Will you continue your membership of DUK?

[bev]

Northerner - i think the problem is that they dont think! There are other charities geared towards diabetes research - JDRF - juvenile diabetes research foundation - and they are leaps ahead with their research! I wonder if they will learn anything from this whole fiasco?🙄Bev

 

[Munjeeta]

Maybe they think we are a captive audience, unlikely to withdraw support because we'd only be hurting ourselves. If so, it's not what I'd call a caring attitude.

I find it hard to believe that would be the case. I would hope it was a misjudgement on their part and they didn't pre-empt the level of anger that was generated by the second letter.

And you know my feelings on the whole matter anyway 😛

 

[rossi_mac]

Conflicting opinions will always cause this kinda reaction, and journalism will always cause debate, which some argue is good, I agree with what you all say (mostly) but feel that they DUK generally do more good than harm, I know a lot of you will not agree with that! But that's my comment!

 

[Einstein]

the easiest way for someone to prove themselves as a fool is to allow them to speak!

if you believe the above then surely you have no option but to print the second letter because it proves that her arguement isn't based on a common sense approach

The point is that if you have recently become insulin dependant, or worse still your child has become insulin dependant, you join the 'national diabetes charity' and receive this issue as your first one, you will very soon find this unbalanced individual being handed a second opportunity to rant about her bias.

How many times do the editorial team of balance need to publish this opinion to find enough people to warrant and support her views?

The second 'letter' is a self gloating, egotistical rant, the person who wrote it and the editor both deserve to be hung out to dry over the offense they have caused to so many existing diabetics and the damage the could well have done to newly diagnosed diabetics.

This publication I am sure finds its way onto waiting room tables in GPs and hospital clinics, so the readership is far wider than those of us who contribute to DUK.

I said in a previous post, I don't have an issue with her first letter, a different perspective on injecting, one that isn't applicable to any diabetic I know and one that I object to, but not enough to get on my high horse.

The magazine then published 16 letters in the main objecting to her observations, that should have been it.

Now, if the editor of the magazine had half a brain cell and cared one bit about any of us who inject, and listening to the comments of this person and I think her four or five supporters, he should have rushed off and commissioned an article on injecting etiquette.

That way, reaching the middle ground, letters matter closed, newly scheduled article published, no-one wrong, no-one right, but here?s how it should be done!

It then goes to support my further observation, the editor of this magazine is out of touch with what the readership wants/expects.

Regarding research, yes, a lot of research is funded by DUK into many various areas of diabetes, both type one and type two. However, considering this is our money there seems to be very little accountability back to the membership on what is being achieved.

If this is for fear of reporting dead end projects, well that?s research and so long as there is some positive coming from the updates on the different research grants then the ones that fall aside are to be expected.

All of this is missing, as each little bit its not too significant, however, when all the little bits are taken into account, those missing bits become one large hole.

Balance is the method that DUK communicates to us its members, if they can?t talk to us as we?d like to be spoken to (in terms of content) then they will suffer in the long term.

No-one is controlling this publication and that?s the problem.

Just because they campaigned for things in the past doesn't mean they are so keen today to do the same, they highlight lots of irregularities in the world of the NHS, test strips for type 2's not on medication - to prescribe or not to prescribe? Ok, they've got all this information that says diabetics should test, but there are GPs/PCTs who refuse some patients any test strips and others get enough for a couple of tests a week, while others get enough for two or more tests a day.

Surely there is an ideal campaign for DUK to champion and work on, just like the case for disposable insulin syringes on the NHS.

Where are they? I don't see anything on this matter, perhaps write a letter to your MP, but they [DUK] aren't there pushing the case.

Of course they might be, but behind the scenes - well, is this really a behind the scenes case to push or should it be up front, with all members of DUK knowing they are on the case?

Again, loss of contact with the real needs of their members on a day-to-day basis for today, not just chasing tomorrows dream cure.

 

[Northerner]

Very well put David, thank you. I'm expecting that, in the next issue, they'll have found an endocrinologist (retired) who objects to insulin-dependent diabetics even eating in restaurants, because even the thought of them having to inject is offensive and disgusting...😱😉

 

[katie]

very well said David 🙂

 

[Einstein]

Very well put David, thank you. I'm expecting that, in the next issue, they'll have found an endocrinologist (retired) who objects to insulin-dependent diabetics even eating in restaurants, because even the thought of them having to inject is offensive and disgusting...😱😉

I've already emailed my objections to this idiots letter, just hope he doesn't change the content before then 🙄

I think all you can say about this retired nurse is that 'she is a complete p***k'

Does she object to people with tattoos and piercings? Or is that ok because they weren't needled in public?

She must know a very strange group of people thats all I can say. 😱