An Appeal from a Diabetic to Non-Diabetics (unless doctors or nurses)

[markpkessinger]

In a recent thread about Walmart's firing of a diabetic employee because, in the midst of a hypoglycemic episode, she grabbed a bag of chips. A number of folks suggested there was something suspicious about the story, since, based on their experience with a spouse's/friend's/cat's diabetes, they thought it would have made more sense to reach for a candy bar.

There are a number of scenarios I can imagine where grabbing a bag of chips rather than a candy bar would make perfect sense. Perhaps she felt her blood sugar dropping (and trust me, you can feel it). She may not have been so low as to need refined sugar or fructose that very second, but she knew if she didn't eat something, and right quick, she was in danger of going into that more critical low area. Chips, after all, are largely carbohydrate, and will metabolize into glucose fairly quickly (certainly faster than a slice of whole grain bread, although not as quickly as refined sugars). Depending on how long after that she was supposed to be at work, she may have opted for the slower-metabolizing chips rather than refined sugar, for fear that the refined sugar would cause a glucose spike followed by another corresponding low. Or, she could have been really low to the point where her thinking was clouded (the brain really does not like low blood sugar), and she just reached for whatever food was closest without really giving it much thought. Bottom line is, unless you are that young woman or her endocrinologist, you really don't have any basis for second-guessing her choice at that particular moment.

Also, speaking now from my own experience, most diabetics really don't need for you to function as their food police. Yes, my dear, well-intentioned co-worker, believe it or not I AM aware that the piece of Tiramisu I happen to be eating has lots of sugar in it. I can do this once in a while, so long as I factor it in with the other carbs I am taking in throughout the day. I know you mean well, but please, butt out!

Diabetes is one of those diseases where everybody who DOESN'T have it is convinced they are an expert on it. Even if you've been helping your spouse manage his/her diabetes for 40 years, then the only diabetes you know is that of your spouse. The disease can be very different from person to person. As a general rule, though, if a diabetic says "I need to each RIGHT NOW," don't question it.

[roody]

1. Thanks for the info. eom

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. Yup...and yup. And yup

[Hawkowl]

3. Agree

I would more than give the benefit of the doubt to the poor fired lady. Any food in a pinch. Also, if the blood sugar has dropped too much, rational thoughts translated into actions can be very difficult. The first thing to go is the ability to make decisions so judging her decision is ludicrous! As well as cruel.

[Warpy]

4. We never gave sugary stuff, not even orange juice

unless the hypoglycemia was advanced and we needed something to act really fast. Otherwise, it was complex carbohydrates and protein to reduce the likelihood of a peak in blood sugar followed by another crash.

It made much more sense to grab a bag of chips than a candy bar, in other words.

As for caring for diabetics, if they were long term diabetics used to caring for their disease, we'd just write down the numbers and let them do their things. We only needed to mother hen new diabetics and the occasional brittle Type I diabetic.

I used to supply my mother with her once a year cheat, Belgian chocolate seashells. It took her most of a year to go through a small box of them, but being able to have that one luxury made a big difference in how she felt about things.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

5. I have low blood sugar and have to eat often. I wish they'd shut up.

Thank you.

[grasswire]

6. if I started feeling yucky the last thing I would grab is candy

And I am a diabetic.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I carry glucose tabs

I had to use them once...bad crash after loosing a lot of weight. Went for the peanut butter and sliced turkey after.

[Pithlet]

7. It didn't even occur to me that there was anything suspicious

when I read the story earlier. It makes perfect sense from everything I know about it.

[FLAprogressive]

21. +1

[cynatnite]

8. Chips are fast and easy to open, too. n/t

[Bluebear]

10. Exactly. Carbohydrate is what she needed, not "sweets"

Recommended

[pipi_k]

46. Sweets ARE carbohydrates. n/t

[hobbit709]

51. but not ALL carbs are sweets.

I know when my glucose levels start dropping below 75.

[pipi_k]

53. Um...yeah. I knew that. n/t

[Bluebear]

56. Duh. Point is someone said her story was fishy because she grabbed chips not candy

[pipi_k]

57. Oh my...

"Duh".


The statement, "She needed carbs, not sweets" was really pretty stupid.


According to her own words, that woman needed to do something QUICKLY.

Potato chips do not act QUICKLY.

Sugar does act QUICKLY.

If she wanted QUICK results, she would have been better off eating candy...not chips, which do not act QUICKLY.

Even some of the individuals who didn't agree with me on my opinion of her had to admit that chips were NOT the best option for quick treatment of a low which caused concern for her.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[EFerrari]

11. Oh, but I have an opinion, huge and implacable.

lol

:)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. I once had to BEG a judge for a lunch break so I could eat.

He seemed to have a problem with lunch breaks and bathroom breaks. A control freak.

We were having a hearing, I was the court reporter. It was 12:30 and I was getting hungry. This was before they had glucose tabs, or at least I didn't know about them. I told the judge I only needed 30 minutes to grab a sandwich. I told him my doctor's name and his phone number, and that he could call the man. I told him I would get shaky and would not be able to do my job and take down the testimony properly if I felt bad.

