Re: Rugby injury surveillance and prevention programmes: are they effective?
I detested rugby when forced to play it as a child at school and took pride in running away from the ball so as to avoid the risk of injury. I detested rugby when my children were forced in turn to play it at school and encouraged them to do the same. It is self-evident that it is a violent game, which carries a risk of serious injury, and Pollock's paper provides strong evidential support for that sentiment.
I think the question here is one of informed consent. Currently, many schools compel children to play rugby, against a very real risk of injuries, some of them serious. I don't see informed consent being sought from parents for children's participation in this dangerous activity. Even if it were being sought, I think it's moot that parents should be allowed to consent to their children participating in such a dangerous activity. What's the point of this risk of serious injury when you can play touch rugby or one of a number of other, much safer, non-contact, competitive team ball games? Isn't this view of violence and risk of injury as being somehow ennobling and character-building outdated? It's 2015, people, not 1915.
Rapid Response:
Re: Rugby injury surveillance and prevention programmes: are they effective?
I detested rugby when forced to play it as a child at school and took pride in running away from the ball so as to avoid the risk of injury. I detested rugby when my children were forced in turn to play it at school and encouraged them to do the same. It is self-evident that it is a violent game, which carries a risk of serious injury, and Pollock's paper provides strong evidential support for that sentiment.
I think the question here is one of informed consent. Currently, many schools compel children to play rugby, against a very real risk of injuries, some of them serious. I don't see informed consent being sought from parents for children's participation in this dangerous activity. Even if it were being sought, I think it's moot that parents should be allowed to consent to their children participating in such a dangerous activity. What's the point of this risk of serious injury when you can play touch rugby or one of a number of other, much safer, non-contact, competitive team ball games? Isn't this view of violence and risk of injury as being somehow ennobling and character-building outdated? It's 2015, people, not 1915.
Competing interests: No competing interests