[Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution

Wanda Sloan wsloan118 at roadrunner.com
Sat Nov 23 14:49:37 UTC 2013 

It will probably take a blind, diabetic Congressman to get this
accomplished. (smile)

-----Original Message-----
From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of
COLLEEN ROTH
Sent: Thursday, November 21, 2013 11:29 AM
To: diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution

 Hello Mike,
I hate to say this but I agree that this is something which will take time.
People probably don't see the need for accessible equipment for blind
diabetics because they do not think we need to be able to be independent in
this area.
As more Diabetics become blind this may change.
Maybe when a State passes a Resolution we can share this Resolution with our
Members of Congress.
This may or may not help but it is worth a try.
Add Ohio to the list of States who passed a Resolution at our State
Convention earlier this month.
Colleen Roth



----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Freeman <k7uij at panix.com>
To: "'Diabetes Talk for the Bl'" diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
Date: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 6:02 pm
Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution

>
>
> What follows is my own personal opinion. Although I concur with what 
> Sandi writes below, I'm certain that she will disagree with me. That's OK.
> 
> In a sense, Veronica, you are correct: national resolutions have 
> already been passed that essentially advocate much, if not all, of 
> what Jerry's resolution, Sandi's resolution and the one I got passed 
> at the Washington affiliate's convention, advocate. Why, then, pass 
> other resolutions or a further national resolution?
> 
> First, there's nothing wrong with passing more than one resolution on 
> a subject, despite what some of the curmudgeon's on the Resolutions 
> Committee (of which, for once, I am not one) may say. Several 
> resolutions on a subject, especially if passed at conventions in 
> different years, tend to emphasize NFB's concerns on a given subject. 
> Moreover, if resolutions are passed at several state affiliate 
> conventions advocating much the same thing, it may well indicate to 
> the national convention and to NFB leadership a ground-swell of concern by
the rank-and-file membership on an issue.
> 
> Second, as Dr. Maurer says, it may well give him ammunition with which 
> to approach mucketies in a given field, indicating that NFB means
business.
> 
> I emphasize that as the President of DAN, I carry out the policies of 
> NFB and of DAN to the letter. I say this to blunt possible criticism 
> of what I shall write next as being, shall we say, unpatriotic. Now 
> here goes  and this is where Sandi and I have some vigorous discussions.
> 
> What Dr. Maurer, NFB, DAN and I are really up against are two things: 
> (1) current law  especially that dealing with discrimination against 
> the blind  really doesn't cover medical devices except physical 
> access (do mammogram machines allow access via wheelchair, for 
> example). Were NFB to secure passage of the Home Appliance 
> Accessibility Act (HAAA), it would explicitly cover home medical devices
such as insulin pumps, CGMS systems and meters.
> But here's where the second problem rears its ugly head. (2) the 
> present Congress  especially the House of Representatives  is 
> ininextremely* reluctant to pass ininany* legislation that requires 
> business entities such as corporations to do anything. Corporationbs 
> are effectively the next-best thing to Heaven, according to a majority 
> in the House. There is an
> exception: congress is likely to crack down on compounding labs. But 
> this will happen precisely because there was a spate of deaths 
> attributable to that lab in New England. Short of this, especially 
> since we, the blind, are such a small minority and diabetics are a 
> small, though growing minority within the blind community as in the 
> larger society, it makes it damnably difficult when pharmaceutical and 
> medical equipment manufacturers dig in their heels and stonewall us. An
apt comparison is with airlines and kiosks.
> Remember the press release last week that decries the new DOT rules as 
> being phony for requiring ten years before kiosks must be accessible.
> 
> In my view, this means that Dr. Maurer and NFB have precious little 
> legal leverage (at least until after the 2014 elections and probably 
> even then) with which to bludgeon the diabetes industry into doing what's
right.
> 
> Given the foregoing, what do these resolutions accomplish? First, they 
> are a cry of diabetic members of NFB saying, in effect: "there's 
> iningot* to be a way to change things and get industry to do what's 
> right!" Put another way, the electorate is unwilling to accept my 
> bleak assessment of the political prospects for mandating accessible
diabetes technology.
> 
> Further, the resolutions are intended to spur us on to explore other 
> ways to get at the accessibility problem as you and I discussed on the 
> phone late in the summer. If we're going to make progress, we are 
> certainly going to have to try something else, at least until the 
> American people again embrace activist government.
> 
> I confess that, given our minority status and given the lack of 
> altruism I see all-too-prevalent in society today, I am not sanguine 
> that much will happen quickly. In this Sandi has more faith in the 
> good will of humanity than do I. But the electorate is telling us that 
> we can't ignore the issue of diabetes gear accessibility (not that I 
> was but we've gotten used to the relative invincibility of the NFB and 
> it's something of a new thing for us  or, at least it's perceived that
way, when NFB doesn't get its way).
> 
> Lest list members think I'm giving up the fight, I am not. But it will 
> take out-of-the-box thinking and, like it or not, time to get what we 
> want. We must remember that what became SSI was Dr. tenBroek's dream 
> as early as 1940. And when did SSI become law? 1973.
> 
> Let the brickbats fly.
> 
> Mike Freeman
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
> Behalf Of Sandi Ryan
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 2:00 PM
> To: Diabetes Talk for the Blind
> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
> 
> Hi Veronica,
> 
> As Dr. Maurer said it to us at the Iowa convention, passing the 
> resolutions in the states is a good start toward getting one passed at 
> the national convention.  Then he can step into the fray and meet with 
> pharmaceutical companies and the others mentioned in the resolutions, 
> along with us, to try
> 
> to get them to do what the resolution says.  So states passing the 
> resolutions is the beginning.
> 
> Sandi
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Veronica Elsea" <veronica at laurelcreekmusic.com>
