10 ms·

It isn't immoral or unethical to have sports where long-term injury can occur. Using that metric we would have to ban all sports. What is unethical is not educa

It isn't immoral or unethical to have sports where long-term injury can occur. Using that metric we would have to ban all sports. What is unethical is not educating the participants of the risks. We need to push for more studies and education, not bans.

jowiar 9y ago
The challenge is that football is inching from "where long-term injury can occur" to "where long term injury does occur". That is, from "If a play goes poorly, you may tear ligaments and break bones, which may have lasting effects" to "it should be the expectation that if you practice and play this sport for any length of time your brain will resemble a block of emmentaler".
hyperbovine 9y ago
Now there's a false equivalence if ever I saw one. I stiff hip or bum knee from playing sports seems way, way different to me than suffering irreversible dementia and chronic depression beginning in one's late 40s.
emn13 9y ago
There's a difference between a small risk of long-term injury (a risk you run in different ways if you're not doing sports, I might add), and near certain brain damage. Not all sports have so grim an outlook - and I bet football too could be fixed with some rules changes (e.g. I don't recall any stories of rugby having such effects, and that's at least somewhat related). Further research can probably help, but it's unwise to wait for that if the results are already sufficiently clear as is.
evilduck 9y ago
We (society) typically require someone reach a certain age of consent before we allow participation in life-altering activities. e.g. drinking, smoking, driving, enlistment, marriage, tattoos, etc. A 13 year old jr. high schooler who wants to play for their school's football team isn't able to fully assess and weigh the risks of long term brain injuries from an activity. Maybe parental education and consent is enough for some people, but at the same time, we flat out don't allow parental consent to buy cigarettes at age 13 either even if there are parents that would allow it.
- bzbarsky 9y ago
  > e.g. drinking, smoking, driving, enlistment, marriage, tattoos, etc Marriage and tattoos are allowed with parent/guardian consent at quite young ages depending on where you live. And not allowed other places, of course. Laws on this vary widely, even just inside the US. > Maybe parental education and consent is enough for some people Right, that is the question. Is playing football more like smoking? Or is it more like marriage or tattoos? Or like downhill skiing or any of a host of other dangerous activities minors can engage in with parental consent pretty much anywhere?
- meri_dian 9y ago
  But tackle football at a young age hasn't been shown to dramatically increase likelihood of CTE. And for the highest levels where CTE is a risk, players are compensated for the risks they take in playing. No one compensates you for smoking or drinking.

jowiar 9y ago

The challenge is that football is inching from "where long-term injury can occur" to "where long term injury does occur". That is, from "If a play goes poorly, you may tear ligaments and break bones, which may have lasting effects" to "it should be the expectation that if you practice and play this sport for any length of time your brain will resemble a block of emmentaler".

hyperbovine 9y ago

Now there's a false equivalence if ever I saw one. I stiff hip or bum knee from playing sports seems way, way different to me than suffering irreversible dementia and chronic depression beginning in one's late 40s.

emn13 9y ago

There's a difference between a small risk of long-term injury (a risk you run in different ways if you're not doing sports, I might add), and near certain brain damage. Not all sports have so grim an outlook - and I bet football too could be fixed with some rules changes (e.g. I don't recall any stories of rugby having such effects, and that's at least somewhat related). Further research can probably help, but it's unwise to wait for that if the results are already sufficiently clear as is.

evilduck 9y ago

We (society) typically require someone reach a certain age of consent before we allow participation in life-altering activities. e.g. drinking, smoking, driving, enlistment, marriage, tattoos, etc. A 13 year old jr. high schooler who wants to play for their school's football team isn't able to fully assess and weigh the risks of long term brain injuries from an activity. Maybe parental education and consent is enough for some people, but at the same time, we flat out don't allow parental consent to buy cigarettes at age 13 either even if there are parents that would allow it.

bzbarsky 9y ago
> e.g. drinking, smoking, driving, enlistment, marriage, tattoos, etc Marriage and tattoos are allowed with parent/guardian consent at quite young ages depending on where you live. And not allowed other places, of course. Laws on this vary widely, even just inside the US. > Maybe parental education and consent is enough for some people Right, that is the question. Is playing football more like smoking? Or is it more like marriage or tattoos? Or like downhill skiing or any of a host of other dangerous activities minors can engage in with parental consent pretty much anywhere?
meri_dian 9y ago
But tackle football at a young age hasn't been shown to dramatically increase likelihood of CTE. And for the highest levels where CTE is a risk, players are compensated for the risks they take in playing. No one compensates you for smoking or drinking.