[HN Gopher] Spinal implants allow paralysed people to walk, swim...
___________________________________________________________________
Spinal implants allow paralysed people to walk, swim and cycle
again
Author : helsinkiandrew
Score : 404 points
Date : 2022-02-09 06:45 UTC (16 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
| smm11 wrote:
| Good. Now cure cancer, and grow hair back on my head.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| My main criticism and cynicism from articles like these (related:
| prosthetics) is that they help the few people that are lucky,
| popular, or rich; lucky to have a doctor or to find a program and
| get into it; popular because they end up in social media 'feel
| good' posts and articles; rich because it's experimental, low-
| volume tech or treatments that require going abroad. Popular can
| also translate to being able to afford it, but it's shameful that
| people have to post their stories online to raise money.
| (shameful to society that is, not the people who are driven by
| desperation).
|
| But I guess things like this will eventually trickle down to
| general and widespread availability, just technological
| advancements like cochlear implants and pacemakers did.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Oh, knock it off.
|
| What these people did is nothing short of amazing.
|
| Yet, here we are - a completely generic and trivial "critique"
| comment is the highest upvoted sentiment. On the HN of all
| places. Jesus.
|
| The same "complaint" can be lodged against ANY novel treatment
| before it's fully productized for mass adoption.
| Jaruzel wrote:
| > _Yet, here we are - a completely generic and trivial
| "critique" comment is the highest upvoted sentiment. On the
| HN of all places. Jesus._
|
| And 26 minutes later it's now downvoted. HN is working as
| intended, you just have to wait and let the community do it's
| job.
| benjamir wrote:
| I waited for this.
|
| I agree with you and always have to think about "Everything
| is amazing and nobody is happy": https://youtu.be/nUBtKNzoKZ4
|
| -- and I don't care it's Louis C.K. saying it. Like I don't
| care if a songs from Michael Jackson is playing. Still true.
| twayt wrote:
| You don't have to worry about that. If it's possible, the
| market will solve that. Think of this as a proof of concept
| that viable tech and a potential market exists.
| germandiago wrote:
| We all want the biggest amount of people have something that
| improves their life.
|
| However, I am yet to see a single service or product or
| improvement that all humanity took at the same instant. It
| simply does not or won't ever exist.
|
| These things need work, feedback, improvement. It is literally
| impossible to deliver things at the same time to everyone.
| Besides that, if that happened, but cannot, you would also make
| exactly the same mistakes with almost everyone. So tak e for
| granted that people that come later are granted to take
| improved versions of these techniques.
|
| Economy in the sense of scarcity and availability, was, is and
| will be always like this. If you wanted everyone to have this
| at the same time the only reality is these people would have to
| wait until general availability, things would probably be
| slower bc of the loop feedback and noone would get this
| benefit, just these three people would not get ir. So noone
| wins this way, except your feeling of fairness. But it is notba
| rational choice.
|
| What we need is massification and learning of these tecniques
| as they are certified as safe and to lower its price as much as
| it is possible to spread its availability.
|
| I think your negativity comes from the frustration that you
| cannot accept reality as it is. We all want what you say. It is
| just not how things work, unfortunately.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| That's generally how things with new tech. Initially expensive;
| it gets cheaper over time. Eventually patents run out and
| everybody gets in on the action.
| [deleted]
| greatpatton wrote:
| Please this is public research from a public University, what
| do you expect? That they can scale it to 1000 of people? This
| is research as intended, now commercial products may be built
| out of this but it will take time again.
| resonious wrote:
| Do you have any ideas or advice on how these products should be
| developed instead?
|
| Sorry if that came off as antagonistic. I think I actually
| agree with the overall sentiment that luck and popularity
| shouldn't be barriers to healthcare, but experimentation is a
| necessary part of the process. And at the very least, luck is
| inherent to experimentation.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| Obviously, medical experiments should only be done on the
| poorest and neediest segment of the population. There's no
| way to spin THAT as exploitative. ;D
| DeWilde wrote:
| I see it differently, I think articles like are important by
| making people aware of solutions like these which will speed up
| the time needed to get them to people not as fortunate to have
| access to them now. More awareness means more people will work
| towards making the solution, lowering their cost.
