• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Diabetics in the CF

acooper said:
It's also very unfair to let a not-even-yet-diagnosed-possibly-diabetic believe that all jobs in the forces are possible....

what's unfair is to tell somebody they can't do something, because they have diabetes. In 2005 When I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, thank you for insulting my knowledge by the way, I couldn't even qualify as a police officer. Now thanks to people fighting for their rights, that has changed. I know many diabetics who I dont like to see behind the wheel of a car.. let alone in a combat role in the armed forces. However I also know many who if not for them telling you, you would never know about their condition. I have long since given up on my dream of being in the forces, however I still dont like to see narrow minded thinkers sharing their biast opinions with the world. I understand why the CF says what they do about diabetics, but I don't think they are right in their judgment. Keep a surplus of insulin (mine stores for 2 years), bring backups, have a CGM System, and you are fine. Sure they couldn't be ready to deploy in a matter of minutes... but there is so many jobs in the CF a diabetic should be able to do.


Yes, I was overreacting and for that I apologize, but I stand by my opinions.
 
lindhout said:
I understand why the CF says what they do about diabetics, but I don't think they are right in their judgment.

They have their reasons, I'm sure.

lindhout said:
Sure they couldn't be ready to deploy in a matter of minutes... but there is so many jobs in the CF a diabetic should be able to do.

In the CF, personnel have to be able to do all jobs, not just some.  Ever heard of universality of service?
 
lindhout - I'm glad your diabetes is apparently so easily manageable. But for many others, it simply isn't.  I'm not sure if you are male, or female - but I also know for many women, hormonal issues can make diabetes hard to manage. For many (male, or female), stress makes it hard to manage. It seems to me that you haven't dealt recently with debilitating lows, or DKA. But imagine if someone on the front lines, who has other soldiers depending on them, has a sudden low? Or if they use the last bit of their insulin, and are in DKA days before they can be relieved, or more insulin brought to them?

You're right, in general, a diabetic should be able to do just about anything. But reality is, there are just certain situations that aren't safe for the diabetic, or for others who depend on them. These situations in the armed forces, plus universality of service (thanks for reminding me of the term, Pmed Moe) are why most diabetics won't be allowed to be in the CF.

I'm glad for the previous poster, however, that there was a non-diabetic explanation for her low sugar, and hope her journey to the CF goes as well as possible.
 
PMedMoe said:
They have their reasons, I'm sure.

In the CF, personnel have to be able to do all jobs, not just some.  Ever heard of universality of service?

Are you ware from the CF standpoint, type 1 diabetics typicaly are put in a G4 category. Now, a cook, postal, chaplain, band ect. are a G3 Category. So am I correct in understanding, you believe a type 1 diabetic is unfit to be a cook in the CF?

To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)
 
lindhout said:
Are you ware from the CF standpoint, type 1 diabetics typicaly are put in a G4 category. Now, a cook, postal, chaplain, band ect. are a G3 Category. So am I correct in understanding, you believe a type 1 diabetic is unfit to be a cook in the CF?

To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)

Do you know the occupational specification for a cook in the CF?  What they are expected to do, and under what conditions?  What the general specifications are that all NCMs in the CF must meet, regardless of trade or environmental affiliation?

Perhaps if you'd bother to look and learn you'd discover why there are such restrictions in place.
 
lindhout said:
why exactly do you have this hate for diabetics? how quickly you judge all diabetics shows just how ignorant you are. If you have done any research you would know there is a few people in CF and US army with type 1 diabetes.

I say Pardon?

And who are you?

Let me advise you to look at my profile. And before you ignorantly go off at me again, know that there is a copy of the D MED POL pearl guides sitting next to me open to the DM page, and the CFP 154 open on a different tab on my computer.

I will state again, categorically:
People applying to get into the CF can not get in if they have been diagnosed with DM type 1 otherwise known as insulin dependant diabetes.
 
lindhout said:
Are you ware from the CF standpoint, type 1 diabetics typicaly are put in a G4 category. Now, a cook, postal, chaplain, band ect. are a G3 Category. So am I correct in understanding, you believe a type 1 diabetic is unfit to be a cook in the CF?

The CF does. It doesn't matter what I believe, does it?  I believe people should use proper spelling and spell check.

lindhout said:
To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Think what you like, but I don't make the rules.

