Is "disability" dying?

In the January 28th issue of Time Magazine, Nancy Gibbs pens an essay which questions the idea of "disability". What is at the heart of the essay is a question that we are just beginning to be able to conceive of; forget answer! Is disability dying? As technology advances and we move toward a weird Sci-fi movie version of the 21st century, is "disability" something which is disappearing? Is it becoming a misnomer?

Nancy Gibbs briefly tells the story of a young man, Oscar Pistorius, who was born "without major bones in his legs and feet" and had both of his lower legs amputated as an infant. Oscar grew up using prostheses to pursue a passion for running, and now science has given him the ability to compete and win in the 200m at the Paralympics in Athens three years ago. Pistorius is now trying to make the Olympic team, but the International Association of Athletics Federation has disqualified him due to his super-ability (okay, I made that word up). Pistorius can run faster than the lesser-abled individual running on his own two feet. Apparently there is a physiological reason why the human ankle slows runners down, and, by not having one, Pistorius can run like the wind without using as much energy. This, the IAAF says, gives him an unfair advantage.

An unfair advantage? Why is it that when someone has a "disabling condition" that limits their ability, we are ever so amazed by them, and hold them up as heroes and paragons of American virtue, but when their "disabling condition" helps them to succeed, we say they can't play with the other kids? Does anyone, for a single moment, think that Oscar Pistorius is somehow "lucky" to have been born without leg bones? If we think about the conviction and determination it took for him to pursue this dream in the first place, we would put him on a pedestal. "That he won the Paralympics in Greece is, an incredible achievement" we say to each other, but when it comes to competing against, and possibly beating, Olympic quality athletes, suddenly it is no longer a "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" story, but rather, it is akin to the doping scandals overtaking professional sports-- it becomes cheating.

To be honest, I think that he does have an unfair advantage, but this post isn't really about whether or not he can compete. The point of this post is that as technology hurtles forward at an incredible rate of speed, these stories are going to become more and more common. Do we need to think of a new term to describe people who have disabilities, but are super-abled due to the aid of technology? How do we come to terms with this new idea of "disability"? As the Olympic committee inspires us to think outside the box by creating new rules that bar people like Pistorius from competing, can we honestly say that we know what disability means anymore?



Success is the one unpardonable sin against our fellows. --Ambrose Bierce