All right, let me get this straight. First the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) told Oscar Pistorius that he was ineligible for the 2008 Summer Olympics… not because he’s a double amputee without a chance in hell of beating, much less competing against, “able-bodied” runners, but because he has an unfair advantage over them (the IAAF claimed, however, that their decision was not directed at Pistorius personally). Pistorius appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, and the Court ruled that the IAAF had not provided enough evidence that Pistorius’ Cheetah Flex Foot carbon fibre transtibial artificial limbs (or prostheses) gave him an advantage over able-bodied athletes.
So Pistorius, jubilant, competed recently in the paralympic Dutch Open and won the 100 and 400 meter races last Sunday. He came in at 47.92 in the 400 but needs to be under 45.55 to qualify for Beijing. He plans to participate in what FOX Sports calls an “able-bodied race” on July 2nd in Milan, Italy, another in Rome on July 11th, and another one in Lucerne, Switzerland five days later.
So far so good, right? Pistorius is at last making some headway toward qualifying for the Olympics. I personally hope that he not only qualifies, but eventually brings home the gold.
But let’s backtrack a few laps.
Pistorius’ prostheses, his J-shaped Cheetah blades, are apparently a wicked pair of running limbs. I’m neither an amputee nor a prosthetics engineer, so I can’t tell you much about the capabilities of a good prosthetic limb. And what’s more, I know even less about running in general (which is to say that I generally run only when chased). So please don’t expect me to weigh in heavily on either topic.
But I find it utterly fascinating that the “disabled” label used to describe Pistorius has remained constant through a mind-boggling variety of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situations–an issue that is probably overlooked because so much of the controversy surrounding Pistorius’ prostheses focuses on whether or not the blades are making him a little bit “too able.”
In almost every news article I have read on the guy, Pistorius is set up as a disabled person/runner. This is done directly using thorough (if not quite exhaustive) descriptions of his legs and through the use of the label “disabled” itself. If he is not immediately labeled “disabled” in one of the opening paragraphs, then it is noted (for example, in the FOX Sports story mentioned above) that he’s going to compete against “able-bodied” athletes, a statement that implies Pistorius is not a member of this group.
Now this alone isn’t what gets to me. After all, the whole thing isn’t that much different from cochlear implants. Put the implant on, and you can supposedly hear better. But take it off, and you’re the same deaf, hard-of-hearing, hearing-impaired, and/or disabled person (pick the label you like best) that you were before. The only difference is a question of degree. I’ve not yet heard of an implant model that enables a deaf or hard-of-hearing person to hear better than a fully hearing person.
Such is not the case, apparently, with Pistorius. Remember that it is being argued that he has an advantage. Maybe his prostheses make him lighter, give him more spring, more tilt, more whirl, whatever. I don’t know. The point is that some people seem to think that Pistorius’ prostheses makes him faster than flesh or blood legs and feet would make him (though again the Court of Arbitration for Sport has not yet seen compelling evidence for that claim).
No matter. My question here is if a prosthetic or otherwise “assistive” device propels a person over the line that divides “equal to” and “better than,” then why is that person still “disabled” even when he has the device on?
Let me reframe that. I’m profoundly deaf. Some people consider my deafness a disability (I don’t personally, but that’s beside the point). Fine. It’s arguable that the whole thrust behind the invention all of these “assistive” devices is the fact the world sees me as disabled in the first place—if it didn’t, why put so much effort into inventing something to “assist” me?
And so far as that goes, I can even see why a lot of people would still consider me to be disabled even with the implant on. After all, considering the technological capabilities of the cochlear implants currently on the market (I suppose this goes double for digital hearing aids), if I put the implant on, I probably wouldn’t now be able to hear “perfectly” or even “better than perfectly.” I might be able to hear “somewhat better” (though maybe not—the effectiveness of the implant varies from individual to individual, but that’s also beside the point), but “perfectly” or even “better than perfectly” does not enter the equation. At least not yet.
Keep that in mind: “At least not yet.” Because if assistive devices were all in a race against each other, the current capabilities of Pistorius’ prostheses are way ahead of the current capabilities of cochlear implants. Whether the argument that Pistorius has an advantage is correct or not, it will be a while before anyone can make that argument about an implant user. Pistorius’ prostheses are not making him “equal to” everyone else in the race (something implants still can’t do). They’re supposedly making him “better than” than everyone else.
And yet he’s still disabled. Do you notice how nobody has let go of that yet? With the prostheses on, with them off… with an advantage, without one… it’s all green eggs and ham in the media. Pistorius remains “disabled,” and everybody else remains “able-bodied.” Think about it. Why the need to hold onto this psychology? Why the need to continue to label someone disabled if he has now apparently been rendered better at something than an able-bodied person could ever hope to be?
