This blog’s getting less and less professional by the minute. The title alludes to the two parts of my engineering brain that are at constant odds with each other. The E Lion Mask side that thinks every new bit of tech is going to be the one that can solve my patients problems for ever and then there’s Grog. Grog is the conservative less forward-thinking part of me that thinks technological advancements should have stopped at the wheel or maybe on a good day Archimedes screw. On any normal day these two ideologies would be diametrically opposed but today on reflection I think they both make valid points so let’s break it down and look at their arguments for the question: should we rely on high tech solutions? E Lion Mask will take the affirmative and Grog will take the refutation.
Big tech, go to Mars, profit! (for using high tech solutions)
I guess the first big selling point for high tech is functionality MIMO systems (multi-input multi-output) allows us to create a lot of functions out of single or multiple inputs (https://grumpyyoungish.men/azeron-cyborg/ is an example of a really good MIMO system). Some of the high tech solutions can prove life changing; look at the Grid Pad for instance has multiple different ways for the user to communicate with the device making it very accessible and can do a myriad of functions from phone calls and emails to games and home automation when integrated with other home systems. Which leads me nicely onto my second point automation and integration. High tech systems let us integrated different functions into our systems Eye Gaze is another one of those staple pieces of tech for EAT (Environmental Access Technology) Services that is incredibly useful especially when we integrate it into other systems at the PMG conferences 2022 I got to test out a wheel chair drive system that used an Eye Gaze system on a Grid Pad to control the motors for the chair and I was blown away by how well it worked.
High tech systems also allow us to automate tasks. we can use technology like RFID tagging to automate doors opening when wheel chairs with a tag get close to them, or we can have a button on a grid pad that connects to a wireless motor on the door that opens the door when the button is pressed House Mate is a great example of this type of tech. The big take away from this is that high tech solutions can make life more efficient and massively improve peoples quality of life.
We peaked when we invented fire (against using high tech solutions)
*Goes in cupboard, dust of soap box, takes soap box out of cupboard, gets on soap box, inhales sharply. THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS IS LITERALLY CRIPPLING PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. *gets back off soap box, whispers to soap box “that’s enough from you”, takes soap box back to cupboard and puts it gently away. Right now we have got that out of the way I’ll try to make a more cohesive less angry argument about why the high tech solution can be a negative solution.
High tech solutions generally not always but generally require power, unlike Darth Sidious we do not have an unlimited supply of it also unlike Darth Sidious we actually have to pay for it (where’s that soap box gone) and right now it is costing the earth people using powered chairs and accessible tech like grid pads are choosing between charging their devices and being able to heat their homes and eat [1][2][3]. I’m going to stop reading articles about this its making me angry, needless to say higher energy usage incurs higher cost the solution for which I don’t know.
Data Protection
The next point I want to make is slightly less angry rant, energy cost aside high tech solutions generally come with quite a high price tag to buy some ranging in the hundreds or even thousands of pounds. High tech solutions can break easily and Murphy’s law dictates that it will, these breakages whether through user error or natural wear and tear can be costly to fix some pieces of user equipment running into the hundreds of pounds. Further to this there is the maintenance of said tech for example powered wheel chairs are required to be serviced yearly taking them out of action for at least two hours this is an inconvenience for the patient and is a lot of work for the maintenance services.
High tech solutions also have the downside of requiring a lot of investment in development in terms of man hours, financial investment and resources, and even the best idea on paper may not pay off. Another issue with high tech solutions is that for the best will in the world some of them can be difficult and lengthy to install or set up and when they are ready to go can be confusing for patients to use. The final point in the argument against high tech solutions is data protection this adds an extra level of complexity especially when it comes to patient data and ensuring that the use of technology doesn’t breach this.
Round one fight (conclusion)
On the surface of it it looks like the argument against wins the cost of buying, running and maintaining high tech solutions weighs heavily against it, however I think there are times that a high tech solution is absolutely the only call to make to give our patients any semblance of a standard of living. An art teacher i met springs to mind, they were an art teacher before a degenerative disease caused them to loose most of their fine and gross motor skill functions, now with the aid of Eye Gaze fitted to an Ipad they can at least still do digital art which brings them a semblance of joy and fulfilment which they wouldn’t get if they didn’t have the high tech kit. Conversely some situations can absolutely call for a low tech solution why buy an expensive complex piece of equipment to do communication when you can print out a vocab sheet and just get the patient to point at the word they want to say? My point is this the use of technology is context dependent, and requires a lot of thought around whether or not it is the right solution and that thought process must include the whether or not the patient can afford to run the product, there’s no point in given patients equipment they cant afford to run.
Who won? Whose next you decide!
References
2. https://www.nnjournal.co.uk/p/cost-of-living-crisis-i-can-only
3. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/cost-living-crisis-disabled-wheelchair-b2048998.html
0 thoughts on “Low-tech vs High-tech: E Lion Mask fights a Neanderthal (you know you’d pay to see it)”