Responsibility and freedom

[Denny Crane!]

CONTACT SPORTS

This article is inspired by the call of a doctor to ban contested scrums in Rugby. When eight players lock together and contest the ball against another team. The reason for this? According to the doctor over thirty years at nottingham club three men have suffered spinal injury in scrums, and three at away matches. Two players are very badly and permanently hurt, wheelchair bound. So it is a violent game, that could be improved. It is culpibale negligence to not improve it.

This is a combative sport though, to remove it would change the whole nature of a very popular game. Should this game be sacrificed in the name of safety? Well it is interesting to compare it to other sports. There are 24000 deaths worldwide per year attributed to fishing. There have been 144 deaths from boxing in the UK aside from the related neurological illnesses that can occur in professional boxing. Climbing has been in the news recently over the controversy of climbers leaving a dying man to reach the summit. There are many dangerous sports out there, with inherent risks. Unfortunately life has inherent risks. We cannot remove risks from life.

Shall we also look at the death toll for various other sources and realise that it is ridiculous to try and curtail activities that people enter into with a free will with a relatively small risk of injury for the sake of saving a small number of people. Take this course of action to its logical conclusion and we are looking at a ban on all contact sports.

This is an issue that is close to my heart as people make judgements on activities they percieve to be dangerous but actually have no idea of the actual facts and figures of the notion. People view the mixed martial arts as being brutal because of its no holds barred rules and yet the people who fight in it actually take less damage than a boxer and there are fewer injuries and no deaths yet it is only now gaining acceptance.

It does raise an interesting issue on how do we measure the idea of responisibility of the government to protect us from ourselves and allow us our freedom. I have recently seen two threads with contradictory ideas. People say they want freedom amongst other things, but then we support the idea of representative democracy where the government does what it thinks is best for us. It represents our interests not our freedoms. It limits our freedoms in the name of our best interest.

So at what point is intervention neccessary? Does a 100 injuries require it if they are serious, 100 or a 1000 or 10000?

Can we actually expect to remove all risk from life? Apparently some people feel anywhere where there is an inherent risk then we should intervene to stop it if it is possible.

Peter

[Søren]

I would tend to think that matters such as this - entered into by the free will of consenting adults - should not be regulated by health authorities or government.

People should be able to choose to take part in dangerous activity such as this, and the state should not interfere so far as to restrict them from doing so.

[Denny Crane!]

I would tend to think that matters such as this - entered into by the free will of consenting adults - should not be regulated by health authorities or government.

People should be able to choose to take part in dangerous activity such as this, and the state should not interfere so far as to restrict them from doing so.

Smoking? It kills 105000 people a year in a country of 60000000 which is quite a high proportion, not to mention the related respiratory problems and financial burdens (and gains). This country is limiting the freedom of people to engage in this activity.

Speeding same country (UK) limiting the freedom of people to act as they will, in this case the figures vary 3000 pedestrian deaths but I am not sure how many deaths of drivers. It will be high though no where near the above figure by any means.

So if you can agree on the above restrictions, in principle you agree with intervention. If not you are laissez faire although I must say the consensus amongst representative democracy in the west is not to be.


Peter

[Søren]

Smoking? It kills 105000 people a year in a country of 60000000 which is quite a high proportion, not to mention the related respiratory problems and financial burdens (and gains). This country is limiting the freedom of people to engage in this activity.

In places where it causes third-party damage to others, yes. The point is the third-party damage to non consenting persons.

Speeding same country (UK) limiting the freedom of people to act as they will, in this case the figures vary 3000 pedestrian deaths but I am not sure how many deaths of drivers. It will be high though no where near the above figure by any means.

People being run over by speeding drivers are not consenting, unlike two teams in a game.

So if you can agree on the above restrictions, in principle you agree with intervention. If not you are laissez faire although I must say the consensus amongst representative democracy in the west is not to be.

Peter

See above points, for why I would feel that the two are not necessarly mutually necessary.

[Denny Crane!]

In places where it causes third-party damage to others, yes. The point is the third-party damage to non consenting persons.

People being run over by speeding drivers are not consenting, unlike two teams in a game.

See above points, for why I would feel that the two are not necessarly mutually necessary.[/QUOTE]


OK very good.