When I said that, gave him my doctor's name and phone number to call, he finally backed down and gave me a break.

I am not surprised that this judge literally killed his regular court reporter from overwork. She died of respiratory failure at age 40.

This is so demeaning, the way bosses treat employees. You're not supposed to need to eat or go to the bathroom or ever go home and sleep or gawd ferbid, you should have children or a spouse.

The two lawyers were big cheeses in Houston: Rusty Hardin (who has represented lots of people in notorious trials such as the opposing counsel to Anna Nicole Smith in her probate fight) and Mike DeGeurin.
They complimented me on my plea to the judge.

[pipi_k]

59. A friend of mine...a therapist....

has a patient whose husband died as a result of a ruptured spleen that somehow happened while he was doing jury duty.

He had complained about pains in his abdomen. They wouldn't let him leave. I guess he didn't complain hard enough...probably thought they were right when they told him he would feel better in a while.

he didn't...now he's dead.

It's frightening. I guess you have to actually keel over before they believe you...

[Manifestor_of_Light]

75. I had to appeal to authority (give him my doctor's name and number) before he would believe me.

He thinks the courthouse will fall down if he is not there. The courthouse will go on without him. He is not indispensable.

[pipi_k]

77. Hah! I had a boss like that...

OK, he owned the company. It was a small company.

There were times he would be away for industrial machine shows or even on vacation for a week.

I think it pissed him off that we got on fine without him there... I was actually happier when he wasn't there

:7

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[shireen]

13. chips make sense

SHown below are glycemic indexes and loads for potato chips, snickers, m&m peanuts, from http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

For glycemic load, i've supplied numbers for 60g, for side-by-side comparison of equal quantities.

When my blood sugar is low and i eat a chocolate bar or candy, the relief is temporary since my blood sugar drops again quickly. So, the remedy of eating candy works when you'll quickly get real food ASAP. But if you have to finish a shift and your low blood sugar isn't too low, it makes sense to eat something with a lower glycemic index to prolong the blood sugar increase level.

FOOD; Glycemic index (glucose = 100); Serving size (grams); Glycemic load per serving


Potato chips, average; 54±3; 50; 11 (for 60g, load= 13.2)
Snickers Bar; 55±14 ; 60; 19
M & M's peanut; 33±3; 30; 6 (for 60g, load = 12)

The table didn't have any values for plain chocolate or candy bars. I was interested in seeing that the load isn't too bad for snickers and m&m/peanuts. In this case, chips or m&m peanuts would have been OK, but snickers bar (which still has quite a bit of peanuts) would have been worse.

[TheDebbieDee]

14. When I feel my glucose levels bottoming out, I grab a bag of chips!

And, unfortunately, I sometimes treat myself to a small square of cheesecake....

I swear, eating healthy is really boring!

[laundry_queen]

15. I'd just like to thank you

for sharing your experience. That other thread sort of lost its way with the diabetes thing. I'm glad you chimed in to reinforce others' experience in that thread.

[Violet_Crumble]

16. Shouldn't you take yr own advice about second-guessing?

Perhaps she felt her blood sugar dropping (and trust me, you can feel it)....

Depending on how long after that she was supposed to be at work, she may have opted for ...

Or, she could have been really low to the point where her thinking was clouded...

And then you go on to say: 'Bottom line is, unless you are that young woman or her endocrinologist, you really don't have any basis for second-guessing her choice at that particular moment.'

[TBA]

17. Geesh! She is suggesting possible senerios...

On a high horse much?

[Violet_Crumble]

18. So second-guessing is 'possible scenarios' when some agree with them...

I just think it's a good idea not to do the exact same thing others are being told not to do...

[Bluebear]

19. No, some said her story was "fishy" and basically accusing her of theft or not knowing her disease

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=1909049#1910090

[Violet_Crumble]

22. I read the thread. They're some other 'possible scenarios', I guess...

What's the difference between 'basically accusing' and 'accusing'?

[eShirl]

23. It means "In effect, accusing" in American English.

[cwydro]

25. No, no, no Violet.

There are never any other possible scenarios when the groupthink takes hold on DU. Surely you know that by now...don't rock the bandwagon!

I still remember the all the threads on DSK...DU had him convicted in less than an hour. There are many other examples.

[Bluebear]

26. What groupthink are you referring to re diabetes?

[cwydro]

28. Not talking about diabetes.

But I think you know that.

[Bluebear]

30. Well not actually

I don't understand how "DU groupthink" plays a role when there are two divergent opinions on the clerk.

On edit never mind, since "I know that" I will just bow out of this now lol

[Violet_Crumble]

29. LOL....

I didn't much like the way one person was ganged up on in the thread I read. It was nasty, and she seems like a pretty nice person from what I've seen of her posts.

DSK? I hate to sound ignorant, but I'll put it down to not being American and sometimes not venturing into GD for weeks on end. Are you talking about Dennis Kuchinich? I really admire him...

[inna]

31. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, nothing American about the abbreviation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominique_Strauss-Kahn

[Violet_Crumble]

32. There ya go. Never heard of him n/t

[pipi_k]

45. I'm assuming you must mean me...

and if so, thank you for your kind words.