The world at large seems to be making three simultaneous and contradictory statements. Statement One: “You are disabled without your prostheses.” Statement Two: “So long as your prostheses are not the equals of (take note of the phrase “the equals of”) flesh and blood limbs, you are also disabled, even when you have the prostheses on.” And finally, Statement Three: “When you make use of prostheses that are not only the equals of flesh and blood limbs, but in fact advantageous over flesh and blood limbs, you are nonetheless still disabled.” To see what kind of disturbing implications this type of thinking has in store for deaf people, replace “prostheses” with “cochlear implants” and “flesh and blood limbs” with “normal hearing ability.”
Someone will have to explain the justification of Statement Three, because I don’t get it. It seems to me that as the capabilities of assistive devices advance, the only disability that will really be left will be the inability to see beyond the device itself.
© Copyrighted material. This article cannot be copied, reproduced or redistributed without the express written consent of the author. As with every blog on this website, this blog does not reflect the opinion of DeafDC.com.
19 Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Is this lady disabled?
http://www.esplatter.com/2006n.....oseleg.jpg
This blog reminds me of an episode I saw once on the TV Series, Outer Limits, where a deaf person with a CI (played by Marlee Matlin) could hear a alien message transmitted in binary code:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T....._Limits%29
On a more serious note, I look forward to the day when CIs help people hear better than normal hearing. This would leave hearing people with a quandary, upgrade or allow the deaf community to excel and move upwards with whatever advantages their superior hearing offers (think, Superman with his super-hearing abilities, able to eavesdrop conversations and hear through walls/barriers).
Chris ..
You said:
“.. why put so much effort into inventing something to “assist” me?”
You cannot receive “assistance” unless you accept it. If a device is made to help “deaf” people hear, and you refuse the device, then nobody “invented something to ‘assist’” you.
OTHER deaf people might find a valid, legitimate purpose for obtaining a CI BEYOND your subjective definition of “disability” AND “assist me.”
:o)
Paotie
Hi Paotie:
Well I don’t know about that. So far I HAVE refused to get a CI (if only because I’d like to see the technology advance a bit more before I make a decision regarding whether or not I want one). But they’re still there, you know? They’ve already been invented. And if they haven’t been invented (and constantly improved, for that matter) to assist deaf people in hearing better, then what else are they for?
I could be wrong but the same argument would seem to apply to prosthetics (albeit to assist in limb movement/functioning)…
Pistorius gives a whole ‘nother meaning to “bionic”. There may come a day that such technology will define a disabled person as “bionic” with super average powers and the word “disabled” will fall into dis-use. With the technological advances being made today, that will come some day soon.
Hi Ann:
Maybe not though. The media doesn’t seem to be able to let go of the term in Pistorius’ case, nor does the public at large. Paradigm shift issue, maybe?
The irony here: Imagine a UFC fighter lost his arm in an automobile accident and had it replaced with something akin to Pistorius’ prostheses. Imagine further that he now fights Matt Hamill. Assuming the fight were to happen next week, both fighters would be considered disabled, albeit for different reasons. The fighter with the prosthesis, however, might be considered to have an unfair advantage. I can think of a few advantages, actually: 1) He wouldn’t be able to feel pain in that arm, would he? And pain is a big motivator for tapping out. 2) The limb might not break as easily, and breaking your knuckles is a big motivator for not hitting someone as hard as you can.
It’s fascinating because neither advantage is about strength or speed. The science of prosthetics might eventually create a whole field of ethics, especially in the arena of competitive sports. How would you regulate something like that? What’s an unfair advantage? If a guy’s bionic arm is only a little bit stronger than another guy’s flesh and blood arm, how is that different from one guy with a regular arm being a little bit stronger than some other guy with a regular arm? What would a court battle (to set a definitive limit on how strong or fast or durable a prosthetic limb can be) look like? Would so-called “able-bodied” athletes start hacking off limbs to get super-advantageous prosthetic replacements? If such an athlete now has bionic arms and legs and eyes and everything else, why wouldn’t someone who is today considered “normal” (or “able-bodied”) now become “disabled?” How would flesh and blood ever compete against plastic, steel, and fusion powered batteries?
Don’t be too quick to write off “disabled.” The term might very well jump over to a group we wouldn’t dream of applying it to today.
“The term might very well jump over to a group we wouldn’t dream of applying it to today.”
