Diabetes Dream Law...What is the law now?
Currently there is no consistency in Canada regarding the care of children with diabetes in schools. There are boards such as Ottawa-Carlton and Lethbridge, who have taken it upon themselves to draft very specific policy dealing with this chronic illness. They are the exception. Most schools throughout the country deal with diabetes in one of two ways—they either have parents sign an “Administering Medicine in Schools” form or have them complete an Individual Support Services Plan (ISSP). Neither of these forms truly outline the responsibilities, needs, and roles of the school, the parent or the student.
Why do we need change?
As we all know, diabetes care has changed monumentally in the past 10 years. At one time, children with diabetes were sent to school with only lows to worry about. Small glucometers, multiple daily injections, ketone meters, and insulin pumps either did not exist or were a rarity. This is not the case today.
Today, we have more technology, more knowledge of what diabetes is all about, and more children than ever who are living with this disease. That sadly does not mean that the school system or the general public is any more aware than they were ten years ago.
What is being done elsewhere?
The USA offers a unique solution to the problem of diabetes care in schools. Because the disease falls under Section 504 of the American Rehabilitation Act, children in federally funded schools are able to work with their schools to create individual care plans. These plans include things like when and where testing will take place, what do to in case of highs or lows, who will ensure that the child eats all of the food sent to school, allowing a child to test before an exam to ensure they are not cognitively impaired by hypo or hyperglycemia and giving them the option to retest at a more appropriate time, etc. Should a federally funded school fail to honour what is noted in the “504 Plan”, they can be penalized by the Office of Civil Rights.
But we live in Canada…
In Canada, our education funding works much differently than in the US. We are not able to implement legislation and demand that all province follow through or else. Recently, however, we have seen some interesting changes in policies. The most relevant to us is a legislative change in the province of Ontario.
In January of 2006, Ontario implemented a private members bill called Sabrina’s Law. This law protects children with life-threatening allergies and demands that a care plan be put in place for each and every child in Ontario who goes to school and has life-threatening allergies.
How does that help children with diabetes?
It doesn’t but it does open a new door. An Individual Health Care Plan (IHCP) would not simply deal with children with diabetes but all children with life-threatening illnesses chronic. It would follow the guidelines of Sabrina’s Law. Each school would be required to meet with the parents of children with life-threatening, chronic illnesses at the beginning of each school year. They would establish the protocol of dealing with the child’s illness and care. The plan would outline responsibilities of all parties involved. It would provide an Emergency Care Section, a section requiring in-services for all staff members who come in contact with the child, as well as information for supply teachers.
Why would schools want to adopt this plan?
Today we are seeing a significant rise in the number of health care issues that schools and personnel have to deal with on a regular basis. To create a policy for each disease is timely and costly. An IHCP would solve that issue while protecting all children.

Is this something that you could see happening in your province? Would you be interested in seeing it implemented? Please let us know what you think

Write to your Minister of Education and ask that he/she adopt either a Medical Care Plan or more specifically a policy for Children with Diabetes in their Schools. Sample letters can be found on our sample page.

Diabetes Advocacy's Individual Medical Care Plan for Children with Life Threatening Illness

Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
“life-threatening illness” means any chronic illness or allergy that in certain conditions, when left untreated or improperly treated could lead to death such as diabetes, severe allergies,asthma and epilepsy.
“board” means a district school board or a school authority; (“conseil”)
“consent” means consent given by an individual with the capacity to provide consent to treatment for the purposes of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996; (“consentement”)
“employee” means an employee of a board who regularly works at the school, in the case of a school operated by the board. (“employé”) 2005, c. 7, s. 1 (1).
“administration of medication” does not include the treatment of hypoglycemia with juice or other glucose sources when a child with diabetes is conscious.
Expressions related to education
(2) Expressions in this Act related to education have the same meaning as in the Education Act, unless the context requires otherwise.
Establishment of policy
2. (1) Every board shall establish and maintain a life-threatening illness policy in accordance with this section.
Contents of life-threatening illness policy
(2) The life-threatening illness policy shall include the following:
1. Strategies that reduce the risk of the illness reaching life-threatening proportions.
2. A communication plan for the dissemination of information on life-threatening illness to parents, pupils and employees.
3. Regular training on dealing with life-threatening illness for all employees and others who are in direct contact with pupils on a regular basis.
4. A requirement that every school principal develop an individual plan for each pupil who has a life-threatening illness.
5. A requirement that every school principal ensure that, upon registration, parents, guardians and pupils shall be asked to supply information on life-threatening illness
6. A requirement that every school principal maintain a file for each pupil with a life-threatening illness of current treatment and other information, including a copy of any prescriptions and instructions from the pupil’s physician or nurse and a current emergency contact list.
Contents of individual plan
(3) An individual plan for a pupil with a life-threatening illness shall be consistent with the board’s policy and shall include:
1. Details informing employees and others who are in direct contact with the pupil on a regular basis (as well as being available to all supply personnel) of the type medical care required, monitoring and treatment guidelines.
2. A readily accessible emergency procedure for the pupil, including emergency contact information.
3. Storage for epinephrine auto-injectors, Glucagon, and other emergency supplies.
4. Storage and accessibility to medical equipment that may be required to properly maintain treatment of life-threatening illness (such as access to glucometers, insulin, etc)
Administration of medication
3. (1) Employees may be preauthorized to administer medication or supervise a pupil while he or she takes medication in response to an life-threatening illness, if the school has up-to-date treatment information and the consent of the parent, guardian or pupil, as applicable.
Obligation to keep school informed
(2) It is the obligation of the pupil’s parent or guardian and the pupil to ensure that the information in the pupil’s file is kept up-to-date with the treatment method and emergency care routine that the pupil requires.
Emergency administration of medication
(3) If an employee has reason to believe that a pupil is experiencing an life-threatening illness reaction, the employee may administer an epinephrine auto-injector, Glucagon or other medication prescribed to the pupil for the treatment of a life threatening reaction such as anaphylactic shock, epileptic seizure or hypoglycemic event, even if there is no preauthorization to do so under subsection (1).
Immunity
(4) No action for damages shall be instituted respecting any act done in good faith or for any neglect or default in good faith in response to life-threatening illness reaction in accordance with this Act, unless the damages are the result of an employee’s gross negligence.
Common law preserved
(5) This section does not affect or in any way interfere with the duties any person may have under common law.
 

Again, please let us know what you think of this draft and let us know if you would like to be a part of this movement. Watch here for more details on how we will proceed!!

Advertisement.....If you enjoy the work of Diabetes Advocacy and the information presented on this site, please consider supporting our efforts through your purchases of diabetes awareness and medical items from our Online Store.