Science Helps Paralyzed People Walk
So much good is happening in science that has nothing to do with controversial areas such as human cloning--that lest we forget that most scientific research is not controversial--I feel duty-bound to bring it to the attention of SHSers. Case in wonderful point: An engineer, who is himself paralyzed, has invented an "exoskeleton" that permits paraplegics to walk. From the story:
HAIFA, Israel (Reuters)--paralyzed for the past 20 years, former Israeli paratrooper Radi Kaiof now walks down the street with a dim mechanical hum.It's also healthy for people to be able to get up on their feet:
That is the sound of an electronic exoskeleton moving the 41-year-old's legs and propelling him forward--with a proud expression on his face--as passersby stare in surprise. "I never dreamed I would walk again. After I was wounded, I forgot what it's like," said Kaiof, who was injured while serving in the Israeli military in 1988. "Only when standing up can I feel how tall I really am and speak to people eye to eye, not from below."
The device, called ReWalk, is the brainchild of engineer Amit Goffer, founder of Argo Medical Technologies, a small Israeli high-tech company. Something of a mix between the exoskeleton of a crustacean and the suit worn by comic hero Iron Man, ReWalk helps paraplegics--people paralyzed below the waist--to stand, walk and climb stairs...
The ReWalk is now in clinical trials in Tel Aviv's Sheba Medical Centre and Goffer said it will soon be used in trials at the Moss Rehabilitation Research Institute in Pennsylvania
Kate Parkin, director of physical and occupational therapy at NYU Medical Centre, said it has the potential to improve a user's health in two ways.So, let us never forget: Good ethics and good science are a powerful combination that offer a cornucopia of benefits to humankind.
"Physically, the body works differently when upright. You can challenge different muscles and allow full expansion of the lungs," Parkin said. "Psychologically, it lets people live at the upright level and make eye contact."
Iuly Treger, deputy director of Israel's Loewenstein Rehabilitation Centre, said: "It may be a burdensome device, but it will be very helpful and important for those who choose to use it."
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 3:59 PM
28 Comments
28 Comments:
So COOL!
"Good ethics and good science are a powerful combination that offer a cornucopia of benefits to humankind."
. . . could not agree more.
Sorry but I am not impressed. Sure there maybe some limited benefits from standing but is it worth the effort and money spent? I have been paralyzed for 30 years and am among the first generation that will lead a rich and full life after paralysis. If I have learned one thing since I started using a wheelchair it is that the real obstacles I encounter daily are social. Given this, extreme efforts to walk again send out a negative message and devalue people such as myself that have moved on with life and consider a wheelchair an alternate form of locomotion. I for one am far more interested in knowing why our society continues to shun and stigmatize disabled people. I would much prefer social resources be spent in an effort to reduce the 70% rate of unemployment among disabled people.
william Peace: Thanks for dropping by. I am with you, but I don't see how this is any greater a waste of money than the tremendous resources properly invested in whell chair technology.
william Peace: Thanks for dropping by. I am with you, but I don't see how this is any greater a waste of money than the tremendous resources properly invested in whell chair technology.
William, one thing that would make disabled folks' life a lot easier is if the rest of us would view you all as individuals and not as interchangeable members of the group. To that end, I will point out that while you don't see much benefit to that apparatus, other people in your situation might view it as a real life-changing blessing.
Wouldn't this kind of BE the next step after wheelchairs?
Wesley, wheelchair technology has never been valued and has progressed at a glacial pace. The corporations that manufacture wheelchairs care little about the lives of the people who purchase their products. I would be shocked if more than a tiny fraction of the profits were spent on advancing wheelchair technology. I for one gave up on wheelchair companies over 20 years ago. The point is large sums of money are spent on all sorts of technology designed to get people upright when this is an inefficient means of locomotion for most paralyzed people. I simply see nothing wrong with using a wheelchair.
Laura, My life would indeed be better if people saw me as an individual. However, the vast majority of people see my wheelchair first and ignore the human sitting in it. This is wrong and never ceases to piss me off. For some, the device in question may indeed be of some benefit. I was just pointing out the downside to the overwhelming importance placed on the ability walk for people such as myself that happily us a wheelchair.