| BelleOfTheBall wrote:
| I'd agree with this sentiment. These articles make people
| excited and bring awareness plus, if you allow me to
| speculate, I bet someone with paralysis who at least sees
| these articles and realizes they might have a chance to walk
| in the future will feel better than someone who doesn't see
| them. Knowing there is a chance makes it easier to cope with
| problems. Or maybe I'm wrong, tell me if I am, I fully
| understand my perspective may be skewed.
| DeWilde wrote:
| I have a few medical problems that aren't solvable with
| current technology, seeing articles like these related to
| my issue gets me excited and hopeful that I'll be cured one
| day.
|
| And as an engineer it brings attention to me that there are
| companies solving these problems that I could work for to
| speed up the effort.
| mgreb wrote:
| Walk, swim, cycle? Are we talking about pre-recorded neural
| commands, "modes" in implant? Or they actually managed to restore
| connectivity in nerves, bypassing damaged part?
| unnouinceput wrote:
| No.
|
| Quote from article: "Dr Courtine and Dr Bloch have developed a
| wafer-thin device with electrodes that could target the dormant
| nerves. Once implanted into Mr Roccati's back, the device sent
| in pulses of electricity that mimicked those normally present
| in the nerves of an uninjured person as they walk.
|
| By doing this, the device acted like an amplifier for any
| electrical signals coming from Mr Roccati's brain. Those brain
| signals would normally be blocked by his damaged spinal tissue
| and be incapable of activating the nerves in his lower back.
| But with the stimulation device in place, Mr Roccati was able
| to voluntarily control those once-dormant nerves, allowing him
| to move his legs and walk."
|
| It's his brain, the device is only used as amplifier. The fact
| that article talks about "Walk, swim, cycle" in its title is
| only a part of what people fitted with devices can do. It said
| he can also sit and talk to friends at bar.
| eps wrote:
| It's NOT his brain. The article is 100% wrong.
|
| Read the Nature article linked at one of top comments. It is
| also mentioned in every interview the researchers gave
| recently. The muscles are controlled with the software only,
| the brain doesn't participate at all.
|
| "... the first implant specifically designed to control
| movement by _mimicking the signals the lower body usually
| receives from the brain and upper spinal cord._ "
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00367-1
| vba wrote:
| Why is this post downvoted? Is it inaccurate.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| It's best not to speculate too much on voting. Who knows
| how many bots and trolls there are?
| eps wrote:
| Yes, it is inaccurate to the point of being the reverse.
|
| Muscles are controlled through the software, with pattern
| of activation uploaded from an iPad via Bluetooth and
| generally managed by am accompanying person. The patients
| absolutely do NOT control the muscles with their brain.
| snovv_crash wrote:
| So basically it's just a DAC + amplifier, not an ADC or
| with any kind of passthrough.
| clsec wrote:
| The methods used in this study sound almost exactly like a
| TENS unit (1). As someone with a spinal cord injury that
| almost left me a quadriplegic, and who has serious neuropathy
| as a result, I have found that TENS units do very little to
| help me. I hope this can help people though,
|
| (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcutaneous_electrical_n
| erv...
| huhtenberg wrote:
| They hooked up trodes to the bottom section of the nerves,
| enabling patients to activate, selectively, respective muscles.
| Chain those activations together in sequence and you got a
| walk.
|
| It's described in the Nature article linked from another
| comment - https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00367-1
|
| Also I heard authors give an interview on the radio and they
| mention that while walking is impressive, a more practical
| outcome is an ability to control muscles on the back, because
| these allow for bending and controlling the balance while
| sitting on a chair.
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| As the partner of a complete paraplegic, sitting up and
| providing trunk control would be a huge benefit to newly
| injured patients. My partner had titanium rods but in their
| back 20+ years ago and the connections and bones are now
| wearing down. Allowing the muscles to provide trunk control
| would likely improve quality of life, increase mobility, and
| remove the challenges with arthritis from implants they put
| in spinal cord injury patients currently.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| Reading in detail what it actually entails to be completely
| paraplegic is quite an eye-opening experience.
|
| I think a lot of people don't really see past the
| wheelchair, I certainly didn't for a long time. Some people
| try as an educational experience to live for a day in a
| wheelchair, but that's easy, spending a whole day sitting
| down is something desk workers do anyway. It's a completely
| different thing if you don't get to use any core muscles. I
| wanted to try that, but couldn't go even ten seconds
| without cheating. Even with all kinds of assistive
| technology it's extremely hard. Also the lack of bowel
| control must be a total nightmare.
