Leonard Fleck, PhD, and Randy Pearson, MD, FAAFP, FACSM, presented at the Bioethics for Breakfast event on May 12, 2016, offering perspective and insight on the topic, “Eye on the Prize: The Goal of Protecting College Football Players’ Best Interests.”
In order to reduce the incidence of traumatic brain injury, should the profession of medicine advocate for further “best practice” changes in the way football is played and injuries managed? If so, what enforcement powers might physicians wield when facing a player’s desire to stay with the team and a college’s desire to have a winning team? Kathleen Bachynski writes in the New England Journal of Medicine (2/4/16), “Repetitive brain trauma can have serious short- and long-term consequences, including cognitive and attention deficits, headaches, mood disorders, sleep disturbances, and behavioral problems.” The NCAA notes that over 200,000 college athletes are injured in competition or practice each year, with 36.3% being in college football. Who should be concerned? Physicians? Parents? Players?
The media has focused on professional football players and the effect of repeated concussions later in life. What are the lifelong risks for college football players who may never play professional football? Is it one chance in a thousand that their life might end prematurely with chronic traumatic encephalopathy? Or is it one chance in ten? Problematically, thus far medical research cannot provide a definitive answer to these questions. Given that, should we (society) say that parents and players should be informed of risks to the extent that they are known, then allowed to judge whether the risks are worth whatever they see as potential benefits? Until clearer evidence is available regarding the actual level of risk to players should medical groups advocate for further protections in the game itself aimed at minimizing potential for brain trauma? And if so, should similar precautionary approaches be taken with other “risky” sports?
Leonard Fleck, PhD
Professor of Philosophy and Medical Ethics
Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences
College of Human Medicine, Michigan State University
Dr. Fleck is the author of Just Caring: Health Care Rationing and Democratic Deliberation (Oxford University Press, 2009).
Randy Pearson, MD, FAAFP, FACSM
Professor, Department of Family Medicine, MSUCHM
Senior Associate Director, Sparrow/MSU Family Medicine Residency
Associate Director, MSU/Sparrow Sports Medicine Fellowship
Assistant Dean for Graduate Medical Education, MSUCHM
About Bioethics for Breakfast: In 2010, Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman invited the Center for Ethics to partner on a bioethics seminar series. The Center for Ethics and Hall Render invite guests from the health professions, religious and community organizations, political circles, and the academy to engage in lively discussions of topics spanning the worlds of bioethics, health law, business, and policy. For each event, the Center selects from a wide range of controversial issues and provides two presenters either from our own faculty or invited guests, who offer distinctive, and sometimes clashing, perspectives. Those brief presentations are followed by a moderated open discussion.
This post is a part of our Bioethics in the News series. For more information, click here.
By Karen Kelly-Blake, Ph.D.
“Football is not a contact sport, it’s a collision sport.” Vince Lombardi
This is probably football’s most famous quote coming from one of football’s most iconic figures. Football, American football, is indeed a collision sport of spectacular proportion, and there lies the rub.
The National Football League (NFL) is being sued by more than 4000 former players charging that the NFL failed to inform them of the harm of playing with concussions, and that the NFL “… Ignored, minimized, disputed, and actively suppressed broader awareness of the link between sub-concussive and concussive injuries in football and the chronic neuro-cognitive damage, illnesses, and decline suffered by former players.” (Breslow 2014)
Former players with repetitive brain trauma are now being diagnosed with a neurodegenerative disease known as “chronic traumatic encephalopathy.” (Testoni et al. 2013) The NFL admits that in-game concussions occur about 100 times a year, but teams report only half this number. (Lipsky 2008) Football is about hard hits, and the harder the more exciting, so the question is not whether there is risk of concussion in playing football, but whether the players are fully and properly advised about the risk.