Unfortunately, as I came to learn from an early age, the world does not like those who are different, no matter what people say to the contrary.

I always felt different as a kid. Didn't fit in with any groups as a teenager. Still feel like I'm somehow...odd...

And the worst part about it...I didn't ask to be this way.

Playing around with ink blots...ten people can say they see a rabbit. I turn it around and see a camel riding a bicycle.

So I see different things. It's hard being different in this world even among people who make such a big show out of being "for" those who are different in any other way. Religion. Color. Race.

It's OK to be different that way. Just don't dare be different in what you think. Or, if you do, don't let anyone know. Keep your differentness to yourself because it's like a moral failing.

Anyway.

Thanks again for being one of the few kind enough not to think I'm the Bride of Frankenstein...

:)

[Violet_Crumble]

48. I did...

I'm suspecting the level of rage I saw in that thread had more to do with disliking Walgreen and it's policies than anything else. If Walgreen's one of those big franchise things that price small businesses out of existence and treat their employees unfairly, then they deserve people's dislike, but not to the point where former employees are put up on pedestals and the choices they made becoming sacrosanct...

:hi:

[uppityperson]

84. It's ok to be "different", but insulting and borderline insulting is not ok.

It is a shame that you don't seem to understand that.

[pipi_k]

94. I don't "insult" someone

who doesn't insult me first.

Nor do I run around accusing other people of being RW hacks, trolls, Teabagger sympathizers, Corporate shills, or wackos.

Most of the insults thrown my way are totally unprovoked by anything other than the fact that people don't like my opinions.

I don't call people out by name in public, like someone did to me in another. I don't follow people around making snarky sarcastic one liner remarks like, "Oh look, she's in this thread now".

Or, make snotty comments about the limits of evolution (in the other thread).

I don't act as a cheering section while others jump on one person.

I try my best to keep to whatever ISSUE I'm interested in, not insulting those who don't agree with me.

So please...if you have specific instances where I've insulted someone out of the blue, do share them with me. And what you call "borderline insults" don't count because something like that is always subjective.

I want real, specific instances where I've attacked someone without reason.

[pipi_k]

97. PS...

and I contend that, on the whole, it is NOT OK to be different.


I can't tell you how many times I've been skewered here for no other reason than that I expressed an opinion that wasn't the majority one.

Whether it's a woman fired for eating chips, or a man beaten up for making motions to a group of teenagers, or a kid who stole a bag of food from an unlocked car, or any of a dozen other topics.

I express my doubt about the veracity of one side of the story, and all of a sudden I'm a piece of walking slime.

And there is another DUer here who is NEVER snarky to anyone, even if this person is being shredded to bits by people who think he's a troll and accuse him of posting flamebait. This person is different. But it's not OK to be different. They can't just ignore him or leave him alone. No. They have to crawl into whatever topic he's posted and insult the hell out of him. He never responds in kind, and I admire him very much for doing that.

So please...don't tell me it's OK to be different. I have seen that it's not OK.

:(


ETA: I just looked upthread to a post I made telling someone else about a therapist friend with a patient whose husband died from not being allowed to leave jury duty to get medical help. I noticed that there was a deleted post below it. I didn't see that post, but obviously it must have been nasty enough to merit deletion. Now, please read my post and tell me where I insulted ONE other person here and deserved to be attacked in whatever manner merited deletion of that post. None. None at all. Nine times out of ten I am not the one who is being a shit to someone else.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. I read the other thread. Can you point out where she was insulting?

I saw a lot of insults aimed at her, and do think it's a shame that it doesn't seem possible to disagree without resorting to insults...

[Pithlet]

52. Sometimes people are going to take some lumps. It's a message board.

It's going to happen. It's happened to me. I stood my ground and I lived. If a bunch of people happen to have the same opinion and feel strongly about it, that's the way it goes. I think it was understandable that some felt the need to defend the woman in the story. It did seem rather ridiculous to be suspicious.

[pipi_k]

100. I've taken my lumps, too...

lots of times. I don't mind when people disagree with me...I mean, that's what makes life interesting. If we all thought the same way, how boring would that be? What I don't care for is being jumped on and insulted just for having a different opinion, and that's totally unnecessary, but I shouldn't be surprised that it happens here as much as it does in RL.

anyway, about being suspicious of people (like the Walgreens lady)...

I made a post down below which explains why I tend to be suspicious...whether it's a good enough reason, I don't know, but that's how it is.

My view of the world has, unfortunately, been affected by the creeps out there who take advantage of others, either monetarily, or emotionally.

Wish it weren't so... :(

[tblue37]

37. Second guessing means to contradict the choice or interpretation someone

has offered (i.e., "She should have grabbed candy, not chips" contradicts the choice she made, suggesting that she was wrong or stupid--or that she is lying about what she did and why.) Suggesting possible reasons why someone made the choice she made is NOT NOT NOT the same as contradicting the choice or her claims about why she made it.

