Love this story and the possibilities.

However, it also begs the question whether the definition of disability set out in the Equality Act will remain fit for purpose?

Indeed, most of us that work in HR know that "A person (P) has a disability if P has a physical or mental impairment, and the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on his ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities".

However, it is often forgotten that an impairment will be treated as having a substantial adverse effect on a person's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities if measures are being taken to treat it or correct it and, but for the measures, the impairment would be likely to have that effect. Measures include medical treatment and the use of a prosthesis or other aid. Crucially the Courts have also held that you should assess how an impairment would affect the claimant's day-to-day activities if the medical treatment were stopped.

In short, all this means you assess on the underlying condition without the benefits or alleviation resulting from any aid or treatment.

As a result, an employer may have an employee that satisfies the definition of disabled and is entitled to the benefits which come with that status and do not even know it due to their use of a medical aid. As medical and technological advances continue the lines will surely only become more blurred. Importantly if some conditions can be completely alleviated for the purposes of day to day activities will those conditions need protection under equality legislation? Will those with these conditions even want it? The purpose of disability discrimination legislation after all was to ensure a level playing field. If that can be achieved by technology in some areas is that enough?