see attached.
My essay rough draft:
Paper #4: NFL Concussion Controversy
COLLAPSE
Understanding Justice in the N.F.L. Concussion Controversy Through Fan Comments
In examining the role of justice in contemporary social situations, the National Football League (N.F.L.) concussion controversy stands as a poignant example. The controversy surrounding N.F.L. concussions has brought to light significant ethical and moral questions regarding the treatment of players, the responsibilities of the league, and the expectations of fans (Belson, 2013). Through the lens of justice, this essay will explore how different forms of justice—distributive, retributive, and corrective—apply to various stakeholders within the N.F.L. concussion controversy. While the focus here is on the N.F.L., the broader themes of justice can be extrapolated to other contentious social issues. The role of justice in the N.F.L. concussion controversy necessitates a nuanced approach that considers the rights and responsibilities of players, the league, fans, and youth participants. By examining distributive, retributive, and corrective justice, it becomes evident that addressing this issue requires systemic changes to ensure fairness and accountability.
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice pertains to the fair allocation of resources, opportunities, and burdens within a society. In the context of the N.F.L. concussion controversy, distributive justice demands equitable access to healthcare and financial compensation for injured players (McLeod et al., 2017). Research indicates that N.F.L. players are at a significantly higher risk of developing neurodegenerative diseases, such as chronic traumatic encephalopathy (C.T.E.), compared to the general population. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that former N.F.L. players had a three times higher risk of neurodegenerative mortality compared to the general population (McKee et al., 2013). These findings underscore the urgent need for the N.F.L. to prioritize player safety by providing comprehensive medical care and financial support for injured players. Moreover, the impact of concussions extends beyond the professional level, affecting youth players as well. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.) reveal that each year, approximately 1.1 million to 1.9 million children and adolescents in the United States sustain concussions while participating in organized sports and recreational activities, with football being one of the leading causes (C.D.C., 2019).
Retributive Justice
Retributive justice focuses on the punishment of wrongdoing and the restoration of moral balance. Within the N.F.L. concussion controversy, retributive justice implicates the league’s accountability for neglecting player safety and downplaying the risks of head injuries (Belson, 2013). High-profile lawsuits filed by former players against the N.F.L. underscore the legal ramifications of its actions. For instance, the N.F.L. settled worth over $1 billion with former players who suffered from neurological disorders linked to concussions (Belson, 2013). This substantial settlement serves as retributive justice for the harm inflicted upon players and their families, highlighting the league’s culpability in prioritizing profit over player welfare.
Furthermore, the legal battles waged by former players against the N.F.L. shed light on the longstanding practices of the league in disregarding player safety. The revelation of internal documents revealing the league’s knowledge of the risks associated with concussions and its attempts to downplay them further underscores the need for accountability (Sahler et al., 2012). These documents not only serve as evidence of the league’s negligence but also fuel public outrage and calls for systemic change within the N.F.L.
Corrective Justice
Corrective justice aims to rectify past injustices and restore balance to affected parties. In the case of the N.F.L. concussion controversy, corrective justice necessitates systemic reforms to prevent future injuries and mitigate the long-term consequences of concussions (Bachynski et al., 2014). The N.F.L.’s implementation of concussion protocols and advancements in helmet technology represent initial steps toward addressing this issue. However, ongoing research and collaboration between medical professionals and sports organizations are essential to developing comprehensive strategies for player safety (Bachynski et al., 2014). Moreover, corrective justice extends beyond immediate reforms to address the broader cultural norms and attitudes surrounding concussions in football. Efforts to destigmatize reporting and prioritize player health over game outcomes are integral to fostering a safer playing environment (Bachynski et al., 2014). Additionally, initiatives aimed at educating coaches, athletes, and parents about the signs and symptoms of concussions and proper concussion management are crucial for preventing future injuries (Bachynski et al., 2014).
Precautions in Other Sports
It is crucial to note that several other sports have taken significant precautions to prevent and limit concussions. For example, in ice hockey, the National Hockey League (N.H.L.) has implemented Rule 48, which penalizes hits to the head. It has made strides in concussion education and player safety protocols (Bachynski et al., 2014). Similarly, in soccer, governing bodies have introduced rules to minimize heading in youth soccer leagues to reduce the risk of concussions (Witol and Webbe, 2003). Additionally, sports like rugby have adopted stringent concussion protocols, including mandatory head injury assessments and temporary removal from play for suspected concussions (Gardner et al., 2018). These measures demonstrate a proactive approach to concussion safety, contrasting with the reactive measures taken by the N.F.L.
