Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Watching Football (American Style)?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(2)
Message 3 of 58 (827955)
02-06-2018 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by NoNukes
02-06-2018 11:00 AM


NoNukes writes:
I find that I cannot in good conscience watch tackle football at any level anymore and I cannot imagine what would cause me to change my mind. I don't plan to crusade for the end of football, or even to ask folks to join me. I don't plan to explain to my friends why I am not watching football unless provoked, although I will tell my wife. I am telling you guys, but I am not going to try to convince you that I am right. But I am not watching the lions eat the Christians anymore.
The question that keeps popping into my head is if these players would be playing football if there wasn't a financial incentive to do so. I don't know about your region of the country, but where I live there really isn't that many people playing tackle football in rec leagues. There are tons of rec leagues for softball, golf, basketball, tennis, flag football (i.e. non-contact), and many other amateur events for other sports (cycling is popular).
We have set up a system where people are putting their long term health on the line in order to make money. I don't see any way around the conclusion that fans are complicit in this act. Will I keep watching football? Yep. Is it wrong? Probably. Would I let my kids play football, if I had any? I really don't know, but I would strongly encourage them to play a different sport.
I salute your moral fortitude while admitting its absence in myself. Good luck to you, sir.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by NoNukes, posted 02-06-2018 11:00 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 5 of 58 (827970)
02-06-2018 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Stile
02-06-2018 12:55 PM


Stile writes:
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with people willingly, consensually playing football while being aware of the risks.
I have worked on research projects that use human subjects, so we get a lot of training in bioethics, HIPAA, privacy, and all those kinds of things. One of the interesting parts of bioethics is the ways in which you can undermine consent as part of the agreement between researcher and subject. One such problem area is compensation given to the subject to offset their time and expenses. If you give them too little you are devaluing their time and willingness to contribute to your research. If you give them too much money, you are incentivizing them to take risks that they would not otherwise take which is a violation of consent. With those rules in mind, most subjects are paid between $10 and $15 per hour for their time, including time used to travel to and from a research location if that is part of the study.
With that in mind, can we truly say that NFL players are giving their honest consent when you hang millions of dollars in front of them? That's a very important moral question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Stile, posted 02-06-2018 12:55 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-06-2018 3:49 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 11 of 58 (827976)
02-06-2018 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Stile
02-06-2018 3:49 PM


Stile writes:
Yes, but who gets to decide what is "too little?"
In the case of research involving human subjects, the compensation put forward in the research proposal is judged by an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that consists of administrators, scientists, and people from the community.
The honest answer is "the one deciding to accept the money."
And, yes, their judgment might be clouded by the small amount of money.
Or... maybe it's not, and their judgment of what's "too little" is different from someone else's.
Let's say you are studying a drug that can have serious side effects, and you are looking for people to participate. You first try to find participants in an upscale San Jose suburb, but you find that very few people want to participate even though you are offering a rather large sum of money to participate. You then find a rundown part of town (does San Jose have slums?) and offer the same large sum and you start getting lots of people signing up.
Is that moral? According to modern bioethics, it isn't moral. You can get your study shut down, and even have your grant eligibility taken away for 5 or 10 years. Is this going way overboard? Perhaps. Scientists have take the position that they need to take every step they can to be ethical researchers given the violations that have occurred in the past (e.g. the Tuskegee syphilis studies). However, it does raise the idea that you can undermine consent by preying on peoples' desperation and greed.
My point is simply that it is possible for people to make such decisions without concerning the money, regardless of the fact that some people may have their risk-analysis impaired.
But we can't know if all those people in that group are not being taken advantage of. If we create a system or environment that can lead to abuses it is immoral, even if there are some who are not abused.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Stile, posted 02-06-2018 3:49 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2018 5:17 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 13 of 58 (827979)
02-06-2018 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by 1.61803
02-06-2018 5:17 PM


