Collision sports pose a high risk of concussion. How to respond to this risk is more ethically complex when considering children and adolescents due to a) incomplete evidence regarding the impact of concussion on developing brains, b) physiological and social vulnerability, and c) the young person’s reliance on proxy decision-makers, usually parents. There is also a lack of clear definitions of (a) collision sport (vs. contact sport) and (b) what constitutes a child or adolescent. We consider whether parents should be (...) free to allow their children/adolescents to play contact or collision sport. The article analyses the harms and benefits of collision sport and methods of determining risk, before outlining our support for the precautionary principle. We then consider whether the ‘best interests’ or ‘right to an open future’ framework ought to be applied to the issue of childhood participation in collision sport. Rather than supporting a ban of child/adolescent participation in collision sport, we argue that permissibility should be decided on a sport-by-sport basis. Moreover, we apply the ‘Accountability of Reasonableness’ framework to ensure that sound ethical values guide and support protections for this vulnerable group in the absence of high-quality evidence. (shrink)

This article first summarizes research regarding the relationship between sports that intentionally structure multiple types of brain trauma into their practice, such as rugby and boxing, and the range of negative health outcomes that flow from participation in such sports. The resultant brain injuries are described as ‘now’ and ‘later’ diseases, being those that affect the child immediately and then across their lifetime. After highlighting how these sports can permanently injure children, it examines this harm in relation to existing British (...) laws and policies concerning child abuse. The conclusion drawn is that neither children nor adults on their behalf are legally able to give informed consent for participation, and that impact sport organisations effectively groom children into sustaining and accepting brain trauma. Adults providing brain-traumatizing versions of these sports are thus described as being complicit in a form of child abuse that we term brain abuse. The contradictions in existing sports policy are highlighted, where policy describes that children are to be protected from harm, and yet the very practice of such sports creates harm by design. Implications of the argument are that children should be prohibited from partaking in impact sports. (shrink)

In this paper, I discuss the risks of brain injuries in collision and contact sports and make a proposal to address them without limiting the autonomy of athletes. I aim to analyse the circumstances of profound uncertainty that athletes are facing in terms of the long-term impact of brain injuries. My strategy is to circumvent drastic measures in dealing with such risks, such as banning certain sports or changing their nature by introducing constitutive rule changes, and to scaffold individual autonomy (...) instead. I will focus on two aspects. First, I address the choice whether to take up or continue to play a risky sport given the mentioned profound level of ignorance. I argue that we can scaffold autonomy to make rational choices, particularly by enabling the application of heuristics. Second, I discuss performative skills that can help to prevent brain injuries. It is important to consider collision and contact sports as instances of joint action. The performance of others is an important factor in determining the level of risk in such sports. Hence, supporting athlete’s skills to prevent collisions can reduce the risk of brain injury. I conjecture ways to scaffold players’ skills and performance with this aim in mind. (shrink)

J. S. Russell has argued that it is morally permissible for children to participate in dangerous sports and that much of value can be gained from such participation. He attempts to justify children’s participation in dangerous sport with two arguments, which he calls the common sense view and the uncommon sense view, and I apply the basic reasons given in these general arguments to the specific case of justifying children’s participation in mixed martial arts (MMA). To safeguard against wanton and (...) gratuitous risk of great harm, Russell also includes some basic limitations for children’s participation in dangerous sports, and I use these limitations as a general framework for providing a number of additional constraints to render children’s MMA morally permissible. (shrink)

in 2017, a study of the brains of former football players returned some of the most damning evidence to date of the inherent dangers of the game. Of 111 former NFL players' brains examined post-mortem, 110 were found to have the damage associated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a brain disease causing serious emotional and behavioral problems—and, often, premature death. That football is physically risky has been known virtually since its advent; what the newest studies suggest is that its dangers are (...) much more extensive than previously imagined, and much harder to avoid than had been hoped.Such findings add urgency to the ethical problems that football raises: How can one justify... (shrink)