Foxfier, I do not see this device as a technological step past a wheelchair. Why is it so hard to accept that using a wheelchair is not an inherently bad thing?
William: I know what you describe is real and very serous. But I don't think that updating mobility technology is a slap at people with disabilities (he said as a TAB).
I never said it was a bad thing-- doesn't mean that taking steps to make it so that the folks who right now are in wheelchairs can, well, take steps, isn't also a good thing.
The best thing, of course, would be to make it so that folks who are paralyzed aren't paralyzed anymore, but that's not exactly an option....
I do, however, find the idea that wheelchairs haven't been advanced to be kind of confusing-- Stephen Hawking's even has a built-in computer that he can send emails from! That's a far cry from a chair with wheels attached to it!
The whole point of wheelchairs is to make it so that folks who can't walk can still get around. This prototype walker thing makes it so folks who can't walk can, sort of.
Wesley, I think symbolically a lot more than merely updating technology is going on. I do not consider such technological advances a slap in the face but they sure do have social significance.
Foxfier, In my life time wheelchairs have improved from the grossly inferior products made by Everest & Jennings, a company that enjoyed a monopoly and for decades its level best to oppress disabled people. Only one change has made a big difference for me: the invention of rigid frames. Beyond rigid frame wheelchairs the technology is pretty much the same. You are equating peripheral technology i.e. things added on to wheelchairs like computers as an improvement in a wheelchair itself. You marvel at Stephen Hawking's computer and ability to send email. Do you express the same amazement when you see a person walking down the street and sending an email on his/her Blackberry? Sadly, the social assumption most people make is that those using a wheelchair are inferior humans that need to be looked after. On last point, I agree the point of a wheelchair is ease of locomotion. The prototype exoskeleton looks to me like a really expensive and inefficient way to get around that glorifies walking as the only "normal" means of locomotion.
I think your comment that the "best thing" is to have paralyzed people no longer paralyzed is unfortunate. I can not recommend the experience but thid implies life as a paralyzed person
I meant to delete the paragraph I think your comments...
Mr. Peace, the guy can drive himself around and talk-- that's a pretty big advancement for someone who, otherwise, wouldn't be able to do anything but lay there and go nuts. (given how many ideas he has put out, not being able to communicate probably would drive him utterly insane)
There is a difference between thinking of folks as somehow morally less and realizing that folks just can't do something, so they use tools to do it.
I'm guessing that you're "hearing" me say that recognizing problems that have to be overcome is somehow a diss-- it isn't.
Let me try a metaphor:
I'm small and female, and I know that if I were in a fight with, oh, The Rock, I'd have to use a tool of some sort to win.
So way, way back, that tool would be having someone else do it for me. (which would equate to a paralyzed person being stuck in bed)
Moving forward a bit, and the tool would be a sword. (equating a basic wheelchair-- which allows some mobility)
Going to modern advancement, the best tool would be for me to use a gun. (machines allow the paralyzed person to do the same as folks who aren't paralyzed-- not quite there yet, but we can hope)
Now, despite that I'd have to use tools to do something that the Rock does by simply being, I'm not an inferior person. I just need tools to reach a specific goal.
Now, if the goal of a wheelchair is to make it so folks who can't walk are mobile, then a better wheelchair is a good thing, a walking-machine is better, and the person who couldn't walk being naturally able to walk by themselves is best.
I am amazed by Prof Hawking writing emails and such because the guy *can't move to type*. He has a naturally higher challenge to overcome than the kid walking along using a blackberry.
I'm amazed at the kid who lost his legs and is now able to go jogging with President Bush because *the guy is missing his legs below the knee* and is now able to jog.
I'm amazed at the stuff my grandfather in law is able to hear when he puts his hearing aid because he can't normally hear a blessed thing.
I'm amazed every time I get a new, better glass prescription because I can see so many things when I can't normally see past my hand.
