This time it is a doctor in the United
Kingdom calling for a name change for type 2 diabetes. I think this
has more merit than the name change for type 1 diabetes will ever
have. Edwin Gale, MD, of Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
wants the name to be idiopathic hyperglycemia. I don't envision this
name sticking, but it is more descriptive than type 2 diabetes.
At this point, I think the definition
from the American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary is
appropriate.
"We talk about type 2 diabetes
as if it were an actual, well-defined, formulated disease, and the
moment we start talking about this…we assume it's a disease that
has a cause, that has a mechanism for which there are specific
treatments and for which there may be prevention and cure,"
explains Dr. Gale.
I admit that I have suspected what he
describes. Why else would we have people labeled as type 2 diabetes
in such a wide range of conditions and medications. I know people
not needing any medications and all through the spectrum to people
like myself that are on insulin shortly after diagnosis. There are
people that have little or no insulin resistance to people like
myself that have high insulin resistance.
One of the major fallacies of lumping
everything together under the term type 2 diabetes is the
introduction of one-size-fits-all guidelines for disease management.
Dr. Gale is also concerned about treating everyone the same whether
you are 40 or 90. Using the term idiopathic hyperglycemia
would encourage clinicians to think of the condition as an outcome of
many interacting processes.
"If you talk about type 2
diabetes as being a single condition, you are going to then
automatically assume there is a single best treatment, a single best
path to follow. People get hypnotized by a name… A name can be
very deceptive. It's best to have a name that makes no assumptions,"
he concludes.
Dr. Gale argues that, “Because the
symptoms referred to by the term 'Type 2 diabetes' have such widely
varying causes, mechanisms, and treatments, the term is misleading
both researchers and patients.” I am sure that the ADA will have
disagreements with Dr. Gale. Someone within the organization will
probably feel the need to spout off to attempt to repudiate him.
Read this blog by Tom Ross about this
topic. It is in the second part of the blog for May 30, 2013. You
will need to scroll down to it because the link takes you to May 31.
No comments:
Post a Comment