[tblue37]

38. You need a good dictionary. nt

[Violet_Crumble]

99. I've already got my trusty Oxford n/t

[markpkessinger]

43. I don't think you grasp the meaning of the phrase "second guess"

The only "second guessing" that occurred here was when someone suggested based on what she knows of her husband's diabetes, that there was something suspicious about the choice made by the young woman in the article to eat chips as opposed to the choosing a candy bar, which this person's husband apparentl7 would have chosen. It seems to me that if you are going to imply that someone is lying, you should, at a minimum have a valid basis upon which base your assertion and I was making the point that a person's experience with someone else's diabetic condition whose choice may have differed in a similar situation hardly constitutes a valid basis on which to question someone else's choices in dealing with his or her own disease. I don't presume to know exactly what the reasons were for the young woman's choice; I merely provided some alternative scenarios (mind you, they were NOT even guesses, let alone second guesses, as to the choice the young woman made)to illustrate that, despite the DU poster's experience with her husband's diabetes, it was inappropriate to extrapolate from that experience to this young woman or to any other diabetic. So, no, the hypothetical scenarios are not remotely in the same category questioning a decision someone made in a particular circumstance. And frankly, I'm astounded that I have to spell that out for you.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. I grasp it just fine. It's not second-guessing when you do it...

Someone else suggests alternate scenarios and it's *second-guessing8. You suggest alternate scenarios, which include making a judgement about how all diabetics would behave based on yr own experience '(and trust me, you can feel it).', and they're merely *hypothetical scenarios*.

[markpkessinger]

49. To "second guess" means to imply that a person's choice or action was incorrect or improper ...

...I have not done that here. Presenting hypothetical scenarios in the interest of demonstrating why a particular choice made by a particular person in a particular context should not be extrapolated to other persons' choices in similar contexts is categorically different from asserting that another person's choice is different because it differs from a choice made by someone you happen to know. I made NO assertion about how "all diabetics would (or could) behave" based on my experience; I offered a range of possibilities that some diabetics might make and the possible rationale they might have in making such a choice. Since every diabetic here seems to grasp that distinction, I think you are the one with the comprehension problem here.

[pipi_k]

54. It also means

insisting that someone's action was correct based on assumptions.

Like she chose the chips because she was foggy-headed.

Or that she was able to fix a low with potato chips because THEY do it.

Or that Walgreens are a bunch of no-good dirty bastards who KNEW about her illness and chose to deny her reasonable accommodations in violation of the ADA.

Or that the woman couldn't leave her register and grabbed the only thing she could, which was potato chips because everyone knows they keep chips, not candy, right by the register.

Or that even though she felt a need to act quickly, she had 20 minutes before falling dead to the floor. Or, conversely, that she was already near dead and had to eat those chips to "save her own life".

Those are only a few of the second guesses put forth by the other side of this.

But...I suppose they don't count as second guesses seeing as how so many want to believe that all "little people" are pure as the driven snow and would NEVER do anything underhanded.

It goes both ways.

[markpkessinger]

78. I happen to believe the young woman deserves to be taken at her word ...

...unless there is a reasonable basis by which to doubt her, which so far has NOT been presented.

Good God, I hope you never sit on a jury!

[pipi_k]

81. Well that's your right...

I, however, have seen too many people fool others. Not sure whether or not that's a reasonable basis on which to judge that woman, but there it is.

Like I wrote in another post, I lived with a guy who convinced me that he was dying. My heart broke for him. Almost five years later I realized he had been lying to me. Betrayal isn't pretty.

I knew a woman who faked having a miscarriage. She actually ended up admitting it herself.

On another discussion group some years ago there was a woman who told a bunch of people (all of whom were there for anxiety disorders support, BTW) that she was "dying". Lots of people felt awful for her. One day her "room mate" posted to say she had found this woman dead in her computer chair. What really hurt was that this was very soon after my father died from the same thing this woman supposedly died from. He didn't spend his last days posting on a discussion board. He spent his last days on life support, dying less than 15 minutes after it was turned off. The owner of the site found out that the "room mate" was actually the woman herself. Wow.

And at the same site, a man who had been there a long time had his "brother" announce his death. Except when people who had been close to him wanted to send flowers, they found out he wasn't really dead at all.

And a woman on a garden pond site who claimed that all her plants had been destroyed in a tornado and asked for people to please send her some. People did just that. Then we found out she hadn't lost anything at all.

So. There you have it. Good reasons for doubting people? I don't know. I really can't see where it's unreasonable to be a flaming cynic, quite honestly...

:shrug:

[Violet_Crumble]

96. It also means to evaluate with hindsight...

No comprehension problem on my part. You've done that here, as well as do exactly what you were telling others not to do, which was to behave as though every diabetic has the same experience: ''(and trust me, you can feel it)''. What was that if not an assertion about how "all diabetics would (or could) behave"?

[Occulus]

113. it means to criticize

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/second-guess

Definition of SECOND-GUESS
transitive verb
1
: to criticize or question actions or decisions of (someone) often after the results of those actions or decisions are known <meet almost every morning and, over coffee, second–guess the local coach — Bruce Newman>; also : to engage in such criticism of (an action or decision) <second–guess the general's strategy>
2
: to seek to anticipate or predict <lived royally by his ability to second–guess the stock market — Time>

[readmoreoften]

58. I'm glad you're not my student.

[Bluebear]

69. !