Your apparent anger at the idea of folks trying to make a better way to make folks who can't move right now more mobile sounds like someone who needs glasses getting angry at the idea of contacts, or laser eye correction. Glasses are a tool, contacts are another and surgery is a third. I choose to stick with glasses because of cost and ease of use, but I don't get angry at my cousins when they get their eyes done.
I think I get what you're saying, William. I think you're saying that to make such a big deal about the fact that the man isn't in a wheelchair is to say that the wheelchair-bound life is not worth living. Nobody here, except for the occasional oppositional commenter, would ever think or suggest that. I also understand that you have embraced your lifestyle in order to get on with it and enjoy your life as much as possible. I hope that if I were in your shoes I'd do the same.
But don't you think "Everest & Jennings, a company that ... for decades its level best to oppress disabled people" is a bit much? The people at Everest and Jennings sat around and plotted how to make disabled people's lives as miserable as possible? Hm.
Also, I'll add that Christopher Reeve wanted very much to find an effective treatment for spinal cord injuries because he so wanted to get out of that chair and get his former lifestyle back. He pushed for it, hard. I was very saddened when he died because I think that will happen and I'd hoped it would happen for him. I think he would have enjoyed the heck out of that exoskeleton.
Foxfier, I hear you loud and clear. Paralysis and disability does not involve overcoming anything aside from social bigotry and prejudice.
I am sorry but I just don't follow your metaphor. Why is a walking machine better than a wheelchair? My anger has nothing to do with technology or physical deficits whether it is an inability to walk or impaired eye sight. I simply would like to be treated with the same respect as a person on two feet. What you fail to comprehend is that we are talking about human rights. And sadly my human rights as a disabled person are violated on a regular if not daily basis.
Laura, Yes, you get what I am saying about making a big deal out of walking. I agree commentators at this blog are open minded. One minor point, please do not use the term "wheelchair bound". That phrase is antiquated and many people such as myself find it insulting and akin to the word nigger. As for E&J I am not exaggerating one iota. That company treated disabled people as though they were third class citizens. I did not have a single positive experience with them. In fact every experience I had was overwhelmingly negative. Between the mid 1940s and early 1980s E&J produced shockingly inferior wheelchairs that remained virtually unchanged. For decades they used the monopoly they enjoyed to suppress any technological advances. While they did not plot against disabled people, no effort was made to produce a quality product. All E&J ever did was make money at the expense of disabled people. When rigid framed wheelchairs were invented by other companies people who resented being treated like dirt by E&J refused to ever deal with them again. The wheelchair business today is much different.
Finally, as for Reeve, I suggest you read what disability rights activists and scholars have written. Within the disability rights community he is scorned and for good reason. I suggest you read MAry Johnson's Make Them Go Away. It is a great book.
William, not being disabled, I shouldn't be expected to keep up with the current acceptable verbiage. To me, "wheelchair bound" means a person who is in a wheelchair because he can't get around without it, as opposed to a person with, for instance, moderate multiple sclerosis who only needs it on occasion. I suggest that it's a waste of energy to get upset at things that aren't really offensive. But if you want to tell me what the currently acceptable term is for people who must use a wheelchair to get around (and understanding that next year that term may be the new n-word) I'll try to remember to use it.
And I will look for Make Them Go Away. I'll probably go the the library this weekend and I'll see if they have it. Thanks for the suggestion. But once again, Reeve had a right to want the things he wanted and try to bring about what he wanted to. Whose permission did he need to get? Not yours and not mine. I disagreed with him about embryonic stem cell research but surely in a free country he was entitled to his views.
Laura, On "wheelchair bound", I was just letting you know for many this term is unacceptable. I for one prefer the term cripple but I try to avoid getting bogged down in semantics. I hope your library has a copy of Johnson's book. Yes, Reeve had the right to do what he wanted and I was not opposed to his ultimate goal of a cure for paralysis. What I objected to was the way he went about it as he played the pity card to the hilt. I was also deeply troubled by his total disregard for others with a similar injury that end up in nursing home, an institution from which they never escape.
Paralysis and disability does not involve overcoming anything aside from social bigotry and prejudice.
