Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle
...I work a very stressful job. This has a direct impact on my mental and physical health, and despite my company not educating me on that, I'm well aware of it. If someday I decide i've had enough and commit harm to myself or I have a heart attack is it's my firm's fault? Would it be reasonable for my family to sue my firm because they directly caused me mental and physical anguish? I don't think it is.
|
I don't think this analogy is a good one. You are attempting to draw comparisons between repairable mental and physical ailments and a permanent, incurable neurological condition. High stress is serious, but I don't believe is reasonably classified by anyone as life threatening, in large part because it is well understood and treatable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheAlpineOracle
...These law suits are a very slippery slope, and are just as applicable to other professions as they are professional athletes. At some point a grown adult must take responsibilities for their own actions, or lack of action to mitigate their own risk. We aren't talking about children here.
|
Not all actions are equal though. The consequences for some are much, MUCH more serious than for others, and if there is not proper access to information about the dangers of these especially damaging activities and behaviours, then we cannot be made to be responsible for things we cannot know.
Besides, this is more than merely about culpability. At some level, certain actions and behaviours are simply too dangerous and life threatening to permit under any reasonable circumstances. I would set the danger of CTE in this context: We know that fighting in hockey is a primary contributor to CTE, and we have it within our power to prevent it. Under these conditions, there should be no good reason to continue to enable fighting in hockey.