So either try to change it (good luck with that) or give it up.  All your "debating" on here won't change a thing.
 
lindhout said:
Are you ware from the CF standpoint, type 1 diabetics typically are put in a G4 category. Now, a cook, postal, chaplain, band etc. are a G3 Category. So am I correct in understanding, you believe a type 1 diabetic is unfit to be a cook in the CF?

To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)

And most G4 permanent categories are often medically released (although it might not be immediate. some get accommodations for up to 3 years).  There are very few jobs for a Type 1 DM in the CF.  In my 23 years of medicine in the CF most are released due to the nature of the universality of service regardless of the trade.  I worked for a Medical Officer who was Diagnosis ed early in her career.  She wasn't allowed to deploy anywhere outside of Canada and as soon as her contract was up she was release.  This was at a time when we were at 50% strength for Medical Officers.Irregular access to meds and foods while deployed overseas is the biggest reason.  Now type 2 DM are looked at differently even then they can be greatly restricted depending on the severity of the DM.

The rules are there both to protected the individual and the CF.  That's just life.

Lindhout

We are not saying your unfit but the CF is also not going to put you in a  position that would be unsafe.  This is not only for DM but alot of other medical condition too (IE seizure disorders).  At the end of the day when you have had no food or time to eat I don't want to be the medical person having to help when that DM type 1 or 2 shouldn't have been there in the first place especially when the *^%&^% hits the fan and I have multiple other casualties to attend to.  This goes for the many other  conditions to.
 
lindhout said:
Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)

No one is saying you are unfit, please pay attention to that.

I do notice one glaring issue with what this statement says - service rig - are you in the western oil patch? Because my friend, I can tell you from years of experience that some of those guys would take someone with no arms and legs if they could prove able to lean on the brake handle. And I have also personally witnessed diabetic related emergencies on those rigs...and it ain't effing pretty when you're back the Kotcho or Chinchaga.

If you read carefully you'll see that no one is trying to give anyone else a rough ride. They are simply stating facts as they stand now. Chill out.
 
lindhout said:
Are you ware from the CF standpoint, type 1 diabetics typicaly are put in a G4 category. Now, a cook, postal, chaplain, band ect. are a G3 Category. So am I correct in understanding, you believe a type 1 diabetic is unfit to be a cook in the CF?

To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

In the regular force, even support trades such as the ones you mention can be expected to deploy to places where it's impossible to accommodate certain medical concerns.  A cook, for example, might spend much of his time in a cafeteria-type environment, but is likely also to spend some time in a ship (with no doctor or extensive health care facility for a thousand miles in any direction) or in the field (subject to all of the rigours of life in the field, with the added hazard of being shot at and having to defend your unit right along with the infanteers etc.).

The concept of "universality of service" means that regular force members must be able to deploy to hazardous locations and do very demanding things any time it's required of them.

Even in "normal" work situations in Canada a CF member can be subject to long periods without rest or food, and everyone must be able to depend on everyone else to do his or her bit.  It's not for spite that there are medical restrictions on who may serve.  It's because there is a very real danger associated with someone being suddenly incapacitated.
 
lindhout said:
To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

I wanted to be a Pilot.  I am V3.  Is that discrimination against me?  Hell, yes!  And for good reason.  I can accept the fact that I am no medically fit to be a CF Pilot.  Is it discrimination to not allow a person confined to a wheelchair into the CF as an Infantryman?  Yes it is.  For good reason.  The Charter of Human Rights recognizes these facts. 







lindhout said:
Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)

At the end of your 18 hour shifts, you get to go home.  Not so on a six to ten month Tour to some hellhole on the other side of the world.
 
Scott said:
No one is saying you are unfit, please pay attention to that.

I do notice one glaring issue with what this statement says - service rig - are you in the western oil patch? Because my friend, I can tell you from years of experience that some of those guys would take someone with no arms and legs if they could prove able to lean on the brake handle. And I have also personally[i/] witnessed diabetic related emergencies on those rigs...and it ain't effing pretty when you're back the Kotcho or Chinchaga.

If you read carefully you'll see that no one is trying to give anyone else a rough ride. They are simply stating facts as they stand now. Chill out.


