works at managing diabetes.

> There is nothing I can't do
> that a non-diabetic can.

Um, that is incorrect. You cannot, for example, get a commercial pilot's license -- or, in some states, a commercial driver's license. And rightly so!

A run-of-the-mill low on a plane is, for me, a minor annoyance. A low while the pilot approaches the lower edge of the air -- when it goes smoothly, we call that "landing" -- would _not_ be a minor annoyance.

So let's have fewer slogans and more reflection, please.

Thanks,
Felix.

My first endo told me when I was a kid that we wouldn't put me on an insulin pump unless I got pregnant as an adult or my diabetes got "bad enough" that I needed one.

So when I was 23 and my new endo suggested one I couldn't help but feel like a failure. I know now that it's the greatest tool for me ever and I'm a very good diabetic.

My insulin pump kicks ass!

As a current police officer and the father of a type 1 teenage son that aspires to be a police officer I have alot of interest in this story. I have been following this case and others. I have not found a type 1 that has been allowed to join a police dept. If anyone knows of any I would appreciate the information. I have found cases of applicants for 1811 Govt. Special Agent positions winning cases for employment. One was with Customs and the other was the IRS.
In the Hennick case it seems that the Northampton PD was going to hire him and then found the state negative regulation. The regulation has two catagories for medical conditions, A and B. Any condition in Cat A is automatic disqualification. Diabetes controlled by a pump is Cat A. All other diabetes are classified in Cat B which is evaluated on a case by case basis. Still plenty of hurdles to get over for an applicant to be hired.
On a lighter side, and as a PO I can say this, with a pump you can eat as many donuts as you want, unlike those on shots. Case closed.