AT can serve as an enabler - no question. But as OTs, how do we assure that something designed to overcome occupational deprivation doesn't result in occupational injustices?

Consider this: Although most people in our communities have computers and other high tech devices, many people, especially those with low incomes and few social connections, do not. Despite many avenues for obtaining funding for AT (see Section 5a) some types of AT are very costly, and funding sources often have to deny requests. Thus, technology can wind up being the solution for those with the most education, the most resources, and the loudest voice. To see some data on a U.S. study (Kaye, Yeager & Reed, 2010) that looked at inequities in acquisition and use of AT, go to the following link (or at least look at the abstract!):

This divide between the "haves" and "have nots" of technology is worsened by situations where parents and other advocates demand technology solutions that may or may not be merited simply because they see a device on the internet, on television, or in their child's classroom. These situations demand OT input and expertise, but are also very difficult for OTs.