DIS - Through the Valley of the Shadow

[Madner Kami]

OK, so, assuming that there are absolutely no risks or trade-offs for treatment kind of makes the question moot, because if every available treatment is literally perfect we're dealing with a society so advanced that there would be no need for accommodations, or more accurately that accommodations would be so trivial that every member of the society could just make their own. Which means that we're talking about people who are simply not sure they want to take the risks, or are more willing to continue on as they are than to take whatever downside comes with the treatment. In which case...

My post is made from a position, where the cure isn't dangerous or risky. Someone who chooses to not loose his last amount of however minor eyesight in order to have an operation where, if it's botched, he's completely blind, makes a sound choice and is "worthy" (for lack of a better word) of being helped by society. It's stuff like refusing to get a cochlear implant, that I am thinking about.

[rickgriffin]

In the end though this is about Star Trek. It's near-post-scarcity at least so far as domestic Earth life and many colonies are concerned. Even if there was a contingent of earthlings who are (able-bodied) shiftless layabouts, there's little reason to not just allow that, too, because there's just plenty of everything for everyone who wants it. Besides, a big idea behind Star Trek is that shiftless-layaboutism, insofar as it exists, is actually a result in a large part of social insecurity. Remove social insecurity for literally everyone and suddenly you have a lot more happiness and ambition among the population because they'll have a foundation on which to make a difference rather than having to devote so much time to supporting themselves or easing their own psychological pain or what have you.

[Madner Kami]

If you think that people stop worrying about stupid shit and acting irrational, just because they are freed from the worries humanity had to deal with since the very beginnings of life, then I'd like you to have a look around today's world. Granted, we ain't post scarcity yet, but who of us really has to worry about truely important things for the most part? And yet... One can't help but get the impression that in the absence of fundamental problems, people start looking for other problems or end up creating problems to deal with, be it out of a subconcious psychological need or shere boredom, depending on your view on particular issues.

[Freeverse]

OK, so, assuming that there are absolutely no risks or trade-offs for treatment kind of makes the question moot, because if every available treatment is literally perfect we're dealing with a society so advanced that there would be no need for accommodations, or more accurately that accommodations would be so trivial that every member of the society could just make their own. Which means that we're talking about people who are simply not sure they want to take the risks, or are more willing to continue on as they are than to take whatever downside comes with the treatment. In which case...

My post is made from a position, where the cure isn't dangerous or risky. Someone who chooses to not loose his last amount of however minor eyesight in order to have an operation where, if it's botched, he's completely blind, makes a sound choice and is "worthy" (for lack of a better word) of being helped by society. It's stuff like refusing to get a cochlear implant, that I am thinking about.

No one should be exempt from society based on how they choose to live their life. The whole point of society is that the more people working together there are, they easier it is to help each other. I'm not saying that everyone in the world should learn sign language because there are some people who won't take an implant, I'm saying that we don't need to discriminate between those who wouldn't benefit from an implant and those who simply choose not to get one. It's gate-keeping based on something that, honestly? Should really only be between a person and their doctor in the first place.

Not to mention that, while getting a cochlear implant is generally a very safe procedure, it is still surgery and there are always risks when it comes to that. Not to mention they're visible, which is absolutely a downside to many people. Plus there's the fact that, while they definitely help people who get them, they mean making a commitment to something that's going to require adjustment. Depending on how long it took someone to get an implant and how severe their hearing impairment was before the procedure, this means not only making the adjustment to their new increased hearing, but in some cases it can include speech therapy, which can be a difficult process, especially for an adult.

And what about someone who just isn't sure yet? Should we stop helping someone the moment there's a treatment they haven't committed to yet? Are we really creating a better world by punishing people for not being rational enough? Again, I say the best way is to simply help each other so long as we choose to accept that help.

[DoctorWTF]

The thing about designing public spaces to be more accessible is that it can actually be helpful in ways that go beyond the accommodation that was originally intended. It's called the Curb-Cut Effect, named after those little ramps that many sidewalk curbs have. That design was meant for people in wheelchairs, but it ended up being quite helpful for shopping carts, bikes, hand-trucks and other such things.

On that note, there was one TNG episode where the crew was trying to divert a chunk of collapsed star away from a planet, and they modified the tractor beam based on technology from Geordi's visor.

And speaking of Geordi, I've also started wondering: Should a character still count towards disability representation if they're given assistive tech pretty much functionally equivalent to a cure? That is, if what they have works so well that they're subject to effectively none of the limitations of someone in real life with that particular disability? As I recall, the only time Geordi was ever without his visor (which lets him see even better than standard human eyeballs) was when Data took it for his evil twin's mad science project.

Who is and isn't a "burden" on society? How are we going to make that determination? What's the base-line? What if one disability is affecting your choice to get treatment for another? Who's going to go around proving which people have a choice and which people don't? Should we have disability police making sure that no one who doesn't "deserve" it accidentally gets help?

When you put it that way, I am reminded of the moral panic over "welfare queens", basically a thinly veiled excuse to paint non-whites as lazy human garbage. So I suppose it's best we don't trust the state to make accurate judgment calls in that department.

[Freeverse]

And speaking of Geordi, I've also started wondering: Should a character still count towards disability representation if they're given assistive tech pretty much functionally equivalent to a cure? That is, if what they have works so well that they're subject to effectively none of the limitations of someone in real life with that particular disability? As I recall, the only time Geordi was ever without his visor (which lets him see even better than standard human eyeballs) was when Data took it for his evil twin's mad science project.

There were some other short moments where he was without his visor here and there, as I recall. He also had some side effects he had to deal with. It wasn't very frequent, especially in later seasons, but it was a gentle reminder every once in a while.