Good point. Well, how about the term “normal”? What is normal in this day and age? Just what constitutes “able-bodiedness”? Pistorius and others like him may very well re-define those terms for those who are disabled. To be normal and able-bodied are what many disabled individuals strive for, because they want acceptance in a society that regards normalcy and able-bodiedness as standard. OTOH disability is seen as a deviant or pathetic exception, dis-eased or dis-abled has negative connotations in society, no matter how experts gloss over it. Pistorius with his Cheetah blades may alter public perceptions of just what is dis-ability to that of what constitutes ABILITY.
The Pistorius case is generating some modest media attention, but together with other examples–such as that of Natalie du Toit, a swimmer who has lost the lower part of one leg and has ALREADY qualified to compete for South Africa in the new 10km swim–it poses deep, deep challenges for how we each think about normalcy, athleticism, the double-standards in place for super-normals and super-crips, and a host of other issues. Gregor Wolbring and Mika Bodet have been blogging on this a little at the new What Sorts of People website (www.whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com) and that might be worth checking out to link some threads.
I think this is a classic example of a mitigation measure made by a disabled person that makes the disability almost “disappear.” A person may have epilepsy, but with the right medical treatment that person may never have seizures. That person has mitigated his/her own disability. So, is that person still considered disabled? Likewise for Pistorius, who may have mitigated his own disability by getting “bionic-like” prosthetics. He’s still disabled, yea, but he has taken steps to mitigate his disability to such a degree that he could potentially perform better than many of the most qualified able-bodied runners.
Hi Josh:
The way I see it, there are three ways to mitigate a so-called “disability.” One, you can alter yourself, which is not strictly what Pistorius has done, because his prostheses are additions to his body, and when they are removed, he remains an amputee. Two, you can make use of an object that mitigates the “disability,” which is what everyone who wears glasses or contacts is doing. And three, you can alter the environment around you (or choose to live in an environment that has already been altered) to the extent that the “disability” becomes a non-issue. This is what a signing deaf person does, to a greater or lesser extent, by surrounding himself with other signers.
But to me, one shouldn’t “remain” disabled once one of the above alterations (or some combination of them) have occurred, especially if the alteration renders one fully equal to or even better than “able-bodied” people. If I have an interpreter in an all-hearing/vocal environment, I’m deaf but not disabled. Much in the same way Pistorius remains an amputee in those races he’s running. If he’s running them at all, how could he possibly remain “disabled?” Disabled means not able. Pistorius isn’t just able. He’s already among the very best… and stands as good of a chance as anyone of winning.
All good points, Chris! Where does the boundary lie between mitigation and accommodation lie? For legal purposes, mitigation is usually done “at home” while accommodations are being provided at the workplace. If Pistorius is providing his own prosthetics, then it’s most likely mitigation. Much like getting CI’s on your own is mitigation, while getting a sign language interpreter at work is an accommodation BECAUSE of your disability.
Yes, this could lead to an ironic and semi-humorous result: the more you mitigate, the greater the possibility that you would no longer be considered as being legally disabled …
Josh Mendeleson gave a fine example of the legal definition of disability what we could apply to ourselves.
The definition of disability could be truly complicated or too general in many ways within legal means. The heated debates about the passage of the Americans with Disablities (ADA) back in the early 1990s what we should define “disability”.
Several lawmakers blurted out “pedophilism” that would be seen as a legal disability due to the recurring behavior habits. Or should be only seen as a criminal behavior, not “disability”?
I kinda applauded the IAFF’s decision to deny Pistorius his chance to compete due to his mitigation (use of Cheetah Flex Blade). That will set the good precedent to the whole world about what is really the disadvantage or advantage within the assistance of artifical stuff.
That’s what I am very concerned about the reality of CI users have an unfair advantage(s) over deaf mutes in employment market or informal networkings. Same thing with the use of hearing aids, too.
I have witnessed too often about deaf people with CI or hearing aids surely inflict “audism” among hearing people on daily basis. Hearing people usually prefer deaf individuals with CI or the use of hearing aid over deaf mutes.
Deaf mutes seems get the short drifts or being shortchanged by deaf individuals with CI or hearing aids in many ways while competed for the employment postiton or social interactions. Is that really fair to deaf mutes? Nope!
Any deaf individual with CI or use of hearing aid, ought not to qualify for any affirmative action program or disability at all.
Deaf mutes should be given top priority over deaf individual with CI or hearing aid due to the real existence with their so-called disability defined by the social perspective of the general society.
I still hope for the re-definition of disability for deaf individual with CI or hearing aid in the near future. Those deaf individuals agreely use their CI or hearing aid to enchance themselves to please the dominant society.