So how far do you think the government should intervene on health matters? I am thinking diet amongst other things, smoking in the home and alcohol?

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...e/article/324/

My favorite site of the month, and worth reading. Alcohol is next in the sights of the EU. Quite possibly with good reason. The effects of alcohol especially in Britain (the binge drinking culture) reach far and wide beyond the individual user. If legislation is to be made in reference to the effect the subject has on unwilling participants like smoking then alcohol certainly qualifies.

When we measure consent do we take into account wether or not people consent to allocate money to the cost that something like alcohol creates (estimates in article very high). There is also the cost in crime, and social implications of alcohol use that are inflicted upon others.

Should we regulate this based on the evidence?

An exerpt from the article:

Mill was keenly aware of the dangers of linking spiralling social harms with individual behaviour. ‘So monstrance a principle is far more dangerous than any single interference with liberty’, he wrote (13). ‘There is no violation of liberty which it would not justify; it acknowledges no right to any freedom whatsoever, except perhaps that of holding opinions in secret, without ever disclosing them: for the moment an opinion which I consider noxious passes anyone’s lips, it invades all the “social rights” attributed to me by the Alliance.’ Anderson’s report and a future EU strategy will be relatively light on legislation – but, as Mill argues, the principle is more important than any particular act of law.


The black Prince:
they have accepted the risk, and should be allowed to continue

Would you consider extending this idea beyond sport or do you feel the government has a duty to interfere on behalf of the people in certain situations where the risk is consented to. Edit: For clarity I will give an example, smoking kills. Should it be banned?

Peter

[Søren]

El Guapo :

I would think that the government's interference should only extend to when a persons health is dangerous to other, non-consenting persons.

I believe that adults should be given the degree of responsibility to be allowed to abuse their bodies through smoking, excessive drinking or dangerous sports. Providing that they are 'of sane mind'.

The only time when the state should intervene, IMO, is when the person's actions are posing a risk to others. An example of this would be excessive drinking in public places - leading to drunk and disorderly behaviour. Another would be smoking in public areas.

The role of the state in policing is to stop individuals from harming others, not 'nannying' responsible adult citizens, in my opinion.

Diet should certianly not be regulated.

[the Black Prince]

my starting point is english law, which says there is no crime committed if, in the normal course of play, you injure another play, or cause him to be injured, your conduct being within the rules and accepted practices of the sport.

in others words, if you're playing properly, and accidents happen, the law won't hold you responsible. the reasoning behind this is of course thatif you play a sport, you accept, that in the normal course of events, you may be injured. any activity that taxes or pushes the human body is liable to cause you injury, simply by not warming up properly.

take my own cherished sport. people have DIED fencing, let alone been injured. its a risk we take, a risk we accept when participating in the sport. despite wearing several layers of protective clothing when fencing, a total protection across my chest able to withstand a force of up to 700N, and 1600N across my face, i still get knocks every training sessions, occasionally bruises if i'm hit to often in the same place, i've been to hospital with bruisded ribs, and i put someone else in hospital when i tore the ligaments in his right arms. thats part of the fun... or at least, part of the game. as far as fencing goes, anyone who takes part in a sport that actively involves stabbing the othe opponent with a metal stick and doesn't expect to get injured every so often ought to have his head examined. despite the best efforts of the Fédération Internationale d'Escrime and the British Fencing Association to clothe us all in plate armour, accidents will still happen.


there have only been 7 fatalities since 1937, all involving top level fencers including the notable death of World Champion Vladmir Smirnov, defending his title in the '82 world championships. so i feel pretty confident. fencing is afterall, actually safer, in terms of injury rates, than football.


my point is, if people choose to participate in a sport, knowing the inherant risks involved, they do of their own free will, and their so long as the sport event is conducted within the rules, any injury that occurs is an unfortunate result of the game. no intervention is necessary. we cannot, and indeed should not remove all risks from life. people seek to challenge themselves, to push thermselves further... some by achieving events such as climbing everest (recently completed by 2 16 yr olds) or swimming to alcatraz and back (recently completed by a 7 yr old boy). other people seek the challenge by competing in sports with various risk factors. so long as the risk is known, and they still to choose to participate, they have accepted the risk, and should be allowed to continue

[the Black Prince]

well... you mention speeding for instance...
a speeding driver may consent to the risk, but a pedestrian and other road users may not.