1.61803 writes:
Do you feel that the enormous salaries of professional football players is leading many to take known risks of permanent brain injury due to such a tremendous incentives;that they would otherwise not take and is therefore unethical?
I certainly think that this could be the case for some. I think it would be reckless to say that this is the case for all football players.
If a athlete is being baited to participate in a dangerous sport with large sums of money, does that fit the same bar of ethics as IRB approved consent for a subject taking a investigational drug?
I think they could be directly comparable. At the same time, that does not necessarily mean that we should draft laws that control this behavior. Ethics and law are not necessarily the same thing. What we have found over time is that a perfectly ethical society does not always match up with a working human society. We do allow for unethical behavior in our laws, and I am not sure that we should use laws to ban all unethical behavior.
Perhaps we are about to enter in a era where foot ball and rugby and hockey will be a thing of the past.
100 years from now people will be like wow can you believe this was once a thing, like bull baiting and the Colosseum.
Gladiatorial games might be a good example. Where do you draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable risks in sports? While American football players may not be dropping dead on the field, they are dropping dead off the field. Junior Seau committed suicide not long after leaving the league, and he shot himself in the heart so that scientists could study his brain. It is hard to ignore the implication that Seau was suffering from deep depression that could have been caused by CTE. Just to shift sports for a second, there have been a shocking number of deaths at the Isle of Man TT motorcycle races and there were tons of deaths in F1 during the 1960's. Is that any different than 1 out of 50 gladiators dying from wounds in the Colliseum?
Where do we draw the line? I think that is an interesting question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by 1.61803, posted 02-06-2018 5:17 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by 1.61803, posted 02-07-2018 10:29 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 18 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 10:33 AM Taq has not replied
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 11:11 AM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 30 of 58 (828012)
02-07-2018 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Stile
02-07-2018 11:11 AM


Stile writes:
I simply don't agree that just because some group of people think it's possible that others in some situation are being taken advantage of... that then they "definitely are." I think that's a jump that shouldn't be made so quickly.
We could use cars as an example. If you allow a known flaw to be incorporated into a car's design that you know could unnecessarily put peoples' lives at risk and you don't fix the problem because it would reduce profits, is that immoral? Most people would say yes. Would it be moral if it only killed 0.1% of car owners which would still be hundreds or even thousands of people? Where do you draw the line?
Alcohol is sold at liquor stores in Canada (and available even easier in most other nations).
Alcohol is dangerous.
A great many people abuse alcohol and hurt themselves and others.
Canada, in selling alcohol, has "created a system or environment that can lead to abuses, even if there are some who are not abused."
However, I do not think that Canada selling alcohol is immoral.
I think that those who abuse alcohol and hurt others are immoral.
I would not attempt to prevent Canada from selling alcohol.
I would very much attempt to prevent people from abusing alcohol while keeping alcohol available for those who do not abuse it.
It's interesting that you can proclaim that an IRB is probably wrong and they can't be judges of what is moral, yet here you are proclaiming yourself the ultimate moral judge of alcohol in society.
There needs to be a distinction made between what we think should be legal and what we think is immoral. I think it is immoral to have the state profit off of a substance that causes serious harm to its citizens. However, I also think alcohol should be legal because the harms caused by prohibition are worse than those caused by its legal sale. I also participate in funding the state by buying alcohol, so I'm no angel.
But I can't think of a single statement-phrase to express where I think the line should be.
I just think that where the NFL is currently at... is not something that should be "beyond" that line into obviously-negative territory.
I have a slightly different view. The question for me is the line between immoral and illegal. How immoral does something need to be before we step in and change behavior through legislation? That line is really hard to draw.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 11:11 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 2:27 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 32 of 58 (828026)
02-07-2018 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Stile
02-07-2018 2:27 PM


Stile writes:
If you mean known-to-the-designers, but not to the drivers... then I agree that it would be immoral.
Even if it only affected a small minority?
I'm not sure if "number of people dying" is indicative (in and of itself) that something is immoral.
Are you sure about that?
If a design flaw leads to one death per million cars, I think most people would consider that to be a non-issue. If a design flaw leads to 1 death for every 10 cars, that would be an issue.
I agree.
1 - But who gets to decide what is "harm" and what is not? It is my opinion that this should be decided by each and everyone of us individually as mature adults.
2 - I don't think that selling alcohol causes serious harm to it's citizens (as determined by those citizens).
I think that some people abuse alcohol and cause serious harm to themselves and others.
I don't think playing football causes serious harm to NFL players (as determined by those NFL players).
I think that some NFL players abuse football and cause serious harm to themselves and others.
It is the facts which determine if physical harm is being done, not the opinions of humans. If studies determine that alcohol abuse results in disease, then it is harmful. If studies demonstrate that NFL players have a much higher incident of debilitating brain injury, then those are the facts. You can't wish them away.
If NFL players were not being paid large salaries, would they be allowing themselves to be harmed in this way? Probably not.
I think alcohol should be legal because I'm a big boy and can make such decisions for myself.
I don't need or want the government making such decisions for me.
I don't disagree with the sentiment, and personal freedom is the flip side of this whole discussion. However, we have to remember that we are a society and not a sea of individual islands that don't affect one another.
So... how do we do those?
Are we doing things moving in that direction? (I really don't know enough about the football issue to say either way).
Is there any other path-towards-the-line that can help give more information in figuring out where it is?
I think it is universally understood among football players that they have a >80% chance of suffering from CTE. If memory serves, >90% of the brains they looked at from football players had CTE.
I'm really not sure where we can draw the line. The best we an do is discuss it as a society and see if we can't come to some sort of consensus. What we shouldn't do is ignore the possible moral implications of how the system is structured and how it can cause individuals to sacrifice their long term health when they may not have in different circumstances. When you get right down to it, football is there for our entertainment. It's not as if they are saving people from burning buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 02-07-2018 2:27 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 34 of 58 (828046)
02-08-2018 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Stile
02-08-2018 10:36 AM


