I've been T1 for 43 yrs, had many different jobs, and still CANNOT believe some of the confusing advise being offered by some forum members on this subject :-(
Hardly surprising, given your own source for your viewpoint actually contradicts your viewpoint.
A substantial adverse effect is a negative effect that is more than trivial, and the effect is long-term if it has lasted or is expected to last for more than twelve months. It does not matter what the name of the impairment is. If the impairment is caused by a medical condition, it is the effect of the condition when it is not treated that is considered."
Emphasis yours.
What would happen if you did not treat your Type 1 diabetes?
That's right, you'd be dead.
I've had this exact conversation with an advisor at the Disability Rights Commission, because I wasn't sure whether I could be legally in the clear for claiming a disability when I applied for a job at the Foreign Office- the point being if I claimed to have a disability, I would go through to the final stage of the interview. I was quite clear with the professional advisor I spoke to on the phone, I don't have any issues of ability from having diabetes because I treat my diabetes well.
That's not the point.
As you have pointed out, the point of the Disability Discrimination Act is that it covers you for having a medical condition that could theoretically cause you to lose some ability. The DRC advisor was pretty clear on this - the wording is you are covered by the DDA when, if your illness was hypothetically not treated, it would cause a long-term, lasting, negative effect. Untreated T1 diabetes causes death, which in anyone's book is probably long-term, lasting and negative.
Am I disabled? No, not at all. Am I protected by the Disability Discrimination Act? Absolutely.
The whole point of these enquiries is to ensure the DDA protects you. Generally I wouldn't declare myself as 'disabled' on a job application because in the practical spirit of the law, I am not. However, when it comes to gaining certain advantages from such a declaration (such as being pushed to the final interview stage), then by the letter of the law I am perfectly legally entitled to do so and dammit, I will. That's the advantage of T1. You can be 'disabled' as and when it suits you, and I have no ethical dilemma in doing so. Simply having T1
IS enough to class you, legally, as having a disability should you wish to do so.
Put it this way, if someone fired you for having to manage your diabetes at work, would you feel unfairly discriminated against?
Yes, of course you would. I bet you'd wheel out the DDA then. So don't be so quick to assume we're all giving out conflicting advice or that we're wrong. Sacking someone for losing a foot after 40 years of diabetes is no different to sacking someone who's had diabetes for 2 days for doing an injection at work. It's disability discrimination. Whether or not the individual believes themselves to be disabled is just as relevant as whether or not their employer believes them to be disabled ie. completely irrelevant. The law is above personal viewpoints and is there for our protection.