Stiggelbout et al. (2012) have argued that shared decision-making (SDM) is an ethical imperative that incorporates the four principles of medical ethics: respecting autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice. The SDM model focuses on patient and provider sharing information and making a decision together. The provider provides information about treatment alternatives, risks and benefits, and the patient provides information about his preferences, and what is important to him for living his best possible healthy life. This model is about collaboration where both parties negotiate and agree with the decision. The model makes the assumption that the clinician is able to objectively tap their clinical expertise and that the patient can effectively identify and assess their own values relevant to the respective clinical decision and understand and appreciate the evidence. (Bogdan-Lovis and Kelly-Blake 2013) Often adding to the complexity and potential confusion surrounding SDM is the disagreement over interpretation of the available evidence, presentation of the relevant information, patient rights and responsibilities, and physician rights and responsibilities, which all work to confuse the interaction. (Bogdan-Lovis and Kelly-Blake 2013)
Traditionally, SDM has focused on preference-sensitive decisions where the treatment options are relatively the same as far as risks and benefits (e.g. early stage prostate cancer treatment, colorectal cancer screening, mammography), and so the choice depends on patient preference. Concussion is not preference-sensitive, but should that rule it out as an area for collaborative decision making? No, because SDM is an opportunity to engage in meaningful communication, most typically, in the clinical encounter.
However there are areas of concern. First, the typical patient-doctor dyad does not exist in the NFL. The health care relationship in the NFL is a triad—team, team doctor, and player. Second, a typical SDM conversation would occur during a routine clinical encounter, but when would the SDM conversation occur between player and team doctor? On the sideline after the player has been hit, and the team doctor is trying to diagnose if he even has a concussion, or the next day when his head is hurting and his ears are ringing, and he is just thankful that he was able to get out of bed? Probably not, but maybe, a SDM conversation can occur prior to signing a contract because players undergo extensive physicals before signing a team contract. This could offer an opportunity to communicate that identification of concussion is not straightforward and that there are short- medium- and long-term consequences of sustaining head trauma, and if a concussion occurs, explain the treatment options. And lastly, are the doctors making determinations about concussion trained to do so, i.e. neurologists? Pellman, former head of the NFL Committee on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury was a rheumalogist! (Lipsky 2008; Pellman 2006)
I would argue that players fully apprised of the risks of concussion and how it should be treated would err on the side of caution and delay return to play until they are clinically able to do so. Of course, with the “just win, baby” mentality of the NFL, and dare I say, the fans, this position may appear grossly naïve. The conversation would need to occur using plain language, i.e. “You have a diagnosed concussion, you need to sit out for the next three weeks, and if you don’t, and sustain additional head trauma, you may not be able to tie your shoes, shave, or recognize your children in 20 years.” Both the team doctor and player would benefit from having such a “real discussion” in that the doctor can remember that even though the team is his employer that his priority has to be the best interest of the player/patient, and the player/patient has to be forthcoming in reporting symptoms.
The team is heavily invested in winning, the team doctor is invested in the success of the team by which he is employed and in the health of the player (hope reigns supreme here), and the player is invested in keeping his contract. There are a number of conflicts embroiled in this triad. Shared decision-making, touted as ethically imperative for patient-centered care may be one way to make sure players and team doctors can achieve a care relationship that ensures the best interest of the player/patient in both the short- and long-term.
Disclosure statement: I am an avid football fan. Some have argued that fans bear some of the blame for the disregard of player health related to concussions. We can consider that for future discussion.
Bogdan-Lovis E, Kelly-Blake K. Autonomy’s Child: Exploring the Warp and Woof of Shared Decision Making (paper presented to the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Annual Meeting, October 24-27, 2013, Atlanta, GA).
Pellman E, Viano D. Concussion in professional football: summary of the research conducted by the National Football League’s Committee on Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Neurosurgical Focus. Oct 15 2006;21(4). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/553967
Stiggelbout AM, Weijden T Van der, De Wit MPT, Frosch D, Légaré F, Montori VM et al. Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare. BMJ. Jan 27 2012;344:e256 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e256
Testoni D, Hornik CP, Smith PB, Benjamin Jr. DK, McKinney Jr. RE. Sports Medicine and Ethics. The American Journal of Bioethics. Sep 11 2013;13(10):4-12. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2013.828114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2013.828114
Karen Kelly-Blake, Ph.D., is a Research Associate in the Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences at Michigan State University.
Join the discussion! Your comments and responses to this commentary are welcomed. The author will respond to all comments made by Thursday, August 7, 2014. With your participation, we hope to create discussions rich with insights from diverse perspectives.
You must provide your name and email address to leave a comment. Your email address will not be made public.