Stile writes:
That's true, but irrelevant.
Physical harm is just fine as long as the one being harmed is okay with it.
Again, see my example of BDSM sex.
That would only apply if that also included millions of dollars in salary to the ones being harmed. How many would expose themselves to physical harm just for the money? Why do we consider this type of behavior exploitative to the people being paid for such acts?
But just because they are good questions doesn't imply that the answer is "no one should be doing this." That's silly.
I don't think it is silly to ask if things should be banned if they are causing people harm. I agree with much of what you are saying, but I also think it is worthwhile to at least play Angel's advocate. If we try our best to thrash an argument and see if it stands then we can at least be confident in our positions at the end.
As long as it is informed consent, what's the problem other than you think it's not something others should do?
It's the informed consent part that is worrisome. It wouldn't be informed consent if money is being used to coerce participation. Even then, our society and views on personal freedoms have taken the position that some coercion is ok, so I'm not sure where to draw the line. Perhaps the best people to ask are ex-football players who are suffering from brain injuries and get their views.
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Stile, posted 02-08-2018 10:36 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 02-08-2018 1:45 PM Taq has replied
 Message 36 by NoNukes, posted 02-08-2018 2:17 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 37 of 58 (828050)
02-08-2018 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Stile
02-08-2018 1:45 PM


Stile writes:
Let's assume it's okay to make a consensual decision to be harmed "for fun." Like BDSM sex.
Is it okay to give your consent to be harmed in football "for fun?" - no money involved, even up to the level of the NFL.
I wouldn't have a problem with people electing to play football where there is no financial incentive. The interesting part is that almost no one does that. 18 year old kids use football as a tool to get a college diploma, and some then move on to pro football. What happens to those college graduates who don't move on to pro football? Do they play in amateur leagues for the next 10 years? I would hazard a guess that very few do play in amateur leagues. So why is that?
I think that depends on what's implied by the term "coerce."
If you just mean "if money is involved at all" then I don't agree.
If you mean something along the lines of "if money is being used to make people stop asking questions and impede the right of informed consent (as I defined it above)" then I do agree.
Here is an interesting tidbit from a peer reviewed paper:
"The practice of offering payment to research participants exhibits a tension between the aims of investigators to recruit subjects and the aims of IRBs to protect them by determining the ethical acceptability of protocols and payment schedules. On the one hand, payment is offered — nearly universally to healthy participants and increasingly to patient participants — to incentivize enrollment and compensate for participation.1 On the other hand, institutional guidance often cautions against undue inducement through offers of payment, and anecdotal evidence suggests that members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and professionals involved in research oversight are concerned that payment may coerce or unduly influence prospective research participants, thereby compromising the voluntariness of consent."
MONEY, COERCION, AND UNDUE INDUCEMENT: A SURVEY OF ATTITUDES ABOUT PAYMENTS TO RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS - PMC
Right or wrong, this ethical and moral outlook is embedded in medical research, and being part of that world it has had some influence on me.
I am under the impression that they have, basically, been swindled. They did not have "informed consent" (as I defined above) as they were not really aware of the possible injuries and concussion trauma when they signed into the league 10 to 20+ years ago.
I would assume that they would be incredibly biased in putting the line much closer to "no one should be doing this" than it really should be.
I think they could tell us if the money they made was worth the damage they suffered. If anyone would know, they would. Or maybe they will say that the money was worth it, who knows?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Stile, posted 02-08-2018 1:45 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 02-08-2018 3:33 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 41 of 58 (828057)
02-08-2018 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Stile
02-08-2018 3:33 PM