|
| The whole "paraplegics can do anything, they're just like
| you and me" schtick that normal people are fed is a nice
| coping mechanism, but I think it may be holding back
| funding for research into real solutions.
| MayeulC wrote:
| Probably pre-recorded, according to the nature article:
|
| > _Once the implant was in place, each person could control the
| pattern of electrical stimulation, using buttons and a tablet
| to raise or lower each leg, for example [...] using the device
| to guide their muscles through preprogrammed movements._
| twayt wrote:
| I wonder if this could be used for a truly immersive vr
| experience.
|
| 1. Hook up said implant, convert analog impulse to digital 2.
| Chemically induce paralysis of the peripheral motor neurons (??)
| 3. Truly immersive VR experience where participant controls
| embodied avatar
| amatic wrote:
| For the full experience you might also need some touch
| feedback. Maybe vibration gloves or some sort of pressure
| actuator to mimic touch.
| plutonorm wrote:
| yeah, I've been thinking about this for a while. You can do a
| kind of tomographic reconstruction of neural impulses in the
| spinal column. By the same token you can induce electric fields
| within the spinal column.
|
| You need an incredibly high density of electrodes arranged
| around the spinal column. Then you need to construct in real
| time an image of the internal spinal column down to the level
| of fibre bundles, in real time. Then when you want to stimulate
| something you can apply the correct voltages to the huge
| numbers of electrodes and induce firing in the target neuron
| bundles.
|
| Oh and you need to understand how neurons relay information -
| not actually a solved problem.
|
| It's all possible. Just good luck getting this to work before
| the year 2100.
|
| But in the back of my mind I have a plan involving flex pcbs...
| pharke wrote:
| Might be a bit sooner than 2100
|
| https://www.roadtovr.com/neuralink-brain-interface-limb-
| trac...
| mwcampbell wrote:
| The sequel to the novel Ready Player One, predictably called
| Ready Player Two, begins by introducing an OASIS Neural
| Interface (ONI) headset, which paralyzes the body and directly
| connects the brain to the OASIS VR. To develop this technology
| in secret, the creator of the OASIS set up an "Accessibility
| Research Lab" to develop implants for various categories of
| disabled people, then moved on to develop the headset.
|
| As a disabled (legally blind) person myself, I had mixed
| feelings about this. On the one hand, it felt like we (well,
| the disabled people in the fictional world) were being used as
| means to an end. On the other hand, one of my unanswered
| questions from the first book was what the rise of a VR like
| the OASIS would mean for people like us; I felt that the second
| book provided a satisfying answer (in the fictional world, if
| not in the real one).
|
| To be clear, the sequel was panned, for good reasons IMO. I
| chose to read it before looking at the reviews. I don't
| recommend it, but this comment reminded me of it.
| jcun4128 wrote:
| SAO
|
| Wonder if you use your mind vs. a display, then are the visuals
| as good as real life. Or maybe you feed the image and your mind
| upscales it.
| eps wrote:
| What's "SAO"?
| jcun4128 wrote:
| It's an older RPG anime about people laying in bed playing
| a game in a virtual world via a BCI head set. It wasn't
| like today's VR, their eyes were closed.
| twayt wrote:
| The number of bits needed for visual input far outweigh that
| needed for motor output so I'm not optimistic that it can
| improve the immersiveness of the experience.
| [deleted]
| goldenkey wrote:
| Seems incredibly risky. If a muscle is stimulated too greatly
| without the user's ability to feel it cramp or be overworked, it
| could potentially rip, rupture, etc.. and now the user will be
| dealing with rhabdomyolysis without even having any notice.
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| True risk. My partner is a paraplegic and their are things to
| watch out for all the time. Hot items on paralyzed skin, bed
| sores, muscle atrophy. I don't know if this is common, but my
| partner has developed a heightened sense of awareness for many
| of these things. Not to say that muscle tears couldn't happen,
| but there are other senses that do kick in with practice and
| awareness to keep people safe.
| adingus wrote:
| I'm sure folks who get this treatment will be willing to stick
| to activities less strenuous than an intense CrossFit workout.
| viraptor wrote:
| You don't need to do crossfit to get injured. You're
| perfectly capable of injury by pushing your arm back, walking
| too slowly, and many other "normal" movements if you ignore
| the pain or are not able to feel it. This is basically a one-
| way interface and as far as I understand it, the patients
| don't get the sensations coming back.
