The Distinction Between Curative and Assistive Technology: The Hard Case of Bidirectional Brain Computer Interfaces

Disability activists have sometimes claimed their disability has actually increased their well-being. Some even say they would reject a cure to keep these gains. Yet, these same activists often simultaneously propose improvements to the quality and accessibility of assistive technology. However, for any argument favoring assistive over curative technology (or vice versa) to work, there must be a coherent distinction between the two. This line is already vague and will become even less clear with the emergence of novel technologies. This paper asks and tries to answer the question: what is it about the paradigmatic examples of curative and assistive technologies that make them paradigmatic and how can these defining features help us clarify the hard cases? This analysis will begin with an argument that, while the common views of this distinction adequately explain the paradigmatic cases, they fail to accurately pick out the relevant features of those technologies that make them paradigmatic and to provide adequate guidance for parsing the hard cases. Instead, it will be claimed that these categories of curative or assistive technologies are defined by the role the technologies play in establishing a person’s relational narrative identity as a member of one of two social groups: disabled people or non-disabled people.

Learning Objectives:

1. Discuss why it is important for technologists to clearly distinguish between assistive and curative neurotechnology.

2. Describe, evaluate, and compare each of the major theoretical positions that offer definitions for assistive technology.

3. Describe and justify your own theoretical position regarding how you should define assistive technology and distinguish it from curative technology.