Why do you say that? No matter who is around you, if you can't do something as basic as move yourself around without help, you have to overcome that fact to do basic things. Things like walk into the kitchen and make yourself a sandwich.
If the walking machine can be made as unobtrusive and affordable as my glasses, a huge number of opportunities open up that weren't possible before-- jobs from waiting tables to construction work, all without demanding any effort from the employer.
Beyond jobs, there's also the way it would open up a huge number of activities that right now, simply aren't an option. Hiking, overseas travel in wheelchair-unfriendly areas, shoot-- even going antiquing in old houses!
I'm not expecting this to happen any time soon, but it's a start.
Why do I say that!!! Goodness you really do not have a clue as to what I am trying to get across. For your edification, there is not a single thing I cannot do that matters. I own a home, have a family and job. I do not demand a single thing from my employer. If I did I would get fired. I have travelled all over the world and within the USA. I hike, kayak and downhill ski. I even do the little things like enter and exit my kitchen and make sandwiches. I do all this from a wheelchair. So I am afraid I simply do not see why I should yearn to walk or applaud when inefficient exoskeletons are created. The main problem I encounter is not physical but social. People see a wheelchair and think limitation while I see freedom.
Goodness you really do not have a clue as to what I am trying to get across.
That is generally why people ask for explanations, unless they're just using a rhetorical tool.
It's becoming pretty clear that you don't have a clue what I'm getting at, either.
You use your wheelchair, and think it's great-- I use my glasses and think they're great.
You are spitting mad about a development that could make it so that folks who need wheelchairs can walk again; I like that there's such a think as eye correction surgery, but don't desire it for myself.
I am asking you to explain how, exactly, the ONLY thing you have to overcome is other people, when you clearly use a wheelchair to move around.
I'm asking you to explain how it's horrible that someone is making advancements in paralyzed locomotion, when you also have a huge problem with advancements *not* being made for your preferred locomotion.
Frankly, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about anyone NOTICING that some folks simply don't have the inherent ability to do something-- for example, your anger when I was impressed that Prof. Hawking can drive himself around, talk and email. You asked if I was equally amazed by someone walking down the road with their blackberry, seeming to ignore one simple fact-- the Prof. has to do it all when he *can't move a finger.*
For your edification, there is not a single thing I cannot do that matters.
I can throw a saddle on a horse and go riding.
I can see the mountain behind my folks' house and just randomly start scrambling around.
I can go creek fishing in the burn area.
These are all things that are possible if you can walk, but not if you need a wheelchair.
Since my mom's knees are wearing out, she's unable to do them-- and I am frankly disgusted that you would try to say that they don't matter.
They matter to HER.
They matter so much that she's gone in for three different surgeries to try to be able to do them-- or at least that she doesn't lose even more mobility-- despite her father having been killed by a knee surgery.
If it makes you feel better that a wheelchair works for you, great. I have no problem with that-- and I'm delighted that you can do everything that YOU want to do with your chosen tool.
But back of on the broad brush that it's somehow perfect, and that any problems folks with mobility issues face are because other humans are somehow lacking.
"Crippled" is OK? Wow, who knew.
William, you remind me a bit of the deaf kid who rejected getting a cochlear implant because, he said, he wasn't missing anything. Well, there's two ways to take that. If he meant that he felt no lack in his life, fine. If he meant that there's nothing out there worth hearing, the fact that he'd been deaf from birth might make a person wonder what he based that statement on. If he said that because the deaf culture ideologists had convinced him that he would lose his identity if he got an implant, that's kind of tragic IMO.
No one's expecting you to jump up and down (so to speak), "yippee I have to get one of those exoskeletons right away" if you say you don't want it. If you're happy in your wheelchair, that's great. I assume that for people who aren't happy in theirs, and are thrilled at the thought of getting around in one of those things, you can be glad that they may get what they want?
Laura, I prefer cripple for many reasons. The word itself has shock value and stops people, forcing them to think. The word cripple also refers specifically to a physical deficit. Disabled, the word, refers to an inability or lack of ability. Look up the words in the dictionary. It made me think. If a exoskeleton makes people happy good for them. The point I keep trying to get across without success is that symbolically such a choice has social significance.
