Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 9.2: (continued)
Score
Reason
−
26 (4.8/76)
Neutral
because I do not know enough about the speeds achievable with
the prosthetic limbs compared to able bodied athletes. I assume they do
not infer an advantage and so should be allowed. However, if the prosthetic
limbs, on average, increase performance then their user becomes a different
class of athlete and should compete in a separate competition.
33 (4.0/76)
Neutral
because in the same way that there are restrictions on swim
suit designs, racket designs, there also has to be restrictions and rules for
prosthetic design used in competition so it is not a greater advantage to
have a prosthetic limb.
−
26 (3.0/76)
Yes
because we are speaking about a game. But then all able-bodied run-
ners should be allowed to use carbon-fiber prosthetics, to be fair.
−
53 (2.5/76)
Yes
because agree with john. Also, perhaps Pistorius is a black swan com-
pared to his peers. Now if all amputee runners began to post times better
than olympics runners, then this would clearly be a different class. But the
reality is that they are not even close and Pistorius just happens to be that
good.
−
73 (2.5/76)
No
because even a passive prosthetic can provide an unfair advantage over
other athletes. Where do we draw the line between Pistorius' blades and a
bicycle fitted for amputated legs? What about spring-loaded shoes on able-
bodied athletes? Should those be allowed? It seems that the best response
at this point is to disallow all prosthetics which could potentially offer
performance enhancements. One significant consequence of saying “no”
here is questioning where the line of prosthetic enhancement ends (e.g.,
shoes).
−
51 (2.0/76)
Yes
because it is not clear whether Pistorius' prothesis is an “external de-
vice or piece of equipment” like a spring loaded shoe or whether it is an
integral part of his body. Would an athlete with an artificial internal hip
or knee joint be restricted from participating? Is it because the prosthesis
is external and visible that we are considering discriminating agains Pis-
torius? Wouldn't we want the most current technology in an internal knee
joint for an athlete? Why not in an external prosthesis also? Or, do we
view the prosthesis as we would a wheelchair which is clear advantage for
some running events over natural runners, i.e., it is an external device that
is not part of the person?
−
6 (2.0/76)
Yes
because it's inspiring for other amputees and it would attract a large
viewing audience. Fairness is all relative, and we actually make the rules
so that the competition is interesting. Clearly, the blades do give an ad-
vantage to Oscar (I'm very familiar with this technology) and eventually
prostheses or exoskeletons will enable Oscar and other athletes with physi-
cal “disabilities” to outperform their intact counterparts. As this happens,
the Olympic committee will have to be creative in coming up with new
rules that meet the spectators' expectations that the competition be both
“fair” and all-inclusive. Perhaps separate categories could be created, each
having their own technology-based rules. It may be that NASCAR could
serve as a model for some future Olympic events.
9 (2.0/76)
Neutral
because I do not know enough about the issue.
31 (1.5/76)
Neutral
because if he can qualify with the devices he should be allowed.
(continued)