Failure in American Football
However, in American football, despite advances in helmet technology and the implementation of concussion protocols, significant gaps remain in ensuring player safety. Studies have shown that football helmets while protecting against skull fractures, offer limited protection against concussions, which are caused by the brain moving inside the skull upon impact (Rowson et al., 2016). Furthermore, despite guidelines for recognizing and managing concussions, there have been instances of players returning to play too soon after sustaining a concussion, increasing their risk of long-term complications (Kerr et al., 2012). Moreover, youth football leagues often lack resources and education on concussion prevention and management, leaving young athletes vulnerable to unrecognized and untreated concussions (Kerr et al., 2012).
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the N.F.L. concussion controversy serves as a microcosm of broader societal issues surrounding justice, accountability, and ethical responsibility. By examining the principles of distributive, retributive, and corrective justice, it becomes evident that addressing this complex issue requires concerted efforts from all stakeholders involved. As the N.F.L. continues to grapple with the consequences of concussions, it must prioritize the well-being of its players and enact meaningful reforms to ensure a safer and more just future for the sport. Through increased transparency, accountability, and collaboration, the N.F.L. can uphold its commitment to player safety and ensure the long-term sustainability of the sport.
Works Cited
Bachynski, Kathleen E, and Daniel S Goldberg. “Youth sports & public health: framing risks of mild traumatic brain injury in American football and ice hockey.” The Journal of Law, Medicine& Ethics, vol. 42, no. 3, 2014, pp. 323–33. doi:10.1111/jlme.12149.
Belson, K. “N.F.L. Agrees to Settle Concussion Suit for $765 Million.” The New York Times, 29 Aug. 2013, www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/sports/football/judge-announces-settlement-in-nfl-concussion-suit.html.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (C.D.C.). “Traumatic Brain Injury / Concussion.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 7 Sept. 2023, www.cdc.gov/traumaticbraininjury/.
Gardner, Andrew J et al. “Correction to: The Use of Sideline Video Review to Facilitate Management Decisions Following Head Trauma in Super Rugby.” Sports Medicine – Open, vol. 4,1, 54. 7 Dec. 2018, doi:10.1186/s40798-018-0171-y.
Kerr, Zachary Y et al. “Nine-year risk of depression diagnosis increases with increasing self-reported concussions in retired professional football players.” The American Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 40,10 2012: 2206–12. doi:10.1177/0363546512456193.
McKee, Ann C et al. “The spectrum of disease in chronic traumatic encephalopathy.” Brain: A Journal of Neurology, vol. 136, Pt 1 2013: 43–64. doi:10.1093/brain/aws307.
McLeod, Tamara C Valovich et al. “Rest and Return to Activity After Sport-Related Concussion: A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Journal of Athletic Training, vol. 52,3 2017: 262-287. doi:10.4085/1052-6050-51.6.06.
Rowson, Steven, et al. “Biomechanical Perspectives on Concussion in Sport.” Sports Medicine and Arthroscopy Review, vol. 24,3 2016: 100–7. doi:10.1097/JSA.0000000000000121.
Sahler, Christopher S, and Brian D Greenwald. “Traumatic brain injury in sports: a review.” Rehabilitation Research and Practice, 2012, article ID 659652. doi:10.1155/2012/659652.
Witol, Adrienne D, and Frank M Webbe. “Soccer heading frequency predicts neuropsychological deficits.” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists, vol. 18,4 2003: 397–417.
My teachers concerns/comments: Your thesis is clear, but how will you argue for it? You can “see” via the lens, but where will you find the evidence? Some mention of the role of media perspectives (commentary, social media, etc.) is in order.
Through the lens of justice, this essay will explore how different forms of justice—distributive, retributive, and corrective—apply to various stakeholders within the N.F.L. concussion controversy.
My other concern in this draft is in your emphasis, not on the nature of the perspectives on this issue, but on the issue itself and how we must see it as a justice issue. It reads too much like your Assignment #3, a fine essay, but #4 asks for an assessment of the perspectives on the issue, not the issue itself.
