Paddy McCartin

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

This sort of logic was what allowed the players of decades prior to play through concussions leading to all sorts of issues now.

Players just viewed them as something to play through and doctors allowed it because nobody knew any better.

Things have changed

That’s not the logic I am applying here though if you read my posts. In no shape or form have I suggested doctors should turn a blind eye to his health. I am suggesting they give him 100% transparent advice on where he stands and then he himself can make that decision about his future. If that requires an independent doctor to remove any bias then that should be the case. However in no way am I suggesting doctors should turn a blind eye to it. They inform their patient with full details and just like anyone else consulting a medical professional, they then make their decision.

Yes poor decisions have been made in the past with clubs and doctors not being fully transparent with the players. I do not believe that will still be the case and is the case here.

 

[PP34]

That’s not the logic I am applying here though if you read my posts. In no shape or form have I suggested doctors should turn a blind eye to his health. I am suggesting they give him 100% transparent advice on where he stands and then he himself can make that decision about his future. If that requires an independent doctor to remove any bias then that should be the case. However in no way am I suggesting doctors should turn a blind eye to it. They inform their patient with full details and just like anyone else consulting a medical professional, they then make their decision.

Yes poor decisions have been made in the past with clubs and doctors not being fully transparent with the players. I do not believe that will still be the case and is the case here.

AFL doctors aren’t there to give advice.

They are there to make tough calls on players to protect them and ensure a duty of care is there at all times.

What you are saying doctors should be allowed to do is blatant negligence and a complete failure in their duty of care to the players.

It will never happen.

 

[DemonLord]

I have not read the whole thread so sorry of this has been posted - but unless we want to see more of this on the field:


DISTURBING VISION: Ty Vickery collapses

Sad to say Paddy needs to be protected from himself. It is not his fault, he has done nothing wrong but his future quality of life needs to be protected.

And to say they cannot force him to retire is simply not true. I was terminated from a job because of a long term back injury preventing me from working regularly. Most employment contracts would have a clause that your fit for the role you are being employed for.

I hope he listens to the medical device and decides to retire for good this time. His health is far more important. I wish him and his family all the best.

 

[zhoung]

So how many concussions equals AFL ban you? not saying they shouldn't step in, but whats the number?

FYI in Australia a race horse that bleeds for the second time is permanently banned from racing again.

 

[Ambrosia]

Not that this is related to McCartin directly but I don’t see how collision based sports last much longer. Everything I’ve read it’s not the big knocks causing CTE it’s the repeated smaller collisions which for inside mids would happen 15 plus times a game without including training.

Not that footy won’t be around but I expect it’ll look very different in 5-10 years.

 

[johhny virtual]

Lots of commentary that recent McCartin head bump that resulted in concussion was minimal, but take a look at him sitting on the bench, red marks on cheek and around eye plus swelling. That would need a decent whack. Was there an earlier bump somewhere?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[100action]

Not sure if this is serious or not?

Of course it's not up to him. It's not his "decision in the end".

The race car driver doesn't actually make that choice.

They are in teams with employers and run by regulated bodies and with input from insurers etc etc.

Just like I can't drive 100km/hr in a school zone or light a fire in my office kitchen.

This idea of "personal choice" is a nonsense.

We live in a highly regulated world where we are constantly assessing, pricing and regulating risk.

It's not "personal choice" when there is gigantic chance of a future litigation taken out by him against the AFL. Of course the AFL wants to reduce that future claim against themselves.

It's also a Future cost impost on the health system which will be paid for by the taxpayer.

So worksafe will also step in.

There is also a massive marketing Risk to the overall AFL.

He ain't bloody playing again and it ain't his choice.

Never should have been allowed back in the first place and I'll guarantee he ends up suing the AFL and the Swans. Utter stupidity.. AFL should have stopped the Swans from their stupidity two years ago.

Not sure if this is serious or not?

