[nfbwatlk] Fw: FDA clears first implantable telescope for vision

[Robert Sellers]

Yes, new technology and beginning uses of  technology often can sound nutty.
There were a lot of skeptics who thought Bell's invention of the telephone
was a total waste and there would never be a need for such a device.  
If we look at America's first endeavor into  space and  the attempt at
lauching missles. The first few Redstone missles, on ignition fell over
backwards and crashed on the launching pad. But, they learned from  those
unsuccessful attempts. 
If we were to ask the sighted about the possibility of the blind driving a
car, they would say "You're crazy!". There are those who are  blind, who
will say that, also. Right now, we can't but  research needed to begin, so
we  learn what works and doesn't work, make the modifications and in time
success.
The same can be said about this device. Yes, there are challenges and
obstacles to overcome, but it needs to start somewhere to find what
doesn't work or what needs to change.
If technology is capable of restoring a blind persons vision, As to whether
a blind person wants to see, is a personal choice. There is neither a right
nor wrong.  What is wrong, is for a blind person not to try and achieve
his/her's greatest potential as a blind person,  while setting around
waiting/hoping  for technology to get to that point of restoring sight.

bob 

-----Original Message-----
From: nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:nfbwatlk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2010 11:21 AM
To: NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Fw: FDA clears first implantable telescope for
vision

Debby:

It's nutty because it isn't a ttrue replacement for the vision the person 
being operated upon has lost. The person must be trained to integrate the 
differing vision from each eye into a single picture. It isn't at all clear 
to me that such training will constitute much of a replacement for what said

person had lost. Better to learn to function as a blind person. Far cheaper,

more permanent (the person presumably still will lose central acuity in the 
eye with the telescopic implant and it will ultimately have been for 
nothing) and costs a heck of a lot less.

Mike

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "debby phillips" <semisweetdebby at gmail.com>
To: "NFB of Washington Talk Mailing List" <nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: [nfbwatlk] Fw: FDA clears first implantable telescope for 
vision


> So Mike, just curious, why do you consider this nutty?  It would be nutty 
> for you or me, but for older folks who have vision loss, and they want to 
> enhance what they still have left, why not?  I'm writing you privately cuz

> I don't want a national debate on either list--or at least I don't choose 
> to be involved in that forum.  Hope you had a good Fourth ofjuly.    Debby
>
> _______________________________________________
> nfbwatlk mailing list
> nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for 
> nfbwatlk:
>
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com 


_______________________________________________
nfbwatlk mailing list
nfbwatlk at nfbnet.org
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbwatlk:
http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbwatlk_nfbnet.org/robertsellers500%4
0comcast.net