| benjamir wrote:
| I think I would cry tears of joy even seeing _anyone_ even just
| wiggle their toes after not being able to do so. How awesome that
| most be to witness somebody who could only recently dream of
| doing this, really accomplish this?
|
| _This_ is infinitely more amazing than any crypto shit, saving-
| the-world with Lomi blah blah blah and senseless techno-garbage
| some wanna-be-rich-thanks-to-an-exit-strategy creeps propagate on
| HN.
| allisdust wrote:
| Or the ad industry that keeps peddling more material shit on
| all of humanity. They ensure that the brightest minds are
| occupied by only one thought: how to maximise clicks.
| lotophage wrote:
| So they can complete a triathlon?
| spupe wrote:
| This builds upon some solid research in rodents and humans, which
| had showed very promising results. It is very likely to become a
| therapeutic option within the next 10 years, in my opinion.
| sschueller wrote:
| Yes, a tremendous amount of research and animal testing. The
| exact opposite of what Elon is promising and doing after taking
| over nural link.
| eerikkivistik wrote:
| I have a colleague who could benefit from this type of new
| treatment. Since HN is a wonderful place with a multitude of
| experts in various fields, I'll throw a question in the air:
|
| Who and how would I contact, if I wanted to know more about these
| kinds of clinical trials and participation?
| pakitan wrote:
| This is the company from the article:
|
| https://www.neurorestore.swiss/join-our-programs
| paledot wrote:
| As a sibling comment noted, the vast majority of
| "breakthroughs" are hot air and your discovery of a way to
| "fix" your colleague may not be received as warmly as you
| expect. I don't know anything about your colleague or your
| relationship with them, but I strongly advise careful
| consideration before broaching the subject. (In fact, I
| strongly advise against bringing it up at all. "I found a cure
| for you" is up there with "what's wrong with you" and "I'll
| just push your wheelchair without your consent" on the list of
| ways to really, really piss off someone with a disability.)
| Proven wrote:
| rosege wrote:
| Just a couple of days ago there was an article about Israeli
| scientists using stem cells to fix the spine:
| https://scitechdaily.com/human-spinal-cord-implants-breakthr...
| neonate wrote:
| http://web.archive.org/web/20220209151817/https://www.econom...
|
| https://archive.is/3rCen
| _Microft wrote:
| There is an article in Nature on this which in my opinion is even
| better than the submission:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00367-1
|
| Here is the actual paper:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01663-5 (paywall)
| ineedasername wrote:
| Growing up, this sort of thing was speculated about with almost
| the same level of "sci fi" around it as things like stopping
| aging, instant cures for new diseases, and video phones.
|
| Just another example of how I slowly ended up living in the
| future without fully realizing it. Now, where's my flying car and
| Rosie, my robot maid?
| pharke wrote:
| Futurists and sci-fi authors always focus on the destination,
| we're the ones that get to experience the journey.
| felipemnoa wrote:
| Not a flying car but close enough:
| https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/move-electric/meet-jetson...
| beaconstudios wrote:
| Flying cars, despite being a symbol of a scifi future, are
| actually a pretty bad idea. Driving on wheels is much more
| energy efficient than flying, and without the risk of acting
| like a kinetic weapon if the battery cuts out.
|
| I'm all for innovation, but I do think it's easy to get the
| wrong end of the stick with scifi and focus on the aesthetic
| over the social conditions.
| T-A wrote:
| https://www.dw.com/en/slovakia-certifies-flying-car-as-airwo...
|
| https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/19/22791267/alphabet-google...
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autogyro is your flying car. Your
| "robot maid" lives on your smartphone, probably called Alexa or
| Siri or Mycroft.
| abhayhegde wrote:
| For those who are not able to access this:
|
| https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.economist.com%2Fsc...
| dotancohen wrote:
| > For those who are not able to access this
|
| We are now at the technological level where the paralyzed can
| walk, but still at the legal level where information regarding
| such achievements is best shared surreptitiously.
| kvetching wrote:
| Better hope you have insurance or are a part of a study. Spinal
| Cord injuries are among the most expensive injuries to treat.
| Totals up into the millions pretty quick.
| bitfhacker wrote:
| Can this help people with ALS?
