I'm not sure I understand the question quite right because I'm not sure how you're defining a biological assistive device vs. the idea of completely removing that disability. That's something that bears discussing because I think it also involves what the definition of a disability is. I'm not sure how you identify, but I identify as non-disabled and therefore, there are a lot of things that my privileged POV would not pick up on or think of in an ablist way. So I'll be answering with caution to check my own ablism.
I'd say it depends on what you mean by "removing the disability" and how it's done in the story. I think there'd be a difference between a biological assistive device and complete erasure of that particular disability. Let's say one had nanobots injected as a treatment to give function to a person - but one would lose that function without these nanobots, I don't know if I would consider that erasing the disability.
And there might still be issues, such as - if you bleed too much would you lose too many nanobots? Would you need to take supplements or some other kind of treatment so your body didn't reject them? Would you need to eat more food for energy requirements or do certain things to maintain these nanobots?
Where as if the nanobots completely "restored" or "healed" the disability so that it no longer existed and they offered no additional functioning to them after that, I personally would think differently. But that's me personally and issues I am not even beginning to pick up on.
I should clarify that what brought up this post was a book I've recently read that was SF and featured a main character who was, through most of the book, disabled and not evil and generally quite awesome and ass kicking and made of win and a hero among his people and, oh yeah, he was saving his whole damn planet.
But then? Like, five chapters from the end, he finds a spaceship, steps in a medical pod and comes out completely "restored". And I kind of felt like it was a way for the writer to QUIT having to write about a person with disabilities, to QUIT having to think about things and just make shit blow up and finish the book. It just really upset/disappointed me. In that instance, I thought it was hurtful. I didn't see why that disability needed to be suddenly "healed" and it didn't even make that much sense in the context of the book for the character to have done it.
In that instance, yeah, I was not happy with the way that played out and find things like that to be part of the way SF erases disabled people.
but there's definitely far too little mental disabilities in speculative fiction!
no subject
I'd say it depends on what you mean by "removing the disability" and how it's done in the story. I think there'd be a difference between a biological assistive device and complete erasure of that particular disability. Let's say one had nanobots injected as a treatment to give function to a person - but one would lose that function without these nanobots, I don't know if I would consider that erasing the disability.
And there might still be issues, such as - if you bleed too much would you lose too many nanobots? Would you need to take supplements or some other kind of treatment so your body didn't reject them? Would you need to eat more food for energy requirements or do certain things to maintain these nanobots?
Where as if the nanobots completely "restored" or "healed" the disability so that it no longer existed and they offered no additional functioning to them after that, I personally would think differently. But that's me personally and issues I am not even beginning to pick up on.
I should clarify that what brought up this post was a book I've recently read that was SF and featured a main character who was, through most of the book, disabled and not evil and generally quite awesome and ass kicking and made of win and a hero among his people and, oh yeah, he was saving his whole damn planet.
But then? Like, five chapters from the end, he finds a spaceship, steps in a medical pod and comes out completely "restored". And I kind of felt like it was a way for the writer to QUIT having to write about a person with disabilities, to QUIT having to think about things and just make shit blow up and finish the book. It just really upset/disappointed me. In that instance, I thought it was hurtful. I didn't see why that disability needed to be suddenly "healed" and it didn't even make that much sense in the context of the book for the character to have done it.
In that instance, yeah, I was not happy with the way that played out and find things like that to be part of the way SF erases disabled people.
but there's definitely far too little mental disabilities in speculative fiction!
This right here x 10000.