[Violet_Crumble]

95. Me too! My teachers were well educated folk who taught me well n/t

[Bluebear]

65. And in she comes to this thread to continue her nonsense

She did say one thing that made sense, to suggest putting her on ignore. I did.

[inna]

20. I wish someone sued the shit out of Walmart. The Waltons surely can afford that.

Some "philanthropists". :nuke:

[Yo_Mama]

36. WALGREENS

The story as it is currently reported is so bad that I do think we should all make an effort to remember which store was the culprit!

[markpkessinger]

39. Mea culpa - Walgreens it is! n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

66. The clerk is suing.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/09/08/BU3L1L21E2.DTL

Excerpt from link:

William Tamayo, the EEOC's regional attorney in San Francisco, said federal law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities such as diabetes.

"Accommodating disability does not have to be expensive, but it may require an employer to be flexible and open-minded," he said.

[eShirl]

24. Big K&R from this spouse of a Type I diabetic.

[zanana1]

27. I understand all that.

My husband is a diabetic. Sometimes, he'll have a sugar-glazed donut. It all depends on his numbers for that morning. I trust that he knows what he's doing.

[malaise]

33. K & R n/t

[inna]

35. me too

:toast:

[Yo_Mama]

34. Nice post.

I don't have diabetes but I do tend to get low blood sugar and in my case, something sugary is not the best answer. Oddly enough, something high in protein is.

Most diabetics have learned what works for them.

Also, not every cash register has piles of candy next to it - a bag of chips might have been the best thing available to her at her workstation. That is probably the real explanation to what happened.

[Odin2005]

40. The bashing of this poor woman on the other thread is disgusting.

Folks jumping to conclusions and making assumptions that fit their prejudices, and insinuating that she was using her diabetes to munch on the job. That insinuated aspect is the part that offends me the most because it is something that all people with a non-obvious disability suffer from, people claiming that the person is using their disability as an excuse. I HATE THAT.

[pipi_k]

55. That "poor woman"...

just could be someone who is faking an illness.

She says she's a diabetic.

Do you know her personally? I don't. Nor does anyone else here, I presume.

Anything is possible. Anything at all.

There are all sorts of scenarios here:

1. She's a diabetic who was being abused by Walgreens.

2. She's a diabetic who never told Walgreens about her disease.

3. She's not a diabetic at all.

And who knows how many more...

And please...no second guessing by people who don't know how or why I am skeptical about things like this.

My opinion on the matter isn't going to change the outcome of this one bit. And nobody needs to take my opinion on the matter as a personal affront to themselves. I'm giving my opinion...not breaking into your homes to steal your silverware and kill grandma.

[Odin2005]

67. You just proved my point about accusing people of using their disabilities...

...as excuses.

[pipi_k]

70. How distressing it is...

when a suggestion somehow gets blown up into a full-scale "accusation".

maybe you missed the part where I said it was one of a few possible scenarios, huh?

A possibility to consider.

The word "possibility" is NOT a synonym for "accuse".

[Gormy Cuss]

68. Well, she'd better be a diabetic because the EEOC filed suit against Walgreens. n/t

[pipi_k]

71. Absolutely!

I would imagine that if Walgreens didn't already know about her condition (which is a possibility), they will want some medical records.

Or they may request the records even if they did know.

We'll just have to wait and see.

[Ignis]

102. Oh yes, everyone's rushing to ride of the coattails of the high-powered Diabetes Clique.

:wtf:

[pipi_k]

104. Not even sure what that means, but...

thanks for contributing anyway.

[Ignis]

108. It means that if someone's willing to publicly wear The Scarlet D...

How about we fucking well assume they've visited a physician and been correctly diagnosed?

Let's leave the "I'm not sure if you're really diabetic" crap to idiots like Dr. Frist.

[pipi_k]

109. I guess you missed

my post to someone else where I stated why I don't trust everything people say.

People can claim to be lots of things they aren't. In my world, they have.

so please, forgive me if my cynicism bursts the balloons of people who believe everything they read/hear.



And really...the "big scarlet D of diabetes"?

This isn't the 19th Century.

Here are the stats on how common Diabetes is...


http://www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/

And there are more and more new cases each year.


You know what really carries a stigma? Mental illness.

[Ignis]

112. Nice attack: "people who believe everything they read/hear"

Thanks for showing your true colors.

[Liberal_in_LA]

41. thanks for the additional info. Like your comment about 'food police'

Let the person decide what they need when having a diabetic spell.

[LWolf]

42. My diabetic students are always allowed to eat

what they want, whenever they need to. They generally carry stuff with them, but I have juice, crackers, and fruit jelly candy in the cupboard for them, as well.

[pipi_k]

44. Does this really need to be pointed out?

The fact that a number of actual diabetics jumped in to also say that they found that whole thing suspicious...

Diabetics agreed with me. They didn't get jumped on. I did, even though I had asked the diabetic I live with what he thought about using potato chips to quickly treat a low.

Anyway, in an effort to be fair, I did spend a lot of time over the past couple of days looking for any site with expertise in diabetes management that advocates treating a hypoglycemic event quickly with potato chips.

