South African sprinter, Oscar Pistorius, dreams of having the chance to represent his country at the Olympics. What makes him different from the likes of Hussein Bolt or Ben Johnson, he had both legs amputated just below the knees at the age of 11 months. However, Pistorius does not consider himself disabled to the point that he refuses to park in a disabled parking bay. He believes he can do everything that a normal person can do, and more. This attitude has led him to strive towards competing against able-bodied athletes in the Olympics.
Pistorius sprints on a pair of J-shaped carbon fiber legs known as Cheetahs, which have allowed him to become the “fastest man without legs.” Although he was unable to qualify to compete in the Beijing Olympics, Pistorius has brought a new moral dilemma to competitive sports. Should disabled athletes be allowed to compete against able-bodied athletes?
It is argued that artificial limbs, such as Pistorius’ Cheetahs might give him an unfair disadvantage over his competitors by giving him a longer stride as well as being more efficient that the human leg. However, this is easily countered by the fact that prosthetics make Pistorius’ starts slower, he needs 30m to get a rhythm going, and he does not fair well in wet and windy conditions.
In order for Pistorius to compete in the Olympics we will need to rethink the rules and our current “image of man.” Right now people “don’t want to see a disabled man line up against an able-bodied man for fear that if the person who doesn’t have the perfect body wins.” Additionally, “the rule book says a foot has to be in contact with the starting block.” This poses an obvious problem for Pistorius.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/15/sports/othersports/15runner.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Science has the Nobel Prize, literature has the Pulitzer, and as you mentioned, athletics has the Olympic Games. The article you cited raises an interesting issue that needs to be addressed in any competitive arena. What does the term "unfair advantage" mean in a competition when one individual has been unfairly disadvantaged by the genetic lottery?
For me at least, I find something deeply wrong about insinuating that Pistorious has an unfair advantage with his Cheetahs. The claim, at least in part, suggests that the longer stride he is allowed by his metal leg counterparts would somehow overcome the loss of his two running limbs in a leg race, which invokes an obvious logical fallacy. The fact is the argument based strictly upon physical grounds is enough to illustrate the absurdity of excluding a "disabled" man when he is achieving at the same level as able-bodied athletes.
The more compelling argument however lies in the fact that sports and science and literature "competitions" are as much about the achievement itself as they are about the experience of achieving. When we reward a scientist for a discovery, we are not merely commending the knowledge he has given the public but the countless hours that he devoted to research, the trials and tribulations he overcame to reach that eureka moment. In the case of Pistorius, he is commendable already in his strive for excellence, throwing down the burdens forced upon him as a child. The least we could give him is a chance to compete.
Prosthetics can do a lot more than enable an amputee to be a great athlete. The focus of the development of prostheses, first and foremost, is returning function and normalcy to a maimed individual. It is a very good sign that artificial legs have advanced to the point that engineers are now concerned with improving efficiency. But on the other hand, wouldn’t our time and resources be better spent developing prostheses that are still in their infancy, or don’t exist at all?
Prosthetic legs are definitely not perfect. There is still plenty of room for improvement there. But they are still incredibly advanced when compared to the state-of-the-art artificial arms and eyes. Even with the fascinating and exciting progress that has been made in these areas, the Argus II bionic eye and the latest artificial arm that moves in response to the amputee’s own muscle contractions seem crude compared to the graceful lines and the beautifully efficient design of Oscar Pistorius’ Cheetah legs.
Cheetah prosthetics have literally done the impossible: allowed a man with no legs to run track at a near-Olympic level. Artificial legs enjoy success and huge publicity because of their direct consequences on the world of sports. However, prosthetics for other body parts—the absence of which is certainly no less debilitating than that of a leg—lag behind. Leg prosthetics have achieved greatness. Now let us provide practical functionality to people with other disabilities.
Everyone should read these articles. Totally fascinating!
http://scienceinsociety.northwestern.edu/content/articles/2009/kuiken/new-prospects-for-prosthetics
http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=bionic-eye-restores-vision-after-th-2009-03-04
Post a Comment