In Graham Pullin’s book, “Design Meets Disability,” he thoroughly discusses the importance of considering design factors in medically designed equipment for disabled individuals. In our evolving world, design plays an increasingly prominent role. Pullin proceeds to showcase various objects used by disabled people and explores how design can be integrated into them. While it’s commendable that he emphasizes design and aesthetics in medically designed equipment, my concern grows regarding how these designs might ultimately impact the overall affordability of such equipment.
Pullin suggests renaming wheelchairs as “chairwear” and hearing aids as “hearwear,” advocating for a shift from a medical to a consumer-oriented model. While the idea of personalized and fashionable devices is appealing, the incorporation of fashion and aesthetics may lead to higher demand, subsequently driving up prices and potentially making it challenging for disabled individuals to find specific equipment.
Disabled individuals would have a wide variety of colors, models, and designs to choose from when selecting medical equipment, a positive aspect. However, as the fashion industry becomes more competitive and expensive if medical equipment like hearing aids becomes overly equipped with designs and aesthetics, multiple brands might sell them at higher-than-usual prices. While this might not seem like a significant issue for those seeking both functionality and aesthetics, the increased prices could significantly affect individuals in lower economic statuses who urgently need medical equipment.
Due to the heightened demand for attractive medical equipment, the market may shift towards selling designer medical equipment at higher prices. Lower-status individuals may struggle to find affordable and reliable medical equipment, as cheaper options may incorporate less attention to electronics and have a higher tendency to malfunction. While Pullin’s consideration of beauty and design features within medical equipment is positive, it could jeopardize the easy access, affordability, and reliability of essential medical equipment. Unlike other fashion products that can be expensive and disposable, disabled individuals need proper equipment to perform tasks without difficulty or exposure to potential dangers caused by malfunctions.
An illustrative example of medical equipment seamlessly incorporating aesthetics and design is glasses, not for fashion but for medical purposes. In the past, medical glasses were simpler and affordable for everyone. However, due to the growing trend of glasses as a fashion accessory, many fashion industries sell proper medical glasses at much higher prices. In today’s world, purchasing only the lenses has become significantly costlier due to their high demand.
The absence of a substantial discussion on the affordability and democratization of these design solutions is a noticeable gap. Designing for disability, as Pullin suggests, should not only evoke positive images but actively address financial barriers. It is crucial to ensure that the benefits of resonant design reach a broad and diverse demographic, not just those with the financial means to engage in a boutique-style consumption model.