In recent years, the increased number of concussions experienced by those under the age of 18 has simultaneously encourage its controversy. However, as pediatrician Stephen M. Rothman argues, this has been a movement formed under false pretenses, since there is no way the injuries experienced by the youth are any way comparable to those experienced by long-term professional athletes who do not take the safety precautions necessary to avoid further head trauma. Furthermore, the evolution of the definition of a concussion itself has allowed the continuation of this unnecessary reaction.
Firstly, Rossman states that the speed that which students are rushed into medical services that undoubtedly barr them from some of the healthiest activities that people of their age can participate in is unfortunate because of the over weight issue that still prevails in country. Students are more encouraged to take unnecessary precautions due to insufficient standards evident at the professional level. For instance, there are certain precautionary methods that should take place after a student has a concussion: ‘if the patient is still asymptomatic after two weeks, she can return to normal play.
But if an athlete experiences two concussions in a single season, she must sit out the remainder of the season and possibly return the next year.’ (Rothman, pg. 1) Parents ironically negatively react to concussions, when professional concussions are never treated as they medically should. Professional are often urge to get back into the field as soon as possible, potentially worsening their injuries and leading to chronic issues for their later years. As long as students take the precautions by remaining inactive after their concussion to prove that their injuries are asymptomatic, then all should go well as planned.
Secondly, the concussions that children have from playing sports in the short amount of time that they have is completely on the other side of the spectrum of professionals who have been at the receiving end of worse injuries. This issue is compounded by the fact that the term concussion has had its own evolution over the years. In 1977, a concussion used to be understood as something that which was experience by someone who had lost consciousness.
However, in 2013, the term became used whenever any of the symptoms where experienced such as, “headaches, amnesia and sensitivity to light and sound — but not necessarily loss of consciousness.“ (Rothman, pg. 1) in other words, The public’s reaction to increased concussions over the years has been due to this change of definition. So while the number of concussions has not necessarily increased over time, it appears as if they have. As a result, people have become more worried about a subject to an unnecessary degree.
In conclusion, Rothman’s article which pleads to parents to worry less about the concussions their children experience is accurate. Since young athletes cannot be compared to experienced ones because of the shorter time that which they have played and the harsher quality of their injuries, and also because the definition of a concussion has altered over these last previous decades, it is silly to perpetuate this frenzied reaction. Instead, those involved should see whether or not the impact of the hit has resulted in a serious trauma by waiting to see whether or not symptoms arise within the first 2 weeks. In this time the student will not remain physically active, but if this trial proves their good health, then they should be able to return to their sport without fear. It is only with this tactic that the controversy behind the concussion may finally cease.