Contact Sports Research Paper

Richard Robeson and Nancy M.P. King both indicate that “families and players have been deliberately mislead about the hidden dangers of playing professional football” (334). Informed consent is crucial to any dangerous or adventurous activity. The word informed implies that a person has been given all the information and the person feels comfortable making a decision based on the facts presented. Robeson and King believe that the “inquiry into the growing controversy over concussions and football clearly shows that many decisions have been made in the absence of critically important information” (334). If concussions are a natural consequence of football, then the National Football League would have been willing to better inform their athletes by “[revealing] data from its own sponsored research” after they settled disputes in 2013 with about 4,500 disgruntled players and families; a settlement that cost the league about $765 million” (Robeson and King 335). Any decision made when a person has not experienced full disclosure is not informed (Robeson and King 334). Concussions should not be considered a common conclusion of contact sports should athletes be inadequately

The regulatory history of the NFL demonstrates that “under circumstances in which caution would ordinarily characterize medical advice, concussions in football players have been regarded and treated differently from concussions in other settings” (Robeson and King 338). Concussions are brain trauma. Concussions are medical. Medically speaking, the same rules for concussions in other contact sports should be applied to football. There should be no difference, and the variations indicate significant gaps in the regulations provided by the NFL. Additionally, following the idea that concussions are evaluated, monitored, and governed inappropriately, the regulations and authoritative relationships influence the players’ health decisions in certain situations. According to Robeson and King, “one of the return-to-play stipulations is that players are encouraged to be candid [with team physicians]” therefore expecting players to “self-diagnose” (339). This regulation is inadequate because the rule forces a player to choose between loyalty to his team and the importance of keeping himself healthy. He will choose to play and “take one for the team” rather than being looked at by an unbiased physician who tells him he cannot re-enter the game (Robeson and King 335). The biased regulation, placing all responsibility on the player and is medically