Lindhout ....pay attention to someone who is an SME of rigs....he's been there, done that.

and, to date, nobody is questioning your fitness now, but the CF has to deal with the future probabilities and how to handle them....

my  :2c:
 
Scott said:
I do notice one glaring issue with what this statement says - service rig - are you in the western oil patch? Because my friend, I can tell you from years of experience that some of those guys would take someone with no arms and legs if they could prove able to lean on the brake handle. And I have also personally[i/] witnessed diabetic related emergencies on those rigs...and it ain't effing pretty when you're back the Kotcho or Chinchaga.


As an aside to the main topic, things have changed a wee bit out in "the patch" at least rig wise.  They are a little more discriminating about who they hire nowadays.  I have to agree on the diabetic emergency in the bush though, I have also seen it pop up.  You can't do anything about it if they don't tell you though.  Which is why I agree with pre-screening and also why the CF does the medical and has the standards they do.  They can't always look at the rosy picture.  What happens if you are in a third world &%$$ hole and don't have access to your meds?  The military is a TEAM, and if you can't play with the rest of your team because you're in the middle of a diabetic emergency you are letting them down and possibly putting them in danger because you can't be there beside them. 

My  :2c:.  For what it's worth.

 
Northalbertan said:
As an aside to the main topic, things have changed a wee bit out in "the patch" at least rig wise.  They are a little more discriminating about who they hire nowadays.  I have to agree on the diabetic emergency in the bush though, I have also seen it pop up. 

There's the very crux of my argument towards screening proven:

I worked in Asia/the Mid East in 2008 and no way would my employer have sent someone with a legitimate, ongoing medical issue over there. Anaphylactics were included as well...and I never saw one damned bee or a peanut in my three months across (!) Point is, we couldn't plan for everything so we choose to limit who we send. Same goes for the CF but on a much larger scale.

Back to "the patch" Yeah, if you thunder in on the lease in Two Lakes you have a better shot than if you do so on a ship or in a FOB or in a desert exploration camp.

Simple.
 
lindhout said:
To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Hate to tell you this, but the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the right of the Canadian Forces to discriminate based on medical/physical conditions or limitations.  We have standards there for a reason - in this case, you can't stop to eat in a long advance to contact and subsequent shoot out because just you're hypoglycemic...to put it another way, you wouldn't be doing anyone any favours if you had a seizure because your BG was in you shoes, in fact you'd be putting your fireteam partner, your TCCC provider, section 2ic and most important of all, ME at risk to look after you with all the bullets flying about.  I've said it many times before but will do it again - "It's not personal, it's just business" so please do everyone a favour and get off the soap box - it'll just slip out from underneath you like it has so many others I've dealt with over the years with this and many other problems.  BTW, physical fitness does not equate medical fitness - so sending the doc out to the rig will just give them a sight seeing tour.

Maybe in a few years there will be a magic bullet that will fix everything up for you - if that happens, I'm sure we'll be able to welcome you with open arms, but until then, that's the way it is.

MM
 
lindhout said:
To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Drag your MO's out to my service rig for a few 18 hour shifts, then let them tell me im unfit. :)

Wanna play that game, eh?

IDDM is PCat at G403 for a damn good reason. That being your "rights" are negated by your DKA evoked death.
 
lindhout said:
why exactly do you have this hate for diabetics? how quickly you judge all diabetics shows just how ignorant you are. If you have done any research you would know there is a few people in CF and US army with type 1 diabetes. In 1989 a type 1 diabetic was cleared for flight as a search and rescue pilot in CF. Yes he was already a member we diagnosed in 2007, but the fact he was allowed and no issues came forth shows again your ignorance. There is no reason type 1 diabetes should be a blanket ban, there is many diabetics who would have no problems at all performing their duties. Continous glucose monitoring eliminates risk of sudden incapacitation, and IF somebody is stuck without medication, the only risks are LONG TERM. Every case of diabetes is different and should be handled as such, people like you are pathetic

Pi$$ poor attitude pal, but your enthusiasm is noted, however don't throw the discrimination card - it won't apply here. I agree with you in certain jobs other than Defence and some 000 (LEO) professions, where risks would be limited perhaps, and conditions are more suitable for a diabetic, so don't go singling yourself out, we are not out to get you.

Aside from being a cook or whatever similar trade you have used as an example, we are all soldiers first, and have common basic military skills (weapons handling, fieldcraft, etc), not just peeling potatoes and preparing meals.