I honestly did try hard. But I didn't find any. Not one.


The key word here being quickly, as Ms Hernandez, of the article, stated she needed to do. Which suggests some degree of urgency.

So while I will concede that at times it may be possible to fend off a mild low with a relatively low glycemic index food, I do not agree that someone who was concerned as Ms Hernandez appears to have been about a potential drop made a great choice.

Please...someone find and post a link to a reputable site which advocates the use of low glycemic index food to treat hypoglycemia that someone feels is worrisome enough to treat quickly.

Also... The woman in question also said that she was in the habit of carrying candy. Not chips. Candy. Why? Because it obviously worked for her.

I don't believe the excuses given as to why she chose chips over candy that day...she was "foggy headed" being the lamest one, especially seeing as she was able to immediately go back to her job. Chips won't work that fast. You can't have someone too out of it to choose appropriate food, yet aware enough to do her job. As I kept pointing out in that thread, but which people seem to ignore.

anyway...I'd really appreciate seeing information that advocates potato chips to QUICKLY treat a hypo episode. Thanks.

[Pithlet]

60. Maybe it would help if you could bolster your case.

Maybe if you could come up with motive? I mean, 18 years of service without disciplinary action is a lot to throw away for a bag of chips. And then there's the fact she paid for them right away. And she happens to be diabetic. But, by all means, stick to your guns if you feel you have a case...

ETA never mind. I just saw the post where you think she's faking it. Yeesh....

[pipi_k]

63. Second thing first...

My suggestion that she might be faking it is just that...a suggestion.

Actually, wouldn't it be better if she were faking it? Would you want to wish diabetes...and all the things that can go along with it...on another person?

Wouldn't it be great if she didn't have to worry about kidney failure...cardiovascular disease...blindness...neuropathy...amputation, etc. as a result of diabetes? I mean, I would be happy for her not to have diabetes.

As for the rest...I have no idea why someone would jeopardize 18 years of employment. Why do politicians screw with their marriages and jobs by having affairs?

Why do people with pockets full of money steal stupid little things from a department store?

There have been cases where people faked illness to get sympathy. I actually lived with someone for a while who told me he was terminally ill. I felt awful for him. It took me almost five years to figure out he was lying. That was 23 years ago and he's still alive and well.

There are as many reasons for people to do stupid shit as there are people, I suppose...

:shrug:

[Prefix]

50. This drives my wife nuts as well

It was a hard thing for me to learn how to not want to get involved. I would question her frequently about what she was eating. Little did I know, I was really pissing her off. The best thing I did was go with her to a Dr. appointment when she was getting a new insulin pump. I learned more in 45 minutes than I had in the 7 years we had been together.

That being said, my wife does have some bad habits. Most of these were not her fault; she was not diagnosed with Diabetes until she was 25. She has what is referred to as Type 1 1/2; adult onset, but does not have any of the tell-tale issues that cause adult-onset (obesity, and diet). As a result of that she was in denial about things for a long time and continued to eat how she wanted, without properly correcting for it. We now have an "understanding" of sorts where I will give her my feedback when I see her slipping into bad eating habits over a period of time, or not checking her sugars. This is very rare now.

She has really turned her Diabetes around, thanks to better support from family and friends, and an insulin pump. She now has consistent A1C levels in the 6 range. The best thing that happened is when she had a meltdown at a meal in the presence of some friends that were picking at her for eating chocolate. She let them have it, and they haven't said a thing since.

There is a lot of ignorance out there regarding this condition, and it often causes a lot of mental anguish for the Diabetic when they are subjected to all the "experts" in their lives. Thank you very much for posting this.

[BiggJawn]

62. I prefer "slow" carbs when i'm crashing.

Complex carbs give me a steady, gentle push back up where I need to be, and they stay with me a while.
Those glucose tablets or candy are like being shot out of an ejector seat: It's a rough ride up and then down again. I only use them if I'm dropping below 70.

[quaker bill]

64. The "hangover" from a low sugar spike is no fun at all

Take my word for this.

Management of this disease is no fun. I spent alot of time with the meter and a log of everything I consumed, spread sheets and graphs (I am a scientist) before I sorted out how to control it. Autonomic homeostasis is great when you have it, you don't have to think about it. Now I have to plan and adjust the carbs and calories against the expected work I will be doing. You put a bit more gas in the tank if you are going to be working out or mowing the lawn and less if you will be clicking keys and mouse buttons all afternoon...

QB

[pipi_k]

74. What you do...

one of my sons-in-law has to do also.

He's a T1...has been ever since he was a child. In all his years he never managed his Bg very well. Actually, not well at all.

When he got with my stepdaughter, she took over his treatment program (she's not a diabetic, BTW).

Now he rarely has highs where before he spent at least 80% of the time over 225...often as high as 300.

Anyway, he has to figure intake against output and adjust insulin and food so he doesn't go too high OR too low.

[quaker bill]

82. I am T2

Was diagnosed at a health screening where I was spiking a 381. If I am real careful I can keep it between 85 and 140 on metformin and diet. I have had a few excursions into the 60's and an occasional spike over 200 when I don't pay close attention. The high spikes I can recover from with a long fast walk. The low spikes are easy enough to fix, a bit of sugar does the job, but I don't really feel right for days.

