The Ethical Dilemma of Oscar Pistorius

787 Words4 Pages
The Ethical Dilemma of Oscar Pistorius “You can succeed at anything if you put your mind to it.” This statement seems to be one that we hear endlessly as we grow older. Sometimes this is proven true, as could be perceived from the case of Oscar Pistorius. Oscar is an Olympic sprinter, with one big difference from his competition-both of his legs are non-existent below the knee. Instead of legs, he uses a folded metal spring mechanism that acts in the same way as a human calf and foot. Pistorius was born with a congenital disease that caused him to have both of his legs amputated just below his knees when he was less than a year old. He has lived the vast majority of his life without calves or feet. For many people this would be a crutch, but Oscar saw this as a challenge that could be overcome. He decided that he wanted to be an athlete, and that’s what he became. He played multiple sports when he was young, and eventually realized that he excelled at sprinting even without lower legs and decided that he would focus on the sport. People started to take notice of this legless sprinter, and as Pistorius rose up the ranks, many wondered whether his metal racing leg replacements, or “blades,” were truly a benign replacement for legs, or an advantage that was helping this inspiring athlete to outclass his competition. On one side of this ethical dilemma, the blades were considered an advantage for Oscar because there is no truly objective way to know whether they were helping him to win his races. The blades do not fatigue as human legs would during the course of a grueling and intense 100 or 200 meter sprint. Until he was evaluated scientifically, there was no way to compare the blades to how a human leg would perform in terms of pushing force and the interaction that the blades would have with the ground compared to the combination of a sprinters shoe, foot, and leg

More about The Ethical Dilemma of Oscar Pistorius

Open Document