The idea of “medical technology” has a complicated relationship with disability ethics, serving as a unique intersection between the social and medical models of disability. On one hand, medical technology can be beneficial in improving access for disabled people. On the other hand, however, medical technology can perpetuate the problematic idea that the disabled individual is “abnormal” and must be “cured” to fit better into society. There are many medical technologies that tend to ignore the societal barriers that prevent disabled people from achieving equal accessibility, instead focusing on improving the impairment that the disabled person has. In this unit response, I will explore the social, ethical, and cultural implications of two medical technologies used by disabled people: cochlear implants and stair-climbing wheelchairs.

The first medical technology I will be analyzing is the cochlear implant. For disabled people who are severely or profoundly deaf, cochlear implants are surgically implanted devices that can restore hearing loss (Tucker, 1998). First, it is important to consider the cultural ramifications of cochlear implants. With a shared language (American Sign Language) and shared deaf spaces, such as deaf schools, many deaf individuals view deafness as an elective disability due to the support present in Deaf culture. Therefore, the societal push by non-deaf people for deaf children to have cochlear implants (which are much more effective when implanted at a young age) may be viewed as a form of erasure of the Deaf culture (Tucker, 1998). With cochlear implantation for deaf children, deaf parents will be less able to pass on Deaf culture to their children, such as the use of ASL, because learning how to speak begins at a very early age (Tucker, 1998).

This strong societal push for deaf children to receive cochlear implants at a very young age also has ethical implications. Many deaf parents wish for their deaf children to have their own bodily autonomy as to whether or not they wish to use cochlear implants to “cure” their deafness once they are old enough to consent (Tucker, 1998). However, since the implementation of cochlear implants is much more effective at a very young age, waiting until deaf children wish to have the procedure later on in life can equate to choosing not to have cochlear implants, which can be viewed as a loss of autonomy. Additionally, with the media and others in society strongly pushing for its use, there is no doubt that the decision to utilize cochlear implants is not a decision that is truly without undue external influence, once again opposing autonomy. Besides the principle of autonomy, the principle of justice also applies, as there are questions as to who is able to benefit from the use of cochlear implants. While most insurance companies cover part of the costs, cochlear implants may still be financially unavailable for those who may not have the resources to afford them.

These implications present in the use of cochlear implants share some similarities and differences with the implications present in the use of stair-climbing wheelchairs. While the stair-climbing wheelchair introduces little cultural implications, this technology does have social and ethical ones. One social implication to consider is its potential opposition to the social model of disability. The stair-climbing wheelchair does achieve its goal of increasing accessibility for wheelchair users in areas with stairs and without elevators. However, it is impractical for actual use because of its extremely slow movement. Considering its impracticality, this technology appears to ignore the idea that society may be creating some of the barriers present for wheelchair users and instead focuses on trying to increase the “functionality” of disabled people. Adopting the social model of disability lens by implementing more accommodations into infrastructure, such as the use of ramps and elevators, would improve accessibility in public spaces much more effectively than having wheelchair users use stair-climbing wheelchairs.

Besides social implications, the use of stair-climbing wheelchairs also has ethical implications. Similar to cochlear implants, the principle of justice also applies to this technology. As a new medical technology, stair-climbing wheelchairs are extremely expensive. Although this technology attempts to seek out accessibility for wheelchair users, financial access plays just as large a role in total accessibility as physical and social participation (Caldwell, 2020). If people of lower income– who already generally reside in areas with less disability accommodations– are unable to have access to stair-climbing wheelchairs, there is a likely possibility that they are further isolated from society, perpetuating the negative stigmas surrounding physical disabilities.

To conclude, through this analysis of both cochlear implants and stair-climbing wheelchairs, it is evident that there are many cultural, social, and ethical implications surrounding the use of medical technologies. While medical technologies may have good intentions aimed at improving accessibility for disabled people, it is vital to be aware of questions that arise as a result of these implications, such as how this technology will affect certain disabled cultures, who gains access to this technology, and how effective this technology truly is at improving accessibility. To ensure that these implications are adequately addressed and resolved as medical technology continues to advance, society must allow disabled people to be at the forefront of the field of medical technology, where their unique lived experiences will help ensure that medical technology does truly improve accessibility and will be accessible by all who wish to use it.