Thread: Minnesota Lawmaker Wants to Violate Lou Gehrig's Medical Records

Btw,for all of the non-Americans and Americans alike who want to see a great movie about Gerhig, watch "Pride of the Yankees" starring Gary Cooper as Gerhig.

Originally Posted by Theseus

They do wear helmets that, when properly fitted, will greatly reduce concussions and other head trauma. Problem is that players don't like to wear their helmets fitted properly because a properly fitted helmet is really uncomfortable and somewhat restricting when it comes to moving your head.

Helmet safety improvements have led to an increased rate of concussions because the head is now used as a weapon. Players today are taught to lead with their head when tackling, i.e. "Put your head in his gut!" If you really want to limit concussions, go back to the old leather helmets. No one will lead with their head anymore.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Helmet safety improvements have led to an increased rate of concussions because the head is now used as a weapon. Players today are taught to lead with their head when tackling, i.e. "Put your head in his gut!" If you really want to limit concussions, go back to the old leather helmets. No one will lead with their head anymore.

I actually saw a study done a couple of years ago that concluded that the old leather helmets were actually safer than modern helmets because they mold to the shape of the head, adding full coverage with little to no space between the helmet and head.

Theseus--
It's the space between the helmet and the head that provides the best protection, allowing the helmet to slide across the surface of the skull upon impact as opposed to the helmet directly transferring the energy from the impact directly to the skull. I know, because I had mine knocked off once or twice in my career.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Theseus--
It's the space between the helmet and the head that provides the best protection, allowing the helmet to slide across the surface of the skull upon impact as opposed to the helmet directly transferring the energy from the impact directly to the skull. I know, because I had mine knocked off once or twice in my career.

True, but reread my post about players not wearing properly fitted helmets. I know that back in my football days, we wore the old air bladder helmets. If they weren't aired up correctly, you could cause serious damage to your head with even the slightest hit. Believe me, I know.

Originally Posted by mapleleafalumnus

Bruno --
End of debate.

Not entirely. One of the points made in the article was that Lou himself always was in favor of being tested and checked in the hope that something useful could be gleaned from his medical records. If the case can be made that he would have wanted it, the debate is certainly not over. That is also why deathbed confessions / written wills and verbal wills have legal standing.

Just because you don't agree with one of the outcomes doesn't mean there is no debate to be had.

Originally Posted by Bruno

On the other hand... the guy has been dead for a while, and it could be medically relevant.

Steal a guy's ring from his casket after 50 years of burial and you're a graverobber.
Steal a guy's ring from his casket after 500 years of burial and you're a respected archaeologist.



Look, I don't think absolutes are any good. Not in one way and not in the other.
Let's take typhoid mary as an example.
Typhoid Mary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When Typhoid Mary died after many years of involuntary confinement, autopsy showed she was indeed an a-symptomatic carrier of the disease. She was not sick, and rejected all requests for her to be tested. After her first quarantaine, she schanged her name and again spread disease and death.

She spent the rest of her life in quarantaine when she was found for the second time, still denying there was anything wrong, still rejecting tests. So she was really involuntary detained, with only circumstantial evidence.

Was it wrong to violate her rights and thus save countless lives?
Or would it have been right to respect her privacy and destroy countless lives?

Is it OK to commit one evil in order to prevent multiple evils? Or, two wrongs don't make a right. But three lefts do.

"Compelling need to promote and/or maintain public safety." Now that is a scary concept. One that can justify the disolution of any barrier providing protection of individual privacy or property.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

It would have to be conducted as a "blind" study. A bit like a pinata....

James.

But think of all the candy you'd get to eat first..... oh, but the wrappers - PASS

Originally Posted by onimaru55

I thought you guys wear helmets to play football.

<> Oy, Oy, Oy!!!