Adults must retain the right to do what they wish with their bodies providing they aren't breaking the law which Patrick isn't.

He should be informed of the risks by the AFL and the club. If he elects to continue playing, he takes ownership of the risks and waives rights for litigation.

Any other view is completely unacceptable in a free society.

Those that suggest otherwise are unwittingly calling for a society that over regulates and out right prohibits any basic personal freedom that may carry an element of risk.

It's saddening Australians continue to gravitate towards views that seek to make them caged animals. At this point, I don't know if that's what they want or out of sheer concern virtue signaling that they haven't thought through the repercussions.

 

[johhny virtual]

Everything I’ve read it’s not the big knocks causing CTE it’s the repeated smaller collisions which for inside mids would happen 15 plus times a game without including training.
.

Most of those bumps wouldn’t be of sufficient impact. I know when Ive had a brain rattler, and none have resulted in concussion. It’s those bumps that you rightly point out are equally dangerous as the concussions.




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I have not read the whole thread so sorry of this has been posted - but unless we want to see more of this on the field:


DISTURBING VISION: Ty Vickery collapses

Sad to say Paddy needs to be protected from himself. It is not his fault, he has done nothing wrong but his future quality of life needs to be protected.

And to say they cannot force him to retire is simply not true. I was terminated from a job because of a long term back injury preventing me from working regularly. Most employment contracts would have a clause that your fit for the role you are being employed for.

I hope he listens to the medical device and decides to retire for good this time. His health is far more important. I wish him and his family all the best.

But Sydney will have to just stop picking him won't they?

I mean, if you had a bloke that pinged his hammy every second week, you probably wouldn't select him either.

So it might be a decision that makes itself.

 

[tonygeeks]

People are medically retired all the time.
Coppers and Ambos being the common examples.
Would happen for pilots too.

What medical are you going to do on a person for concussion when the rest of their body is tip top

Hit them in the head with a cricket bat

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

AFL doctors aren’t there to give advice.

They are there to make tough calls on players to protect them and ensure a duty of care is there at all times.

What you are saying doctors should be allowed to do is blatant negligence and a complete failure in their duty of care to the players.

It will never happen.

Yeah that’s not blatant negligence. If a doctor says to Paddy I don’t think you should continue playing and then paddy decides he wants to, the doctor has done his duty and provided him with care and medical advice if he provides him with the full details of his assessment. If an individual ignores their doctors advice, that doesn’t mean the doctor has breached their duty of care as duty of care also can and does also incorporate providing advice.

No different to say a player does their shoulder and the doctor may recommend they go in for surgery but said player decides to hold off for the end of the year. Is the doctor held accountable if it’s then in a worse condition? No. They gave their advice and the player can either go ahead with it or not.

Say a player (or anyone) is diagnosed by their doctor they have cancer and they decide they aren’t going to have treatment when they know all the facts and risks. If they deteriorate is the doctor then held accountable for their negligence? No their not, they have given their medical advice but it wasn’t taken.

No different here except it’s a concussion and not another medical issue.

It’s not negligence IF the doctor has advised the player of their treatment options and prospects with 100% transparency and any and all risks associated with that.

This differs hugely to previous claims of negligence by the afl and clubs whereby doctors were not transparent about the players health and prospects and instead returned them to the field when they were unaware of the risks (aka, Picken).

If paddy is 100% informed by the doctors about the risks and future prospects of continuing to play and he understands them completely, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have failed their duty of care of acted negligently.

 

[PP34]

Yeah that’s not blatant negligence. If a doctor says to Paddy I don’t think you should continue playing and then paddy decides he wants to, the doctor has done his duty and provided him with care and medical advice if he provides him with the full details of his assessment. If an individual ignores their doctors advice, that doesn’t mean the doctor has breached their duty of care as duty of care also can and does also incorporate providing advice.

No different to say a player does their shoulder and the doctor may recommend they go in for surgery but said player decides to hold off for the end of the year. Is the doctor held accountable if it’s then in a worse condition? No. They gave their advice and the player can either go ahead with it or not.