Stile writes:
I just don't take any of this to mean anything along the ideas of "if money is involved, consent is impossible."
That's the sticking point. Does it have to be all or none in order to be immoral or moral?
I also think it should be assumed that any who died significantly early and can't answer would say it was "not worth it" to them. Even if for a select few it possibly was. (I do agree with erring on the side of caution, to a certain degree).
Tracking back to your BDSM example, what if there was the same amount of long term brain damage in those workers after just 5 years of doing the job? What if that brain damage was resulting in suicides and abuse of family? What if the only way they would have ever participated in any of that abuse was a $1 million yearly salary? I think I would have some serious reservations about letting people take those jobs.
And don't worry, I am also big on personal freedoms and personal responsibility. I COMPLETELY get what you are saying. Part of me just likes to pop up once in a while and ask "but what if you're wrong", and sometimes its fun to let it stretch its legs for a bit.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Stile, posted 02-08-2018 3:33 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 02-13-2018 1:00 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 47 of 58 (828236)
02-14-2018 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Stile
02-13-2018 1:00 PM


Stile writes:
Bringing this back to football, I think it's an individual thing.. and each and every football player needs to sort that out for themselves (informed consent).
It is entirely possible that for some football players there isn't informed consent because the piles of money corrupt the process of consent.
Then this should be part of the BDSM "informed consent" and they should make their decision accordingly. Those who still decide it's "worth it" are just fine to do so... according to me.
The whole point is that consent may not be possible for some due to the amount of money being offered.
As for suicides... I've already talked about the issue of later-regretting-informed-consent. I agree that this is a serious issue. And it should be balanced appropriately against those who do not have a later-regretting-informed-consent.
It isn't regret. These players are suffering from deep depression caused by brain injury, and it drives them to suicide in some cases. There are also serious questions being asked about changes in behavior due to brain injury because it can result in loss of inhibition and an impaired decision making process. Some have even asked if CTE can be partially to blame for criminal behavior (e.g Aaron Hernandez who committed murder and then was found to have CTE).
But this doesn't change the fact that the only one who can ever "really" know is the individual.
I think we can all agree that at least one, and probably more, players have been exploited by the professional football system. We know from the basic setup of the system that there will be those who are exploited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Stile, posted 02-13-2018 1:00 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:07 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 50 of 58 (828287)
02-15-2018 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
02-14-2018 7:48 PM


NoNukes writes:
But the player is not necessarily in a superior person to judge, and in some extreme cases, perhaps we should disregard his judgment.
To put it another way, players have an extreme conflict of interest when it comes to looking out for their own well being.
To use another example, there have some tough questions being asked in the medical community about conflicts of interest and clinical trials. How much financial gain is tied to positive trial results? When a researcher presents results from drug trials, is money biasing their results? It has become customary for people to announce their conflict of interests, but is that enough?
One could say that in cases of fraud the doctors and researchers willingly reported false data, but isn't that missing the problem at the heart of it? I think we would be better off if there was a system where money was not a source of corruption, or an oversight system that is not biased by money or dependent on the doctors and researchers for employment. In so many other areas of life we assume that there will be corruption where there are no safeguards to prevent it, and I think the same could apply in the case of the NFL.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 02-14-2018 7:48 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 51 of 58 (828289)
02-15-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Stile
02-15-2018 3:07 PM


Stile writes:
I agree.
Like I said, I would support an implementation of something along the lines of the IRB you described to monitor/help-keep-football-players-on-the-right-line-of-informed-consent.
Do you have a better idea?
I think we need some sort of independent oversight. However, the first step is in admitting that there can be exploitation of players. Just saying that they gave their informed consent doesn't cut it, IMHO. That is only ignoring the problem.
As a first step, there are independent doctors on both sidelines during games. They are the ones who determine if a player has suffered a concussion. In the old days it was the team doctor, and since that doctor depended on the team for his pay check there was a clear conflict of interest that was working against the health of the players.
But how does it remove the important of deciding to do something under informed consent vs. someone's personal subjective opinion being forced on everyone?
That's the $64,000 question. It's something our society has been struggling with since our inception. Should we allow people to drink alcohol or not? Should we allow people to freely buy hard drugs or not? Where is the line between personal freedoms and the well being of society?
The best way of determining these things is open and honest debate. Even then, the answer may not be clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:07 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:38 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9972
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 55 of 58 (828310)
02-15-2018 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Stile
02-15-2018 3:38 PM


Stile writes:
If football gets restricted... players doing this will just go somewhere else (MMA, boxing...).
If all such sports get restricted... people who want to do with will, again, go somewhere else (black market...)
Moving from Angel's advocate to Devil's advocate for the moment . . .
There is also the argument that we humans don't want a perfect society. It could be that part of being human includes a bit of chaos, immorality, and "having fun". There is a reason that we romanticize events that we know are wrong, such as the gladiators of ancient Rome. If we try to make society perfectly safe, are we taking the humanity out of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Stile, posted 02-15-2018 3:38 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by NoNukes, posted 02-15-2018 9:58 PM Taq has not replied
 Message 57 by Stile, posted 02-20-2018 10:19 AM Taq has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024