I will be not able to benefit from the use of hearing aid or CI anyway. I am severely profound deaf myself.
More and more people begin to hiss at disabled people in general for their special status and the right to accomodation, etc.
We must seperate the real humanity from any kind of artificality within our own existence.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
“Several lawmakers blurted out “pedophilism” that would be seen as a legal disability due to the recurring behavior habits. Or should be only seen as a criminal behavior, not “disability”?” Pedophile is sick. it is not a disability, according to http://www.ada.gov and http://www.disability.gov
A coworker asked me years ago about why deaf people are not in the Paralympics, which occured after the regular Olympics every 4 years in the host countries. I told her that we have our own Deaflympics (www.deaflympics.com (sp?) I kind of told her that if deaf athletes were in the paralympics, we will win every and all events….But can all disabled athletes competed with abled-bodied athletes? There was this HS girl in a wheelchair who used her school system because they won’t let her race. Is requiring all applicants to Gallaudet to be deaf illegal under the ADA? Can we join the Special Olympics then?
Nope, it’s not illegal to require Gallaudet undergrad applicants to be deaf. The ADA (and similar laws) protect people who are disabled, but doesn’t protect people who are not disabled. So, it’s not illegal to discriminate against non-disabled folks. This is different from race-based or gender-based laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race or gender (whether white or black, or male or female).
But the ADA forbid asking you “whether are you disabled” aon any employemt and admissions and anyforms. There is no affirmative action requirement in the ADA. Unlike the racial and gender laws, which required being ID on emplyment forms (if you’re a FED, you will know) and required an affirmative action but it is not enforced by the EEOC program since the 1980s….
Oh, yeah hearing people who were students or worked at Gallaudett have no rights like if they wanted an oral inteprreter, they are often turned down during my years in the 1980s.
This reminds me of a piece that ran in Sports Illustrated a couple years ago. Apparently there was controversy about the fact that double amputees were beating single-amputees in races because the double-amputees could attach TWO fake legs and make them LONGER. This increases the length of their strides. It seems having freakisnly longer shins (with springy curved blades for feet) makes you faster. So how would one regulate the technology to make sure fake legs doesn’t give you an competitive advantage? Next thing we know, athletes will be deliberately chopping off their limbs and replacing them with robotic arms and legs. So where does one draw the line?
Jesse
I suppose as more disabled athletes enter athletic competitions with the able-bodied that there will arise some of kind of regulatory body that will establish racing or competitive prostheses/aids standards to be developed so that they are on par with able-bodied, and not above.
This will fulfill many competitive sport requirements in events such as the Olympics. For years the Olympics had trouble with athletes taking advantage of other competitors via muscle or performance enhancing drugs. The Pistorius case may very well challenge athletic performance standards because it’s not drugs this time, but prosthesis or physical aid that can enhance a disabled athlete’s performance over an able-bodied one. That’ll be a first.
The useage of certain words, disabled, by media and IAAF (as well as others) have made are toward ethnocentrism. They chose those words to keep the minority away from the majority instead of focusing on performance of Pistoris or other athletes and working together.
Pistoris chooses to compete in Olympics to strive for his dream despite the facts he does not have legs and feet to support him. The prostheses he has do not really make any impact on him. Its the muscles which has to increase loads in order to influence the motions in lower legs to move quicker.
Marylander,
I did not see your comment til 6/13. I am trying to explain that some lawmakers during the ADA bill debate, especially opponent of the pending ADA bill, tried to make an illogical agruments about the ADA law will protect pedophiles from any kind of discrimination.
We see more of alcoholics and substance abusers to be covered under the ADA law due to their genetic flaws, etc.
I am in total agreement that we ought not to criminalize alcoholic drinkers and substance drinkers and offer them rehabilation, instead of sending them to the slammers.
Pedophilism seems very voliate issue for many people.
I done the scholarly research on the effects of laws whether those laws help to reduce sexual offenses against ######## children or not.
I personally have no sympathy for pedophiles or child sexual predators or any kind of sexual predators so far.
Human beings are really complicated beings why and how we end up like doing those stuff against the humanity, etc.
Court-ordered castrations of numerous sexual offenders do more harm than protecting the society at large. Many pedophiles have some kind of cravings within their inner desires than abnormal testerone levels.
Back to the pre-ADA laws, the opponents of proposed ADA law tried the cheap shots of making comparsion of pedophiles to disabled individuals. That’s what I am trying to make some points regarding the definition of legal disability or not.
Robert L. Mason (RLM)