Say a player (or anyone) is diagnosed by their doctor they have cancer and they decide they aren’t going to have treatment when they know all the facts and risks. If they deteriorate is the doctor then held accountable for their negligence? No their not, they have given their medical advice but it wasn’t taken.

No different here except it’s a concussion and not another medical issue.

It’s not negligence IF the doctor has advised the player of their treatment options and prospects with 100% transparency and any and all risks associated with that.

This differs hugely to previous claims of negligence by the afl and clubs whereby doctors were not transparent about the players health and prospects and instead returned them to the field when they were unaware of the risks (aka, Picken).

If paddy is 100% informed by the doctors about the risks and future prospects of continuing to play and he understands them completely, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have failed their duty of care of acted negligently.

Again you seem to be missing what the role of AFL team doctors is these days.

They are not simply there to give players advice on concussions.

When it comes to concussions in they are there to make sure the players adhere to strict protocols to protect them players from themselves. If they weren’t there doing that, we’d still have players running back out there such is their competitive nature and lack of long term thinking as young athletes. Plus concussions can vary so much. The little knock might be fine after a day or two. But another knock might happen a few weeks later and lead them to missing weeks with bad symptoms.

The AFL is never going to allow players to disregard medical advice when it comes to concussions. Lawyers will have a field day. Worksafe would have a field day.

You can’t just walk into a workplace and tell people there to stick their advice, I’ll put myself at risk. If they allow you to do that, they’re in all sorts of strife.

AFL doctors are not your local GP who can only give you advice. They play a much different role.

 

[Sentinel]

But Sydney will have to just stop picking him won't they?

I mean, if you had a bloke that pinged his hammy every second week, you probably wouldn't select him either.

So it might be a decision that makes itself.

Unlikely to be a factor when he's gotten through 27 games at the Swans until being brought down in his 28th.

I think the main factor here is that head knocks are apparently cumulative. This isn't a knee injury which heals over time and you can run out again after some decent rehab once its as good as new again. Without knowing the full details you cannot (at this point at least) call the club doctors negligent, but his susceptibility to concussions and his history of them, tied to the fact that every concussion had an additive effect, means at least the the layman that he should never see an AFL field again.

 

[WillHayward]

Speeding and Arson are illegal, playing AFL isn't (yet).

How do you define "illegal"?

You just mean something in the Crimes Act?

 

[WillHayward]

One thing we know about concussion is it's not a one policy for all.
Each individual is different.
Paddy has an individual susceptibility.

I look at it like drugs or durries.

Some people can have heaps and it doesn't impact them and some are more sensitive.

Some blokes can take heaps of head knocks and it doesn't impact them at all.

Needs to be an individual assessment.

 

[Glorfindel]

I was terminated from a job because of a long term back injury preventing me from working regularly. Most employment contracts would have a clause that your fit for the role you are being employed for.

Presuming Paddy recovers from this latest concussion, would he not be (medically) fit to play football?

 

[Muddiemoose]

Some good points you raise, but I don't think we'll ever have a practical helmet that performs to the ability that is needed to reduce concussion for AFL.

The main thing helmets can do in sport is reduce skull or facial injuries (eg NFL style helmet), or spread the force of a cricket ball over a larger area to reduce the impact at one point.

Having a 100kg footballer run into your head with force from a bump/collision is not something a helmet will be able to dissipate the energy.

I did some limited research into helmets over 25 years ago when I was in medical school. Sure helmets have evolved since then, but the brain has not.

Might be off the money and I have absolutely no expertise in the subject but I think I read helmets can also give players the idea that they are protected so end up going harder and in turn increasing the risk of an injury

 

[Glorfindel]

Might be off the money and I have absolutely no expertise in the subject but I think I read helmets can also give players the idea that they are protected so end up going harder and in turn increasing the risk of an injury

I don't know how strong the evidence supporting it is, but it is fairly universally accepted that helments = false sense of security and greater risk taking.