Foxfier, You have consistently misunderstood what I am trying to get across. Disability rights are human rights. I am spitting mad about the gross inequality associated with using a wheelchair. This anger does NOT stem from my paralysis but the social ramifications associated with using a wheelchair. The unemployment rate among disabled Americans is 70% and almost 2/3 live at or below the poverty level. These grim facts indicate social, political, economic and educational barriers exist. I expect just one thing from others--to be treated with the same respect as those that can walk. This does not happen on a consistent basis and when I am treated as poorly I assert my civil rights. The bottom line is all people have some innate ability, even those that are paralyzed. Why you cannot recognize the human or civil rights dimension of disability is frustrating and sadly quite common.
Mr. Peace-
Rather than insisting that I just don't understand, I don't get it, and that the only possible thing that could account for someone who cannot walk being unemployed is people hating them for their wheelchairs, try something new:
Explain why you believe as you do.
If possible, do it without appeals to emotion.
By the way- please stop putting words into my mouth.
Pointing out that people who cannot walk *can not walk* is not somehow disrespectful of their human worth, and hiring someone who can do the job vs someone who is physically incapable to do it is not discrimination.
Foxfier, Physically disabled people are capable of performing many jobs. You seem to equate physical ability and with competence. There are many jobs that do not require physical skills, most office work for instance. But I may once again misunderstand you and I doubt a further exchange is worthwhile. I guess the chip on my shoulder and emotions get in the way. I suggest you look at the ADA.gov website. The Americans with Disability Act outlines the law that protects the civil rights of disabled people and the history of discrimination.
One last try....
I have no problem beliving that folks who can't walk can do things that don't require walking; what I do not believe is that the only reason that folks aren't hired is because folks mistake them for less than human.
I most assuredly know being very passonate about a topic, but I *am* actually trying to get the point.
Foxfier, I assure you many people assume I am somehow inferior simply because I cannot walk. I have had the following experiences: I have been refused service in restaurants because wheelchairs are not allowed. I have had airline pilots order me off a plane because I was a flight safety risk. I have been forced to leave baseball stadiums because my presence was upsetting other normal people. I have been told I may not participate on tours because I represented an insurance liability. My first college roommate took one look at me and said "I am not living with someone like him" and walked out the door. I have been turned down for jobs because employers thought my presence would bother library patrons. I was turned down for a teaching position because "wheelchair people" cannot teach. I have had total strangers ask me was I the biological father of my son--then express amazement that people like me could be parents. I have had doctors question my competence as a parent because I use a wheelchair. I regularly encounter trouble when giving talks because podiums are not accessible--the assumption made is disabled people are not capable of giving talks. These experiences are well within the norm for someone who uses a wheelchair. You may think I am capable of a limited number of jobs but I assure you many do not share your view. If they did, the above experiences would be well outside the norm.
Please briefly read the introduction to the ADA. It will be enlightening.
You list off people being stupid-- and yes, most of those are being stupid (although the insurance ones are, sadly, not their fault, ditto the podium)-- but then insist that you aren't physically barred from some jobs.
(Side note: WTF is WRONG with people that they assume they've a right to ask about the paternity of a kid, or freak out if folks have more than they'd want?)
I think you're trying to say that you can do more jobs than a lot of folks assume?
That, I can much agree on-- one of the best artistic blacksmiths I ever knew was missing multiple fingers; a little harder doesn't mean impossible.
Frankly, I'm a little amazed that more computer-based companies aren't *searching out* folks who can't walk-- the investment cost to make things work better for folks in wheelchairs would be lower than, say, the support for mothers, and it would give a great return in employee loyalty. Fire safety would be a problem for skyscrapers, I suppose....
For that matter, internet commuting *should* have a big effect on anyone with mobility issues.
Not perfect improvements, no, but they are improvements-- and as survivability keeps going up for major traumas, the world will be less and less designed for folks who can walk easily, and there will be more opportunities.
BTW-
the ADA is extensively covered in high schools these days, even if someone was slow enough to not notice the wider doors, ramps, etc.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home