Going back to my tour in Iraq for example, our cooks not only had to perform their trade duties, but also had to do strong point duty, sentry duty, and other taskings in outragously extreme conditions, and often were outside the wire in the shooter role on our ASLAVs, in the thick of it, like us all. Infact both our cooks were from 3 RAR (Para) and we fullly qualified paratroopers with previous tours. Serious 'hard corps' dudes.

There is such a thing called Murphy's Law, and it happens all too frequently in the real world. There is no room for anyone with potential dangerous medical issues which they easily might become a liability (you would be one of these), and make others a liabliity to look after them should things go pear shaped (and they do/did). try doing some of your continious gluecose monitering in the back of a bouncing ASLAV @ 60kph in the dust and heat when your half out of a hatch, wind blowing, you got protective gear on, and you must watch your arcs with your weapon for hours on end. Get my drift? Your lack of concentration can cost lives, even your own.

Best of luck in your future endeavours.  There is no need to get narky at anyone here who is just spelling out the facts for you. Sometimes reality sucks.

My 2 bob.
 
lindhout said:
why exactly do you have this hate for diabetics? how quickly you judge all diabetics shows just how ignorant you are. If you have done any research you would know there is a few people in CF and US army with type 1 diabetes. In 1989 a type 1 diabetic was cleared for flight as a search and rescue pilot in CF. Yes he was already a member we diagnosed in 2007, but the fact he was allowed and no issues came forth shows again your ignorance. There is no reason type 1 diabetes should be a blanket ban, there is many diabetics who would have no problems at all performing their duties. Continous glucose monitoring eliminates risk of sudden incapacitation, and IF somebody is stuck without medication, the only risks are LONG TERM. Every case of diabetes is different and should be handled as such, people like you are pathetic

You do realize that you started your contribution to this forum by spouting off in response to an almost four year old post, don't you?  While that is not necessarily looked down upon here, the tone of your original post (in my view, at least) could be considered abusive or trolling; my suggestion is that you dial it back a notch.

While you may have personal experience with diabetes, it is patently obvious you have little to no knowledge of the CF or how its medical category system is applied to those with diabetes (or any disease).  By ranting off in all directions, especially when insulting members who are knowledgeable (because it is part of their job) you will accomplish little on these means other than gain a less than admirable reputation.  This forum, while not always the epitome of decorum, does place a greater emphasis on reasoned debate argument than is often found elsewhere on the net.  Perhaps someone should direct you to the "rainbow" post. 

Your suggestion that, since a CF pilot was retained on flying status following diagnosis as a type 1 diabetic, applicants with diabetes can be enrolled with no problem demonstrates your lack of understanding of what military members do and how medical categories are applied.  Contrary to your statement that there were no issues with this unusual retention of a diabetic pilot, there were several.  Again, you take semi-knowledge of one fact and extrapolate it far beyond your arcs. 

The pilot in question enrolled in the CF in 1982 and had no medical issues at that time.  He completed  flying training (rotary) in  1982.  In April 1987 he presented with symptoms and was subsequently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes.  He was initially treated with insulin and was entered in a diabetic study group at UWO.  From the time that he presented with symptoms he was grounded.  Two years after diagnosis (1989) he was returned to “restricted” flying status, “to fly with or as co-pilot”, and had specific geographic restrictions to fixed bases where physician services were available.  He was to have specialist and aeromedical follow-up every 3 months.  Following his return to flying he was assigned to a SAR squadron flying Labradors.  In 1991, he was again grounded for 6 months but returned to flying duties (with the same restrictions as before) in 1992.    His reported performance as a pilot was noted as “outstanding” and was awarded the Medal of Bravery in 1991 for a rescue mission in adverse conditions.
You can download the complete document from which I gathered this information as a PDF here

While the details above were extracted from an article in a 1995 journal, the following excerpt from a 2008 article mentions a more current sitrep of the pilot in question.  (I’ve redacted his name for this forum)
http://www.diabeteshealth.com/read/2008/06/26/5807/flying-on-insulin/
The very first pilot in the world with type 1 to get his medical certification and, therefore, his pilot’s license reinstated was a Canadian military pilot, Capt. ***** *******.  ***** was diagnosed with diabetes in 1987. After two years of monitoring and individual assessments of his ability to control his diabetes, a very forward thinking Dr. Gary Gray, with the help of *****’s endocrinologist, Dr. John Dupre, authorized ***** to return to flying duties. In August of 1989, ***** moved to Summerside PEI and returned to active flying status at 413 Sqn. ***** is presently working as a Major in Esquimalt, BC, where he is still licensed to fly. He will be retiring from the Canadian Forces in July of 2010.