the law commission and judges make a point of balancing the harm and potential risk with the social err, for want of a better word, merit of the activity.

sports have a great deal of social merit, promoting team work being just 1 example.

speeding has non, accept in the more controlled environment of motorsport. therefore speeding is an unacceptable risk, compared to sports.


a recent (2004) House of Lords case involved a situation where a natural lake in a country park in cheshire was potentially dangerous. the local council and county council had taken a number of measures to prevent people diving into the lake, including employing park wardens. the courts decided that short of planting a hedge or building a wall all the way around the lake, there was no way the council could prevent someone entering it in a dangerous manner (i.e. diving) and that building such a hedge was "absurd to the extreme" since it would destroy and damage an area of natural beauty, with massive social functionability for a great many people. therefore when some idiot jumped of a small cliff into the lake and broke his neck, he was told in no uncertain terms he could not sue the council, because it was his own fault and he should take responsibility for his actions. (i think the case was Tomlinson v Congleton District Council 2004)

basically, in situations where social function outweighs risk, there can be an acceptable level of risk. in sport, there is always an acceptable level of risk, to be determined by the national or international governing bodies of the sports in laying down the rules.

[Denny Crane!]

well... you mention speeding for instance...
a speeding driver may consent to the risk, but a pedestrian and other road users may not.

the law commission and judges make a point of balancing the harm and potential risk with the social err, for want of a better word, merit of the activity.

basically, in situations where social function outweighs risk, there can be an acceptable level of risk. in sport, there is always an acceptable level of risk, to be determined by the national or international governing bodies of the sports in laying down the rules.

I think I can move away from the original idea of sports, I did not agree with the idea and you have me sufficiently convinced the government would never consider legislation against it; but it did lead me on to the idea of the nanny state.

My thoughts were running along the lines of is a "nanny" state such a bad thing,

Replace the word nanny with the word parent to remove the connotations the name brings and consider it. The public as a rule are relatively incapable of making informed choices. There diet is terrible, they smoke, drink excessively and cannot regulate there own finances. It is essentially a conflict between materialism, capatilism and the social needs. We are to easily influenced by materialistic/sensualistic needs and advertising that it reaches the level where the government feels the need to legislate (or it is advised to).

To draw off the main ideas in your post what are the merits or social functions of certain activities that are harmful to us and what is the practicality of legislating against them not to mention wether we should restrict the liberty of people. Is social function more important than liberty?

I am a long time supporter of the legalisation of cannabis, however, to argue from a merit of activity point of view drugs in general (particularly alcohol and tobacco) are more harmful than good.

Is it simply the practicality that stops the government banning these substances alltogether?

EDIT: I have read the two posts you both have written since I was writing this (please understand as a supporter of legalisation I agree with you but I am just exploring unfamiliar territory) public opinion seems to be weighing against this idea of personal responsibility. The arguement used by the EU in the case against alcohol is the social cost and financial cost is to high and thus it should be legislated against. A survey of the public in the UK by the Kings commision, a small survey so probably flawed, indicate the public favour government interventionism.


Peter

[the Black Prince]

i'm with TBN over this...

people should be free to do what they like, so long as what they do does not harm anyone else or they consent to the harm
the exception to that should be that consent to the harm be restricted to the current legal position on consenting to assault (i.e. Sport etc)

[Erik]

I think the government has a duty to point out health risks, but they should not ban people from taking those risks except in some extreme cases.

The sports example is rather silly because doing sports is more healthy than not doing sports, even with the risk of injuries. (ie: overweight is a bigger problem than a few spinal injuries)

Drugs is a better example because most governments ban people from taking drugs and even throw drug users in jail "to protect themselves".
This to me is increadibly stupid because especially with soft-drugs the "cure" (jail->getting unemployed->crime to stay alive->more jailtime->etc.) is worst than the thing they try to protect them from (studend life->some drug use->graduation->stop using drugs->steady job)

But there are also some grey areas like base jumping and train surfing (sitting/standing on top of trains going up to 140km/h).
I think the government should ban train surfing but not base jumping, but I'm not sure where I would put this line exactly.

[carl-the-conqueror]

people should do what they want if that was banned in rugby people would either ignore it or make a new sport