[Lucian]

72. -1

I am a hypoglycemic and there is no way in hell I would grab a bag of potato chips if I needed a quick glucose spike. No way. I carry glucose tablets with me, but if I forgot them, there are a hundred other items I would grab before potato chips.

She got caught stealing and used a piss-poor excuse to try to get away with it.

[glowing]

88. She paid for them as soon as she could.. The way those stores work is that

the cashier cannot ring up their own items they purchase... Someone else must ring them up. It seems to me that she did that as soon as she could. She paid for the chips. She worked their for 18 yrs. Do you really think she was deciding to steal chips for the hell of it? She had no former disciplinary action before this at all. A little understanding to the situation would have prevented this from being news or even a lawsuit.

[Lucian]

89. I think there's more to this story than we know.

They may have fired her over the chips to cover up the real reason. Walmart does this all the time (I worked for them up until last month). They use one excuse to fire someone just because they want to get rid of him/her.

[glowing]

91. They probably used this as an excuse because insuring this woman

with diabetes was expensive. Or there is a new whipper snapper Manager who was just hired out of college and he/ she is being a corporate prick on a power trip putting people "in their place".

[pipi_k]

93. Or maybe...

this wasn't the first time she had been seen taking things with, as she says, the intention to pay later. Maybe it happened before and they waited to get more evidence.


Or maybe they never saw her do it before but wonder what else she may have taken, and how many times she might have done it.


There are all sorts of possible explanations...

:shrug:

[glowing]

101. Or maybe a bag of fucking chips that costs less than a dollar is a stupid fucking reason to fire

anybody. I'm assuming all will come out in the lawsuit she has filed. Most people, if they are in the wrong or know they were stealing on purpose, wouldn't be suing the company. Perhaps, now Wallgreens, a pharmacy who has people who literally come in and fill their diabetic medications with their pharmacy, will make a new policy regarding people with medical issues, such as diabetes. Perhaps, they will insist on any person they put on a register with no one to help out for that person to take a 5 min break to get some food for a diabetic issue or what not, will have to keep snacks under the counter before they start their shift. If they don't have a snack there, they shouldn't be standing behind the counter.

BTW, there are many times that while I'm in a grocery store that I've opened up a bag of chips or some sort of snack for my child to munch on while I'm shopping. I technically haven't paid for it yet, but no one throws me out of the store or acts like an asshole. In this new modern world of sicko corporate psychopaths, we have incredibly dick-ish rules for employees to keep them "in line". Guess this is what happens when Mom & Pop stores are ruined and Walmart type box stores move in and pay shitty wages, create unhealthy work place environments, and create a corporate tone that keeps Unions out (the only place where workers can unite and collectively bargain for their rights).

The fact that anyone thinks an employee of 18 years should be fired over a bag of potato chips, no matter what the need, is pathetic. From the article I read, she paid for the chips as soon as she could... Which meant that someone else had to ring up her sales. All of those types of stores refuse to allow the employee purchasing anything from that store to ring themselves up. When I worked in a Mom & Pop little tourist shop in VT; I was allowed to ring myself up. There was enough trust between the owner and his employees that he knew, even when applying our discount, we were trustworthy enough to properly ring up our purchase items and pay the price of the sale item. I was under 21 and was able to sell wine and I even worked as a bar tender at the age of 19. I was unable to drink, but VT decided that keeping me from working any type of job, even bar tending, was discrimination if I was an adult at the age of 18. Guess what, I was trustworthy enough in both of those positions, that I ran the bar and closed the bar on a Saturday night without my boss looking over my shoulder. I was trustworthy enough to close up the tourist shop (my second summer job during college yrs), that I closed, counted the deposit money, did not have someone looking over my shoulder regarding buying a bottle of wine or beer at the end of my shift to go out drinking after work somewhere, and I took the deposit money into town and dropped it into the bank's night deposit box.

When people are treated like shit at the work place, their loyalty is very low. They don't care to look the other way if someone walk out of the door with the bottom of the cart having not been rung up. They also don't care about taking stuff themselves. Their pay is shit, the job is shit, and their are no perks.. So, if the employees generally look the other way when one another is taking off with a rack of ribs, a "freebie" soda from the display case, or some lipstick or makeup, then the business losses more money from theft. If people are respected and treated like an asset, they are more apt to show loyalty and pride with their work and job ethics.

AND at the end of the day, we see our politicians doing for corporations only. Bankers who make millions and ruin the economy are given bonuses off of tax payer funds. So, if those at the top are stealing millions, then what the hell is a bag of chips? Not much in the context of what those in a 3-piece suit are getting away with.

[pipi_k]

103. Thank you...I'm so glad

I read your post.

Because you wrote something that makes more sense than a lot of what I have read on the subject lately, including my own stuff...ha ha!


"Perhaps, now Wallgreens, a pharmacy who has people who literally come in and fill their diabetic medications with their pharmacy, will make a new policy regarding people with medical issues, such as diabetes. Perhaps, they will insist on any person they put on a register with no one to help out for that person to take a 5 min break to get some food for a diabetic issue or what not, will have to keep snacks under the counter before they start their shift. If they don't have a snack there, they shouldn't be standing behind the counter."

