FAA Medical Question

Mxsmanic wrote:
vaughn writes:

For example: if your doctor diagnoses you with type 2 diabetes, you
will be required to report that on your medical application and then you will be
required to jump through the appropriate hoops to get your medical, even though
you may (probably will) pass the AME's very crude urine-based blood sugar test.

The doctor doesn't have to diagnose it. He may simply have a concern about
high blood glucose, which is not the same as a diagnosis of diabetes. The
diagnosis must be reported, but not just the doctor's verbally articulated
concern. And indeed, an occasionally high blood glucose doesn't necessarily
equate to diabetes, so jumping to a diagnosis isn't always warranted.

Your are contradicting yourself.

The doctor either says you have diabetes or he doesn't.

There is no obligation to report generalities, only diagnosis.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

The doctor either says you have diabetes or he doesn't.

Yes. If he says so, you've been diagnosed. If he doesn't, you haven't. Noting
that your blood glucose is unusually high is not the same as diagnosing
diabetes.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The doctor either says you have diabetes or he doesn't.

Yes. If he says so, you've been diagnosed. If he doesn't, you haven't. Noting
that your blood glucose is unusually high is not the same as diagnosing
diabetes.

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

No ****, but what has this to do with the original point that you are obligated
to report diagnosis but not observations?



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

No ****, then why did you babble on about diagnosis and observations?

A diagnosis of diabetes mellitus is important to the FAA. An observation that
blood glucose is higher than normal generally is not.

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not. And yes, I am
hypoglycemic.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email:
Unix Systems Administrator, |
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFMgd2SyBkZmuMZ8L8RAnUXAJsG0+mD9RePDKCp+LbJ1K Uk+I7SxwCg7m93
0e2ASozuHAYnjKcwcLafsq0=
=Kx9s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia.

Yes, I know. So what?

Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Okay. So what?

Mxsmanic wrote:


Diabetes itself is simply chronic hyperglycemia.

And a house fire is simply the house is very, very hot.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

You may be exchanging tit for tat with someone other than Mx. I have
observed this thread, and the writing style is not exactly his style, I
think. The endless nonsense is there, but too much confrontation style.
Like the post following the one I am responding to.

I don't ever remember anything as confrentational as "OK, so what?" as one
of the responses his has become so imfamous for.

I could be wrong, but something to think about.
--
Jim in NC

A Guy Called Tyketto writes:

And this would be HYPERglycemia, not HYPOglycemia. The former
is higher blood glucose levels; the latter is not.

I am aware of this, thank you.

And yes, I am hypoglycemic.

Asymptomatic hypoglycemia is not disqualifying in itself.