As I recall, Geordi was seen in a positive light by disabled people as a good example of representation. And on a personal note, I definitely see him as a good compromise between the two extremes we've been discussing in this thread. He has tech that helps him function, but he is still blind. Another good example is Toph from Avatar: The Last Airbender. They both have the ability to do things that other vision impaired or blind people probably wouldn't be able to, but they still can't see. Geordi talks about wanting to watch a sunrise and Toph often reminds other characters of the fact that while she may be able to tell exactly where a piece of paper is, she can never see what is actually written or drawn on it.

I'm speaking from a limited perspective on the matter, but to the best of my knowledge these are both considered to be good examples by the community they represent.

When you put it that way, I am reminded of the moral panic over "welfare queens", basically a thinly veiled excuse to paint non-whites as lazy human garbage. So I suppose it's best we don't trust the state to make accurate judgment calls in that department.

I am definitely of the opinion that it's not healthy to assign terms like "burden" to human beings, and that it's the people most affected who should be making determinations about how they're helped, because really, no one knows as well as they do. Obviously, expert advice is an important factor, but a doctor doesn't necessarily know what it's like to live with a disability just because they know what's happening in the body to cause it.

[Percysowner]

My post is made from a position, where the cure isn't dangerous or risky. Someone who chooses to not loose his last amount of however minor eyesight in order to have an operation where, if it's botched, he's completely blind, makes a sound choice and is "worthy" (for lack of a better word) of being helped by society. It's stuff like refusing to get a cochlear implant, that I am thinking about.

Cochlear implants are an interesting hill to die on. Some members of the deaf community consider the community as a separate culture, one which many deaf people wish to retain. Seventh Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews can ask for and receive accommodation for their religious practices of not working on Saturday. Why is that any different than accommodating deaf culture?

Then there are the actual disadvantages of cochlear implants (from Web MD https://www.webmd.com/healthy-aging/qa/what-are-the-disadvantages-and-risks-of-cochlear-implants

What are the disadvantages and risks of cochlear implants?

ANSWER

Cochlear implant surgery is very safe, but any operation has risks. Problems can include bleeding, infections, and side effects from anesthesia. Other possible complications include:

Nerve damage
Dizziness or balance problems
Hearing loss
Ringing in your ears (tinnitus)
Leaks of the fluid around the brain
Meningitis, an infection of the membranes around the brain. It’s a rare but serious complication. Get vaccinated to lower your risk. Lastly, if the device doesn't work or gets infected, you may have to have it taken out.

Frankly, having closed captioning (which I use all the time as someone whose TV speakers aren't the best and who watches shows where the accent is something I am not used to) and having a person signing behind a speaker giving public information are No Big Deal, for me. I don't see how either of these things makes the world worse for you or anyone else. Not everyone has to "be like me" in order to be able to receive decent services and make a living. People deserve to be accommodated to be part of society.

I will also note that many non-disabled people think accommodation is much more expensive and burdensome than it actually is. Years ago, after the ADA was passed I was in a student lounge when an university employee came in, measuring and becoming more and more distressed because it looked like in order to meet the accommodation rules they would have to make major structural changes. I had a mother in a wheel chair and made the suggestion that if they moved the couch, that has ALWAYS been positioned by the door, that the clearance would be fine. The next time I came in, the couch was moved and no doors had to be altered. "It's always been this way" makes accommodation look harder than it sometimes is.

[CrashGordon94]

Of course, that's still a procedure that actually has risks and downsides.

If someone's turning down a "cure" that has none whatsoever, I don't see that as in any way a legitimate choice. Taking "precedent" from stuff like laws against statutory rape where someone says yes to something but it's overruled. And while it might be more controversial I'd also point to cases of legitimate addiction and how those addicted would choose to have/do more of whatever they're addicted to. Certainly "we know better" can be abused but there are cases where that's legitimately true and I don't see how turning down a cure to a disease or disability without side-effects/downstairs doesn't fall under that umbrella. And the idea of a "culture" to preserve by not curing it makes me cringe and roll my eyes, to be perfectly blunt.

As far as the "denying help" discussion from earlier, all I'd say is that if you had such a cure to such a condition then the funds to help/assist should be 100% funnelled into making that available and free and to no longer FORCE accommodations that previously were since the rationale to force them is no longer there.

So for example if there were a perfect blindness cure:

1) Charities and programs to help the blind have their funds channelled into making the cure available rather than stuff like Guide Dogs.

2) Places that don't allow animals to enter are no longer under any obligation to make an exception for Guide Dogs.


And just to close out, I actually do have a disability myself and despite how very minor is I would LOVE to have it cured, it would take pretty severe side effects for me to turn it down and I would hate forever anyone who stood in the way.

[Percysowner]

As I noted, my mother was disabled and she and I would have rejoiced had there been a cure. That said, I am opposed to forcing consenting adults to have medical treatment that only affects them. I support forcing parents to give life saving treatment to their minor children. I support making vaccinations required for public health reasons. I condemn telling people who are disabled that they HAVE to have a medical condition treated against their will or they will be written off by society at large. Charities are nice, but they work on the biases of the charity and as private entities can refuse service for reasons that have nothing to do with the cause they say they are promoting.

I hope that there is cure found for your disability and that you are able to get it. However, I find the idea of writing off anyone who does not choose to take a treatment to be a real problem. What one person considers a reasonable risk and worthy of doing, another may find unreasonable and not worth the time or effort.

[Fianna]

I don't think anyone's actually disagreeing here. I think you all just have different pictures in your head of how safe and easy a theoretical cure would be.

Some of you are picturing something closer to contemporary surgical procedures, where there's always some risk of serious complications, and the procedure itself is inherently painful and discomforting. While others are picturing something closer to how Star Trek usually handles cures for various ailments: give 'em a hypospray or stick a thingy on their neck, and they'll be completely cured with no side-effects.