| moffkalast wrote:
| I thought ALS was already treatable by pouring a bucket full of
| ice onto yourself daily /s
| cjmcqueen wrote:
| As a partner of a person with a complete spinal cord injury, I
| appreciate these articles and the science being done by these
| researchers, it is truly a big and complex and worthwhile problem
| to solve.
|
| For most of us, I do want to suggest being careful when and how
| you mention research and articles like this to people in
| wheelchairs. Just be aware there are lots of different reasons
| why someone might be in a wheelchair and what can and can't be
| done for a given illness. It can be really taxing to get
| suggestions or shares of articles like this from well-meaning
| friends and family that don't actually understand the realities
| of living with an injury or medical issue that puts someone in a
| wheelchair.
|
| Obviously people should know work is being done. And obviously
| people might be excited to hear about breakthrough research. If
| you're inspired by articles like this, consider donating to the
| institutions funding the research. But, be aware that articles
| like this come out every year and for the vast majority of spinal
| cord injury patients it won't be available to them soon or ever.
|
| If you really want to support those in the accessibility needs
| community, support local building code changes and adaptive
| sports and outdoors programs. Making buildings, sports, and
| wilderness accessible will impact more people positively in the
| near term. The science is cool and amazing, but 100k people are
| limited by a few stairs to enjoy life and experiences with
| family.
| steve76 wrote:
| willmadden wrote:
| I completely agree. My mother has been a partial quadriplegic
| since 1992 after a car accident. The moment there are broad
| cures for injury related paralysis, it'll be front page news.
|
| The most impactful thing you can do to help people with
| paralysis is push for better wheelchair accessibility where you
| live. It's amazing how much of the world is not accessible to
| someone in a wheelchair.
| tarboreus wrote:
| I'm blind with a retinal disease and it's a similar dynamic.
| Not all breakthroughs will help a given person. Additionally,
| most breakthroughs seem to be some version of vaporware, and it
| might be 10 or 15 years, or never, for most people in that
| category to benefit. I go through phases of catching up on
| research, but mostly try not to think about it.
| Archelaos wrote:
| Whenever I come across an article about walking robots for the
| military, I am asking myself: What about walking-chairs as a
| replacement for wheelchairs? Could that be a realistic solution
| to the access problematic? I am an absolute layperson regarding
| robotics. Can perhaps anybody with some background explain,
| what to expect here in the next few years?
| paledot wrote:
| No. My wife is paraplegic and we did in fact test a
| rudimentary exoskeleton at one point.
|
| The reason they don't work is because the mobility she misses
| the most is the ability to transport a cup of coffee from the
| coffee maker to her desk, or the ability to go for a jog.
| It's the little things that have the biggest impact, and no
| one is going to don an exoskeleton to wear around the house.
|
| Furthermore, the drive to overengineer mobility solutions
| crashes headlong into the world of manual wheelchairs. Manual
| wheelchairs are like road bikes: the best ones are the
| smallest, lightest-weight ones (often made from the same
| parts and materials). They have as few parts as possible, can
| turn on a dime, and can be lifted one-handed into the
| passenger seat of a car.
|
| A walking device of some sort might be a better equivalent to
| an electric wheelchair for someone with quadriplegia,
| hemiplegia, muscle spasms, or generalized weakness, but here
| you have the problem that many electric wheelchair users are
| at high risk of pressure sores. There's a reason that
| electric wheelchairs have all sorts of fancy recliner
| features: sit in any chair for 16 hours a day without the
| ability to shift around and you're going to do some pretty
| serious damage to whatever your weight is resting on. An
| exoskeleton necessarily holds you in a more upright position,
| putting more weight on fewer body parts.
|
| The solution to the access problem is to build ramps and
| lifts.
| ska wrote:
| It's not exactly my area but I have some related experience.
| I suspect the big problem with this is power use.
|
| A standard issue wheelchair is very efficient on reasonably
| smooth and flat surfaces. Beyond the obvious problems with
| e.g. stairs, you can get around ok using just arm muscle
| power in lots of places.
|
| This efficiency helps also if you can't use your arms or the
| slopes are more challenging. Reasonably sized and weighted
| batteries can extend your scope a huge amount in very
| practical ways.
|
| As soon as you get away from wheeled locomotion though, the
| power needs become much more problematic. Not to mention the
| system complexity is orders of magnitude higher than a basic
| chair, with all that entails.