I so agree. While companies should make allowances and provisions for their disabled employees, I think it's also crucial for employees themselves to take some responsibility for taking care of their issues as much as they can.

For a diabetic, it might involve keeping a test kit nearby and testing every couple of hours. Letting their supervisor know that they have to do this, and might need five minutes away from the register, I wouldn't see where this would be a problem or violation of company policy. Especially under the ADA.

Also...like you wrote...diabetics should be required to have a suitable remedy for lows on their persons or near their stations at all times.

Part of company policy should be that diabetics either have breakfast (or some other meal) before leaving the house, or, if that's not possible, that they inform their supervisor, who will allow the person to have a suitable form of nutrition in the break room before going out onto the floor.

[saras]

73. The really pathetic thing has nothing to do with diabetes...

...it has to do with the fact that we've sunk so low as to argue about excuses as to whether eating a bag of chips, and paying for it, slightly outside the rules, justifies being fired.

OF COURSE it does not, even if she had no particular excuse at all. It just isn't that big a deal.

[pipi_k]

76. I think that's probably why

a couple of people, in a different thread, thought there might be a backstory to this.

I mean, really...fired over a bag of chips? It's unimaginable that someone would actually be fired for that. There has to be something else going on. Eventually we'll all know the whole story...

[saras]

110. Nope. Walgreens fires, consistently, for minor violations of all sorts.

Undoubtedly some are more justified than others. But fired you are, nevertheless.

[pipi_k]

111. I did some looking around the other day...

to see if I could find anything on Walgreens company policy regarding eating on the job, etc.

I did find a site where people who used to work there posted all sorts of complaints after they got fired.

Apparently, one person, who admitted to being aware of their rule on not checking out family members did it anyway, albeit with someone else watching. The reason for checking out the family members was that Walgreens apparently has a "quota" on how many sales one is supposed to ring up each day. If you don't ring up enough, you are penalized in some way. Now, what doesn't make sense for me is, how can someone be responsible for ringing up people if it's not a busy sales day? Anyway...

So the person, knowing the policy, did it anyway, and is now complaining.

I don't know if there's a policy in place about employees eating out on the sales floor, or whether employees are allowed to take stuff from the shelves without paying for it immediately, or what.

[catrose]

79. But I've heard too many sad but similar stories not to believe it

Any or no excuse seems sufficient for companies, particularly behemoths like Walgreens, and especially with workers of a certain age. "18 years" doesn't mean an experienced valuable employee; it means an older worker with health issues.

Never going there again.

[lynne]

80. I agree as I know a number of diabetics BUT there is always an exception -

- and I used to work with one. A juvenile diabetic in her early 30's who didn't take care of her symptoms. She was obsessed with her weight so wouldn't want to eat when she needed to. Staff members were always asking if she'd had lunch and when she had eaten as they were trying to head off one of her crashes.

We'd first know she'd not eaten when she began cussing. I once heard her using the "f" word to a client and bolted into her office and got the client out and then took care of her. We kept a can of frosting and orange juice in the office for her. If we didn't catch her in time, she'd become violent and want to physically fight us when we tried to help her.

The rest of the staff became her babysitter and nurse maid. We couldn't leave her alone as we never knew when her sugar would go wonky. Finally had to let her go as she couldn't perform the job she was hired to do and we couldn't perform our jobs because we were always watching over her.

I'd like to hear both sides of this Walgreen story. I have a feeling there's more to it than just one bag of chips.

[nutsnberries]

83. K&R -right on! eom

[DissedByBush]

85. I would never question it

And neither should any employer.

[whathappened]

86. down and up

when that sugar drops you have to act fast befor you no longer have enought sence to do so , and then you spend the rest of the day feeling bad , once the roller coaster begains , chips please

[Capitalocracy]

87. Can someone clear something up for me on this story?

So they accepted her money for the chips and THEN fired her for stealing?

pick one, guys. :eyes:

[ZombieHorde]

92. I thought it was a Walgreen's. nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

105. It is disgusting and unbelievable, the lack of compassion at the OP.

Disgusting and unbelievable. :puke:

[Bluebear]

106. Could not agree more. Sociopathic self proclaimed experts. Nt

[Manifestor_of_Light]

107. I am being attacked right now for commenting about MY EXPERIENCES in a "red state".

I am accused of broad-brushing. I am merely stating MY EXPERIENCES.

I know the cities are more liberal than the country.

However most of the white people I run into here hate black and brown people, and they make it known quite plainly.

Like the guy at the post office who refuses to say Obama's name, for example.

Apparently calling out racists is not acceptable at D.U.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

114. I read the story when it was first posted

To me, I felt like the employee got the shaft and if I were her, I'd sue Walgreens. What she ate to help control her diabetes seems to me to be a moot point because it wasn't like she "stole" anything from her employer because SHE PAID FOR IT! It seems strange that Walgreens would do this but OTOH given that anybody can be fired for anything at any time in most states, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised but, assuming that the story is accurate, it sounds like she might a case for reinstatement. :shrug: