Monday, November 7, 2011

specific Ethical Question

Would letting a football player play knowing they are injured such as a concussion and not say anything right because it is their last football game?

NO! they could hurt themselves even worse. It is mine job to tell them and their coaches of the injury if decide to play it is on them.

I can understand where the concussion might be minor and the player would be able to play. However, there is a protocol for a reason. And if the player is cleared too early they could cause further injury by sustaining a TBI or Traumatic brain injury. I will stand by my decision as to not let them play they could further hurt themselves or others.
 interview with Head Athletic trainer at UW- Stout Susan Lew
http://www.highschoolbioethics.org/briefs/nfl.asp

17 comments:

  1. 1. M
    2. M
    3. M
    4. S
    5. I agree with you that the player should not be able to play, but from being on the other side of this scenario you would not be most favorite person. Even knowing the circumstances of playing I would still be on the field.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. M
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S

    5. I understand your position in this instance but it 's hard to make a decision such as this without all the facts. The opposing arguments are very important and I feel you should have added them in.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Medium
    2. Weak
    3. Medium
    4. Strong

    5. You make a good point, but describing both sides of the argument can give us more information about the topic. If both sides were presented you would most likely have had multiple references also.

    ReplyDelete
  4. 1. M
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S
    5. Interesting subject to choice and good support for your side but could use more support for both sides...a little one sided in support.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 1.M
    2.W
    3.M
    4.S

    5. You make a really good arguments for your side but maybe expand a bit more on the other side. Maybe ask the question What specifically would make a player want to play with the injury?

    ReplyDelete
  6. 1.M
    2.W
    3.M
    4.S

    5. Like others have said before, provide the "yes" side of the argument too. Data showing how letting the football player play would be beneficial to him. Etc. Add more information on the "statistical" data and figures to back up your point of view here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. W
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S
    5. What is your field of interest? I think you need to expand more on your arguments and facts for both sides to give the topic more validity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 1.W
    2.W
    3.M
    4.S

    5.Some suggestions are: (1)state your field of interest and (2)identify both sides of the issue and their main arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  9. 1.M
    2.M
    3.S
    4.S

    5. All criteria was addressed but it could have been done with more detail. Strong citation since you cited a professional in a field related to topic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. M
    2. W
    3. M
    4. M
    5. What is your field of interest? You also did not present both sides of the topic, you just defended your belief. I feel that the reader could be better informed about this if both sides of the argument were present.

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. M
    2. M
    3. S
    4. S

    5. Good topic, I used to have a football coach who would send injured athletes to certain doctors who who knew would clear athletes very easily. You don't have much of a developed argument opposing your viewpoint and your field of interest wasn't stated.

    ReplyDelete
  12. 1. Described field of interest and described question posed: W
    2. Both sides of argument were presented: W
    3. Appropriate references were included: S
    4. Defended position is described clearly: S

    5. more citations/research on the topic. Also, what is the other side of the argument? its not very clear, and a little short.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 1. M
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S
    5. Your field of interest was not clearly stated. You also did not provide both sides fo the argument; you only stated your position.

    ReplyDelete
  14. 1.m
    2.w
    3.S
    4.S

    the opposing side of the argument was not defended.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 1. W
    2. M
    3. M
    4. M

    I take it your field of interest is sports medicine. I am thinking that from context. I do agree that you need to err on the side of caution though and prevent them from playing until it can be determined if they should be allowed to continue.

    ReplyDelete
  16. 1. M
    2. M
    3. M
    4. S
    5. I understand your stance of this situation. Concussions can be serious and knowing the persons past can also be huge. Some people have had multiple concussions which mean they should be taken off the field.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1. W
    2. W
    3. M
    4. S

    I feel as if more research is needed for the against side. I can tell from context that your field is sport medicine, but it should be more clearly stated.

    ReplyDelete