|
| So short story, I wouldn't expect any significant impact in
| the next few years. It's possible that for some very specific
| use cases you'll see a bit more robotics in assistive
| technology. It's also possible that we'll learn some good
| tricks from robots about negotiating particular obstacles
| (e.g. curbs) which can be retrofitted to "dumb" conveyances
| and improve things...
| kspacewalk2 wrote:
| To your last point, it's worth pointing out that making your
| built environment more easily traversible and usable for people
| with accessibility needs will pretty much always make it more
| easily traversible and usable for _everyone_. It 's hard to
| appreciate this until you visit a country where they _haven 't_
| spent decades making sure their elevators and hallways are wide
| enough, there are no unnecessary stupid steps, the sidewalks
| don't have curbs at crossing points, etc. etc. This is just
| general societal progress, it makes all of our lives easier and
| we're so used to it we don't even notice it anymore.
| oalders wrote:
| I only truly appreciated this once I had was a pedestrian in
| a big city with a baby stroller. If a wheelchair can get
| somewhere, generally the stroller can do it as well. (At
| least a single wide stroller). Making places more accessible
| can have a positive impact on large parts of the population.
| tomrod wrote:
| I've learned to take this approach with software as well.
| It just makes sense. While he's not universally accepted,
| Nassim Taleb makes compelling behavioral arguments for why
| this is better overall (in the context things like kosher
| salt and such)
|
| https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-
| dict...
| paledot wrote:
| Canada is unexpectedly one of those countries. Accessibility
| here is a nightmare, especially in big cities. As another
| partner of a person with limited mobility, I always notice
| and appreciate the difference that 40 years of ADA has
| brought to construction in the US.
|
| (I'd take universal health care over improved building codes
| any day, but both would be nice.)
| verisimi wrote:
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Unless I've misread the articles about this story this is
| about a company using electrical stimulation to try to get
| people with spinal injuries to walk again. Not government
| using foetuses for some deeper purpose.
| mattkrause wrote:
| You may be happy to learn that a lot of recent stem cell work
| does not actually use foetal tissue. Instead, there are
| methods for reverting adult cells from a blood sample back
| into stem cells (IPSCs, or induced pluripotent stem cells).
| This is exciting for a number of reasons: not only does it
| sidestep ethical concerns, but it introduces the possibility
| of making stem cells--and thus, other cells--that precisely
| match an individual patient!
|
| On the other hand, I'd encourage you to think about the
| motivations of medical researchers. Nobody is _actually_
| looking for any excuse to work with embryonic tissues (or
| animals, placebo-controlled trials, etc): it 's slow,
| annoying and expensive and everyone I've ever met would
| vastly prefer to use yeast + computational models. People do
| actually want to help the sick and helpless, but the tools
| aren't there yet to do so with nothing but yeast and
| computational models.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I guess the real question is, will a dollar spent on wheelchair
| ramps in buildings across the USA give a greater quality of
| life improvement to the average american than a dollar spent on
| medical research that tries to repair spinal nerves?
|
| Obviously "average american" is not intended to reflect the
| 'typical american', but instead be an average across all
| people, including those with mobility requirements.
| paledot wrote:
| And spina bifida, and cerebral palsy, and strokes, and
| diabetes, and broken bones, and arthritis, and being
| pregnant, and just getting old, and literally hundreds of
| other disorders that cause temporary or permanent impairment.
|
| By the time you're finished fixing the reasons people
| encounter mobility issues, we'll be darn near immortal - and
| you still won't have magicked away the reasons that able-
| bodied people benefit from universal design.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| > will a dollar spent on wheelchair ramps in buildings across
| the USA give a greater quality of life improvement to the
| average american than a dollar spent on medical research that
| tries to repair spinal nerves?
|
| Yes, I don't know why this is even a question. Ramps support
| people who will never need spinal nerve repair. They support
| strollers, wheeled luggage, canes, crutches, fall risk folks,
| furniture movers, bike/scooters, etc.
| londons_explore wrote:
| But medical research leads to treatments which may have far
| better quality of life improvements than ramps. And when
| discovered, those treatments can be used forever, whereas
| ramps require constant spending for every new or renovated
| building.
|
| Both are 'obviously' better than the other, depending on
| what you look at. Therefore the decision really should be
| made with more data.
