Eating with Limited Mobility Made Easier with Liftware
While change is slow, more companies are realizing that making their brand accommodating benefits people with and without disabilities. Liftware is a company that launched in 2012 and has since then joined Verily Life Sciences in 2014. They produce eating utensils for people who have Parkinson’s, cerebral palsy and other conditions that may cause hand or arm tremors. What makes this line of products incredible is how they remain stable regardless of how much the hand may shake. The handle alone cancels about 70% of tremor movements by moving in the opposite direction of the tremor.
The Liftware store consists of two product lines: Liftware Steady and Liftware Level. Liftware Steady assists with hand tremors, which includes Parkinson’s; whereas Liftware Levels assists with limited hand and arm mobility, which includes spinal cord injuries, Huntington’s, and cerebral palsy. Though both products cater to different audiences, their shared purpose is to help users feel a sense of independence when eating.
People with disabilities that would benefit from Liftware often have neurological disorders that cause them to shake involuntarily. In the United States alone, approximately 10 million people have an essential tremor and about 1 million have Parkinson’s.
Rather than attempting to “cure” their disabilities, Liftware did an excellent job being adaptable for users with limited arm mobility and tremors. Likewise, with price inaccessibility being an issue, Liftware made efforts to make their product more accessible to the public by donating one device for every device purchased.
However, a difficult pill to swallow is that society is more inclined to “liberate” someone from their disability rather than creating spaces that are accessible. So as commendable as Liftware may be, it does pose a question: can assistive technology contribute to ableism?
In 2020, author Jessie Paige published an article on Verdict critiquing the use of technology to assist people with disabilities, and she brings up interesting points that aren’t usually discussed. A lot of tech companies fail to find the distinction between creating assistive tech that’s adaptable and creating assistive tech that tries to “fix” disabilities, which is certainly an ableist mindset. Instead of pushing for accessible infrastructure, these innovations are comparable to slapping a Band-Aid on an open wound. As suggested by Paige, they only provide a short-term resolution for an issue that requires systemic change. Not to imply that all assistive technology falls under this umbrella, however, its impact is worth being judged to ensure the best outcome is executed.
There is no doubt that technology has positively changed so many lives, however, it’s important to consider intent vs. impact. Companies that create products that make users with disabilities mold themselves to able-bodied standards are inherently harmful and sets progress back.
Ultimately, technology is a double-edged sword; it’s capable of creating good while simultaneously causing harm. But in Liftware’s case, their dedication to being an accessible company, in more ways than one, is admirable. Not only do they create products that adapt to the customer’s needs (instead of forcing users to conform to ableist standards), Liftware also considers their pricing by reducing their costs from about $295 to $195, and they make sure to donate their products whenever possible.
Article referenced: https://www.verdict.co.uk/technology-disabled-accessible/