• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Should athletes with heart problems be allowed to play?

tibor75

Banned
Wall Street Journal report highlights the debate over sidelining athletes with heart disease

New York, NY - A report in the July 25, 2006 Wall Street Journal highlights the difficult decisions faced by cardiologists in allowing some athletes with heart defects to return to the playing field [1]. While the American College of Cardiology last year reaffirmed recommendations against competitive sports for athletes with various heart defects, including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, not all doctors take that view.

Reporters Kathryn Kranhold and Kevin Helliker turn the spotlight on Dr David Cannom (Good Samaritan Hospital, Los Angeles, CA), noting he has earned a reputation as the "go-to physician for players wanting to stay in the game." According to the article, Cannom believes athletes with heart irregularities face little risk of sudden death and that the use of defibrillators allows athletes with some heart conditions to safely compete in big-time athletics, including the college and professional ranks.

The questions over allowing athletes to play raises issues of free will, medical ethics, and legal liability, write the reporters.

"Is the love of sports—and the dream of a professional career—worth risking death?" write Kranhold and Helliker. "Should doctors be in the position of prohibiting adults from playing? What's the difference between competing with a heart defect and pursuing risky adventures like climbing Mount Everest? Should fans be forced to watch a player risk his life?"

Some athletes allowed to play on
Will Kimble, a basketball player at Pepperdine University, fainted during a 2002 practice, and with that, his hopes of continuing his college career, as well as any chance of a career in National Basketball Association (NBA), appeared to vanish. Diagnosed with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, Pepperdine administrators benched the player, with the school not willing to risk his health.

He sought out Cannom, who evaluated the player and didn't believe his career needed to be over. After putting in an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, he cleared Kimble to play. According to the article, Cannom, a former long-distance runner, believes athletes should be free to pursue their passion and that athletes should be evaluated individually.


"A lot of this is trying to be a patient advocate," he said. Automatic bans are an easy out for doctors, he says, because when you say no, "You're never wrong."

Cannom, who also cleared NBA basketball star Eddy Curry to play after he experienced an arrhythmia during a 2005 pregame workout, doesn't believe all athletes with heart disease can play competitively. Football players are ruled out, as the bruising contact could damage the ICD. Cannom also put a high-school soccer player on the sidelines for two years because of the nature of her heart disease. He currently looks after 15 competitive athletes, primarily water-polo and basketball players.

Dr Paul Thompson (Hartford Hospital, CT), a marathon runner who once qualified for the Olympic trials, has also diagnosed many athletes with dangerous cardiac conditions. He has cleared athletes previously benched by other cardiologists, telling the Journal, "[W]hen you tell an athlete he can't compete anymore, a part of him dies."

Not all cardiologists, however, agree that such athletes, even with a defibrillator, should be given the green light to play.

"Division One college basketball is a contact sport," Dr Barry Maron (Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation, MN) is quoted as telling the Journal. He does not believe defibrillators eliminate all the risks. Athletes with heart defects needlessly endanger their lives, often in the pursuit of riches a professional contract would deliver, he said. Moreover, the US Armed Forces, as well as most fire and police departments, disqualify recruits for a variety of conditions, including heart defects. (Uh, last I checked professional athletes don't have the lives of other people in their hands as those who pursue these professions do)

The Journal reports that Antwoine Key died of undiagnosed hypertrophic cardiomyopathy during a college basketball game last year. Diagnosed with a heart murmur, medical records showed no evidence that either the doctor who found the murmur or representatives of two college teams that received his records ever sent him for the necessary follow-up testing. "He would never have kept playing if he knew he had this problem," said Anthony Key, the boy's father.


It is not clear whether defibrillators reduce the risk of sudden death for athletes, and some doctors worry that an ICD won't withstand the rigors of competition, the Journal reports. Moreover, a blow to the chest or shoulder could damage the electrical leads. Currently, the number of players who continue to play competitively is small, although Cannom is conducting a study examining the risks of playing sports with an ICD.
 
"Is the love of sports—and the dream of a professional career—worth risking death?" write Kranhold and Helliker. "Should doctors be in the position of prohibiting adults from playing? What's the difference between competing with a heart defect and pursuing risky adventures like climbing Mount Everest? Should fans be forced to watch a player risk his life?"

Ummm... when did Doctors get the idea that they can prohibit an individual from doing anything? They surely can make strong recommendations, but at the end of the day, the individual chooses whether to ignore them or comply.

The questions over allowing athletes to play raises issues of free will, medical ethics, and legal liability, write the reporters.

Free will? The issue is raised only because people seem to think it would be anyone elses decision as to what an individual athlete (adult) does.

Medical Ethics? Again, when did Doctors become compelled to control other people's decision on how to act based on their recommendations? Your job is to inform me of my condition, and my risks. Thanks.

Liability? Did the Doctor miss an obvious heart problem which he should have seen, and warned the player about? Yes? Fine. Liable. Did he find the problem, warn the player? Yes? Fine. Not liable. Did he find the problem, and not tell the patient? Fine. Liable. etc.

Has something changed here?


In short, who gives a fuck. If you're the one with the condition, then YOU might give a fuck, but this is a comlete non issue.. on the other hand, we're all busy-bodies, so I guess we have to make it "our issue" as well.
 
Upvote 0
Your opinions are fine if dealing with individual sports, but no college or pro team would ever have you play if a doctorb didn't clear you. Heck, even in individual sports, the organization holding the tournament wouldn't let you play without a doctorb's ok.
 
Upvote 0
Your opinions are fine if dealing with individual sports, but no college or pro team would ever have you play if a doctorb didn't clear you. Heck, even in individual sports, the organization holding the tournament wouldn't let you play without a doctorb's ok.

Yeah, I suppose that's true enough and it does complicate the issue (ie, does a Doctor "lie" to the institution about the status of the patient). But, at the end of the day, it's still the athlete's choice (in my view) as to whether he wants to risk his life or not.
 
Upvote 0
Should dead athletes' families by allowed to sue the team when their deceased loved ones went to the 'go-to' doctorb to be cleared to play?

if the doctor withheld information from the athlete which caused him/her to make an uneducated decision, yes. if the doctor tells the athlete all the risks involved then of course not. i think it also depends on who had the athlete see the "go to" doctor.
 
Upvote 0
Yeah, I suppose that's true enough and it does complicate the issue (ie, does a Doctor "lie" to the institution about the status of the patient). But, at the end of the day, it's still the athlete's choice (in my view) as to whether he wants to risk his life or not.
If a doctor says no, there's a pretty good chance that the owners, coaches, or whoever is in charge is going to side with the doctor. The money at risk if they knowingly put an unhealthy athlete on the playing field is too great to risk.
 
Upvote 0
If a doctor says no, there's a pretty good chance that the owners, coaches, or whoever is in charge is going to side with the doctor. The money at risk if they knowingly put an unhealthy athlete on the playing field is too great to risk.

Yeah, I understand that as well. But, even then, it's not the Doctor's decision, it's merely him providing the info he's been 'hired' to provide.

And, you hit on the real issue, to the teams the real issue is money, not health (at least where pro ball is concerned), although there is the convienent (and not wholly untrue, I would think) "excuse" that they're protecting lives.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top