> To: "'Diabetes Talk for the Bl'" <diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 3:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
> 
> 
> Please forgive my question but maybe it's just because I'm having a 
> really difficult time of it right now. I agree these resolutions are 
> great in a way. Now the rest of the affiliate knows what we need. But 
> then what? If the world jumped every time we passed some resolution at 
> a convention, we'd have all sorts of cool things by now. So what 
> happens with the resolutions? How does this turn into pressure on 
> someone to do something? Just wondering lest we start congratulating
ourselves too soon.
> Like I said, don't mean to be a downer, really I don't. Just 
> wondering, that's all. Thanks.
> Veronica
> 
> Watch the video as The Guide Dog Glee Club sings "Rehab!" Yes! Yes! Yes!
> http://youtu.be/JvakJ5lk6Us
> Then find more music from Veronica Elsea and The Guide Dog Glee Club at:
> http://www.laurelcreekmusic.com
> Veronica Elsea, Owner
> Laurel Creek Music Designs
> Santa Cruz, California
> Phone: 831-429-6407
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diabetes-talk [mailto:diabetes-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On 
> Behalf Of Cindy Ray
> Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 12:26 PM
> To: Jerry Hathaway; Diabetes Talk for the Blind
> Subject: Re: [Diabetes-talk] Diabetes resolution
> 
> Wow, that is truly awesome. Good work on that resolution and 
> congratulations.
> 
> Cindy Lou
> 
> On Nov 19, 2013, at 1:55 PM, Jerry Hathaway 
> <jerry.hathaway2 at frontier.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > The NFB of Oregon passed a resolution at our state convention on 
> > November 3, 2013 Regarding Advocacy to Make
> Diabetes Tools and Technology Accessible to the Blind. The resolution 
> is listed below.
> >
> >
> >
> > Resolution 2013-01  Regarding Diabetes
> >
> >
> >
> > Regarding Advocacy to Make Diabetes Tools and Technology Accessible 
> > to the
> Blind
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, The National Federation of the Blind has, since 1940, 
> > championed
> the independence of the blind and worked to make the world accessible 
> to and safe for the blind; and
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, to help increase the independence of blind people, the 
> > National
> Federation of the Blind has fought to make technology, readily 
> available to the sighted, accessible for the blind; and
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, according to the National Eye Institute (NEI) of the 
> > National
> Institutes of Health (NIH), diabetic retinopathy is the most common 
> cause of blindness, affecting 4.1 million American adults over age 40, 
> and
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, very little technology currently on the market for 
> > constantly or
> periodically monitoring blood glucose, accurately delivering insulin, 
> or performing other tasks to control diabetes is accessible to the 
> blind, and insulin pens carry a disclaimer that they should not be 
> used by the blind without supervision; and
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, technology has been demonstrated to increase diabetes 
> > control in
> the sighted, and the same technology, made accessible to the blind 
> would improve diabetes control among blind and visually impaired 
> diabetics, and increase independence in maintaining such control; and
> >
> >
> >
> > WHEREAS, the need for improved accessibility of lifesaving diabetes
> technology has been largely overlooked: Now, therefore,
> >
> >
> >
> > BE IT RESOLVED by the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon in
> convention assembled this 3rd day of November, 2013, in the city of 
> Salem, Oregon, that the National Federation of the Blind of Oregon and 
> its Diabetes Action Network division work closely with companies 
> developing pens, pumps, glucometers, and other lifesaving diabetes 
> control tools and technology to integrate accessibility for the blind 
> and deaf-blind into the design and manufacture of such items; and
> >
> >
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind of 
> > Oregon
> enlist the support of the American Diabetes Association, the American 
> Association of Retired Persons, the American Association of Clinical 
> Endocrinologists, and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to 
> establish and implement accessibility standards for diabetes 
> technology; and
> >
> >
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the National Federation of the Blind of 
> > Oregon
> urge manufacturers of technology that provides information to the 
> blind and deaf-blind about diabetes management to recognize that 
> creating technology useful only to the sighted creates a circumstance 
> that discriminates against the blind and deaf-blind, and urge such 
> manufacturers further to recognize that the blind and deaf-blind of 
> Oregon will join with other blind and deaf-blind people throughout the 
> nation to take such action as may be necessary to end this 
> discrimination; and
> >
> >
> >
> > BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Diabetes Action Network of the 
> > National
> Federation of the blind of Oregon publicize widely the inaccessibility 
> of diabetes tools and technology as they are currently marketed, and 
> the unnecessary hardship their inaccessibility creates in the lives of 
> blind and deaf-blind diabetics.
> >
> >
> >
> > Jerry
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Diabetes-talk mailing list
> > Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> > http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> > To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
> > for
> Diabetes-talk:
> >
>
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/cindyray%40gmail.
> com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Diabetes-talk mailing list
> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Diabetes-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/veronica%40
> laurel
> creekmusic.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Diabetes-talk mailing list
> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Diabetes-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/sjryan2%40g
> mail.c
> om
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Diabetes-talk mailing list
> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
> Diabetes-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40pan
> ix.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Diabetes-talk mailing list
> Diabetes-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
Diabetes-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/diabetes-talk_nfbnet.org/n8tnv%40att
> .net

More information about the Diabetes-Talk mailing list