 

[WillHayward]

Yeah that’s not blatant negligence. If a doctor says to Paddy I don’t think you should continue playing and then paddy decides he wants to, the doctor has done his duty and provided him with care and medical advice if he provides him with the full details of his assessment. If an individual ignores their doctors advice, that doesn’t mean the doctor has breached their duty of care as duty of care also can and does also incorporate providing advice.

No different to say a player does their shoulder and the doctor may recommend they go in for surgery but said player decides to hold off for the end of the year. Is the doctor held accountable if it’s then in a worse condition? No. They gave their advice and the player can either go ahead with it or not.

Say a player (or anyone) is diagnosed by their doctor they have cancer and they decide they aren’t going to have treatment when they know all the facts and risks. If they deteriorate is the doctor then held accountable for their negligence? No their not, they have given their medical advice but it wasn’t taken.

No different here except it’s a concussion and not another medical issue.

It’s not negligence IF the doctor has advised the player of their treatment options and prospects with 100% transparency and any and all risks associated with that.

This differs hugely to previous claims of negligence by the afl and clubs whereby doctors were not transparent about the players health and prospects and instead returned them to the field when they were unaware of the risks (aka, Picken).

If paddy is 100% informed by the doctors about the risks and future prospects of continuing to play and he understands them completely, that doesn’t necessarily mean they have failed their duty of care of acted negligently.

How can he understand the risks completely if he's already compromised ?

His lawyers will just say he was already impacted and employer just let him do whatever he likes.

The lawyers will use the " personal choice" argument against the AFL.

I know I would.

Here is this bloke who is clearly impaired and U said hey sure mate if U want to play then that's good enough for us buddy.

 

[WillHayward]

So how many concussions equals AFL ban you? not saying they shouldn't step in, but whats the number?

That a really hard one
Should be some broad guidelines on it though?

5 within 5 years and Ur in the absolute high risk zone.

 

[Themanbun]

Might be off the money and I have absolutely no expertise in the subject but I think I read helmets can also give players the idea that they are protected so end up going harder and in turn increasing the risk of an injury

I think these are mostly studies around NFL hard helmets and boxing padded helmets, both of which increase the likelihood of contact due to sheer size and style of play.

It's a little different to rugby and footy where you generally try to keep your head out of the way and the soft shell helmets don't really make you feel invincible like hard or full face helmets can.

There is some preliminary evidence to suggest the newer style soft shell helmets (which aren't just foam) help reduce both linear and rotational force transfer to the head (rotational being the harder one to prevent), which is why world rugby is conducting more independent trials.

Almost every study to date for AFL and rugby has expressed frustration of the low compliance rate of participants.

If anyone is interested I can send some links but I don't want to clog up this thread with my ramblings.

 

[Glorfindel]

Almost every study to date for AFL and rugby has expressed frustration of the low compliance rate of participants

Wouldn't be directly transferable (or randomised but eh) but they could research juniors as many clubs mandate helmets at certain age groups.

 

[Glorfindel]

How can he understand the risks completely if he's already compromised ?

Do we know he's already compromised?
Would (or could) anyone definitely say he's compromised?
There's so much unknown that it would be hard to conclusively say either way.

edit
should clarify I mean compromised to the point where it's affecting his ability to make an informed decision (though the argument could be made about being compromised period given how little we actually know about the brain at this point in time).

 

[WillHayward]

Do we know he's already compromised?
Would (or could) anyone definitely say he's compromised?
There's so much unknown that it would be hard to conclusively say either way.

We don't know

But we've sent enough to apply the precautionary principle.

In ten years time if we say "oh we didn't know" it's just not gonna cut the mustard.

 

[Themanbun]

The worrying thing about CTE is that you can't diagnose it until after a person passes away. That makes it so hard to know where to draw the line as to whether or not he's already compromised too much.