| mwcampbell wrote:
| > But medical research leads to treatments which may have
| far better quality of life improvements than ramps. And
| when discovered, those treatments can be used forever,
| whereas ramps require constant spending for every new or
| renovated building.
|
| I think you make a good point here. Likewise, making
| software accessible, e.g. to blind people, requires
| effort for every GUI toolkit and non-trivial application.
| In the short term, that work has to be done, because it
| would be wrong to just leave blind people without a way
| to independently access software that might be critical
| to jobs, education, etc. But if we started funding
| research into curing or preventing all of the various
| causes of blindness now, then we could eventually solve
| the problem permanently. I'd have to find a different
| problem domain to work in, but I might be retired by then
| anyway.
| paledot wrote:
| Just like universal design in the physical world,
| universal design in software has knock-on benefits for
| everyone. A website that can be properly parsed by a
| screen reader can be scraped by search engines and
| archived efficiently. An application with proper tab
| indexes can be easily navigated by someone with a laptop
| rather than forcing them to reach for the trackpad.
|
| > curing or preventing all of the various causes of
| blindness
|
| All of them? Got a list?
| krisoft wrote:
| > But medical research leads to treatments which may have
| far better quality of life improvements than ramps.
|
| There is so much wrong with what you say. Just look at
| the person in the very article. He doesn't walk with a
| hippity-hoppity bouncy gait. He walks with the help of a
| wheeled walking frame. He needs the ramps and the
| handholds to get to places. Do you have a proposal on how
| to spend all the ramp money to "medical research" that
| away?
|
| Look at any person who broke their leg and walks with a
| crutch, or a mother-to-be who is wobbly from all the
| extra weight of the baby, or an old person who needs a
| walking frame. Do you think if we just spend more money
| on medical research these conditions will go away?
|
| How are you proposing to medical research away the need
| for a baby stroller?
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| It's not obviously better because you're solving for one
| case when a ramp solves for multiple. At no point does
| solving nerve damage fix the fact a baby in a stroller
| has a better time on a ramp, unless you're proposing a
| new technology that obviates wheels. But that just makes
| it the new ramp in its utility.
| Tsiklon wrote:
| The distinction is that the quality of life improvement can
| be done now, and can make peoples' lives better immediately.
| It's not just wheelchair users that can make use of
| accessible infrastructure, the elderly, and young children
| can more readily make use of it too.
|
| I don't discount the promise or effect of such research, but
| the utilitarian in me says that this can make a tangible
| improvement now, and to more people and not at an
| indeterminate point in the future.
| londons_explore wrote:
| There are plenty of such tradeoffs... For example, the
| government could start a helicopter service to help people
| cross a river today, or they could build a bridge across
| the river, which will help far more people, but won't be
| ready for 5 years.
|
| I assume governments have models to make decisions about
| utility now vs utility later, and the way that trades off
| with cost now vs cost later.
|
| I don't see why this decision shouldn't just use those
| models and spend the money on whatever the models say makes
| sense.
| afarrell wrote:
| > I assume governments have models to make decisions
| about utility now vs utility later, and the way that
| trades off with cost now vs cost later.
|
| I'm curious where this assumption comes from. It seems
| more likely that it would be made on intuition of what
| story will seem most defensible to voters or avoid the
| angry scrutiny of a legislator.
|
| If decisions were made with the high level of rationality
| you point to, it seems unlikely that the US would have
| problems like this:
|
| - https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2022/02/07/pittsburgh-
| warnin...
|
| - https://www.marketwatch.com/story/it-is-a-challenge-
| the-irs-...
|
| - https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-announces-transition-
| away-f...
|
| ----------------
|
| Looking at your username lets consider a question such as
| "Should we pay additional money to design London's new
| Elizabeth Line with step-free access at all stations?"
|
| for such a model to answer such questions, we would need
| a way to accurately count costs. If could do that, then
| the line would already be open.
| dundarious wrote:
| Given perfect hindsight that we have now, at any point in the
| 20th century you would have to respond "yes, you should also
| fund accessibility right away" . The answer today is almost
| certainly the same. Never mind that there are reasons to need
| accessibility beyond spinal injuries.
| kazinator wrote:
| "Spinal implants allow geeks to stand up to their bosses!"
|
| https://dilbert.com/strip/1994-07-24
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-09 23:02 UTC)