Looking beyond risk: what people with type 1 diabetes say matters most
By Jane Speight and Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott
We support fair and balanced discussions about diabetes devices. That’s why we are concerned about a recent Australian newspaper article: “It’s changed millions of lives, but this tech ‘nearly killed’ Tye” (The Age, 20th July 2026).
The article is a ‘special investigation’. It was published just two days after Australia’s National Diabetes Week. It raises issues about the safety of diabetes devices – issues that are already well known.
Conversations about safety are important. People living with diabetes deserve accurate information about the benefits and limits of the tools they use every day. Access, affordability, support and choice matter too. So does understanding what diabetes devices mean in people’s everyday lives.
Diabetes devices can make a real difference
For many people with type 1 diabetes, automated insulin delivery and continuous glucose monitoring systems have improved their health and quality of life. These devices can help people manage their glucose levels. They can reduce risk of severe hypos, and reduce some of the continual decision-making involved in living with diabetes.
Many people tell us they feel safer. Some report better sleep. Others describe having more confidence, with increased freedom and flexibility in everyday activities, such as work, socialising, driving and to travel or be active without continual fear of dangerously low glucose levels. These benefits matter to adults living with type 1 diabetes.
You can read more about the psychosocial benefits of diabetes technologies (‘tech’) here: acbrd.org.au/category/technologies
Technology is not a cure
It is also true that there can be problems. Devices can fail. Sensors can be inaccurate. Infusion sets can block or dislodge. Software can malfunction.
People with diabetes know this. These risks are clear in device instructions, diabetes education and clinical care. Regulatory agencies and health professionals monitor them too.
Most device problems can be spotted and fixed, even if they are inconvenient and frustrating. That might mean changing an infusion site, taking an injection, doing a finger-prick check, or replacing a faulty device. This is not new or hidden. This is the reality for people with type 1 diabetes.
It is important to be clear: tech is not a cure. Even with the best devices, people still need to actively manage their own diabetes.
Research shows that serious problems like ketoacidosis are rarely caused by one thing alone. They often happen when device issues combine with understandable human actions, like skipping other checks, or delaying help when unwell. That’s why safety is not just about the device. It’s also about how tech is introduced, talked about, supported and built into daily life.
There’s a balance between trusting the tech and being ready to step in when needed. Diabetes devices can lighten the load of self-management. They cannot remove the need for it altogether.
Risk and fear are already part of life with type 1 diabetes
Risk and uncertainty are already part of living with type 1 diabetes – with or without tech. Many people worry about severe hypos, ketoacidosis, long-term complications, or what might happen if a device fails. These worries are all understandable. They are also harmful. They contribute to diabetes distress.
Fear can shape how people manage their diabetes. Fear of hypos is common. It can lead to unhelpful habits. Some people choose to keep their glucose levels higher than recommended because they’re afraid of severe hypos. Over time, this can increase their risk of long-term complications.
People who have experienced adverse events deserve to be heard. The risks they faced need to be understood. But those stories need context too. When coverage focuses mainly on rare but serious events, it risks feeding existing fears, and unhelpful coping habits, without helping people to understand how to manage or reduce those risks. People living with diabetes need information that informs them, not information that overwhelms them.
What matters most to people with type 1 diabetes?
A few years ago, we asked Australians living with type 1 diabetes what they wanted from research, beyond a cure. Their priorities went well beyond device safety. They want better diabetes tech: devices that are easier to use, that fit easily into daily life, and that have less impact on the environment. They want better access and lower costs. They also want faster regulatory and funding pathways, so that new tech reaches them sooner. These priorities come from their lived experiences.
For many people, insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitoring systems aren’t a convenience. They are vital tools that improve health, safety, confidence and quality of life. Yet access is unequal. Many people still face financial barriers to getting the tech that would suit them best.
This is why reporting that focuses mainly on the risks of diabetes tech can do harm beyond the article itself. It risks undermining longstanding community advocacy for better access to diabetes devices and funding.
Supporting informed choices
There’s no single “right” way to manage type 1 diabetes. Some people choose to use advanced tech. Others prefer a different approach. People’s choices may change over time, as their needs change, or as the tech improves. What matters is that everyone has access to:
-
- accurate, balanced information
- appropriate education and clinical support
- affordable tech that meets their needs, and
- genuine choice.
People living with type 1 diabetes should be able to make informed decisions about the tools they use to manage their health.
A call for balanced reporting
A responsible ‘special investigation’ should report both sides. People need to understand that devices can fail, and that serious problems can happen. They also need to understand that devices can improve safety, ease the daily burden of diabetes, and improve quality of life.
It should also make one thing clear: fear doesn’t reduce the risk of serious harm. Education does. So does appropriate support, and timely access to clinical care. People need to see tech as an important tool – not a cure.
Balanced reporting matters. It helps the 500,000 Australians managing their diabetes with insulin to stay informed about both the benefits and the limits of devices – without becoming unduly worried about tools that improve safety, confidence, health and quality of life for so many people, every day.
Print This Post