And it has been far from a given that this pilot was able to continue his military career as is noted in this excerpt from a letter he sent to then Minister of Health Allan Rock is support of islet research.

http://islet.org/33.htm#GrenkowToRock
. . . And even a well controlled diabetic like myself finds the sword of Damocles hanging over one's head when employment issues like "Universality of Service" come into play. Even though I am cleared to fly as a Search and Rescue pilot in the CF actions are being taken through a Career Review Board to release me because I can not be supposedly deployed for more than 30 days. This is rated on the shelf life of opened unrefridgerated insulin.

Not knowing this officer personally I can only surmise (based on the effort and support that must have come from both his chain of command as well as aeromedical staff) that he is truly an outstanding individual, in terms of professional ability as well as personality.  In most cases, plugs are not kept if they fall below minimum medical standard.  In the words of a friend of mine who was in the career shop “if someone pi$$es me off, the only effect would be similar to pi$$ing into the wind – it’s their trouser legs that get wet”.

lindhout said:
I understand why the CF says what they do about diabetics, but I don't think they are right in their judgment. Keep a surplus of insulin (mine stores for 2 years), . . . . Sure they couldn't be ready to deploy in a matter of minutes... .

If you understand, then be prepared to offer a knowledgeable analysis of which occupations could accept enrollees with Type 1 diabetes.

Does your opened insulin store for two years with refrigeration?  Who manufactures it?

More than once during my career I have been subject to movement on very, very short notice, in fact I once received my notice of a posting (Gagetown to Edmonton) and had to be on the road in three hours. (talk about clearing unit and base quickly - only thing I turned in was my weapon EIS)

lindhout said:
To me this is insulting and raises many discrimination concerns.

Again, your lack of knowledge is showing.  Former members of the CF have already tried to claim that they were discriminated against due to them being released from the CF after being diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes.  CHRTs have upheld the CF's position.  You may want to review the following tribunal decisions.  They may enlighten you as to the process that occurs before a serving member is released after failing to meet medical standards.  I've included a passage from "Gaetz" that discusses the some numbers of members who have been released because of insulin dependant diabetes.

Gaetz v. Canadian Armed Forces (a 1988 decision)
http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=105&lg=_e&isruling=0
“On the same page Captain Martin also indicated that the Career Medical Review Board had cases which came before it dealing with members suffering from diabetes and Captain Martin’s testimony was to the effect that there were 34 such cases since 1985, and he indicated that of those 35 cases, 14 persons were released and that these were insulin- dependent diabetics requiring daily injections. Five of the remaining persons were retained to compulsary retirement age, which was going to occur 18 to 24 months down the road and such persons were retained for annuity purposes. Another 4 were retained with restrictions and in those cases the medical prognosis was that if proper dieting took place and proper regimented exercise was accomplished, then good control could be maintained by oral medication. Captain Martin also stressed that he was not certain as to whether or not any of the persons retained were insulin- dependent diabetics in the sense that they required insulin injections. In cross- examination by Mr. Duval as to the type of career restrictions imposed upon the four Members who are retained by the Forces after having their medical catagory downgraded by the Career Medical Review Board, commencing at line 5 on page 230. Answer: "They would be career restrictions, which means that at whatever rank level they were at at that time is where they will stay. They will not progress beyond that rank level. For illustration, we use a corporal."

Brown v. Canadian Armed Forces (a 1995 decision)
http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=222&lg=_e&isruling=0


At this point someone is probably thinking "sum up" - so . . .

You could continue ranting all you want that diabetics should be enrolled into the military (though preferably on another forum) but it would not change the reality that there are valid reasons for precluding individuals with that medical condition from joining.  Yes, there have been those who have continued to serve after being diagnosed, but in reality not that many and only when an analysis of that individual’s medical condition ‘and’ his potential for providing further ‘above average’ service indicates it is to the CF’s benefit to retain him.  It is also probable that retention and accomodation of such individuals has been less likely in the past few years for the simple reason that we’ve been at war and need those who can deploy to a combat area.
 
Back
Top