web page She has 2 kids. The article says they'll most likely take her off life support soon.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
How very sad for her family. My sympathy and best wishes go out to them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Terrible and tragic. [And, as Belle said, those involved certainly have my sympathies and best wishes.]
As an aside--which I would not mention right now if I thought there was any chance her family would read here, but I will because it is important and timely--this is what helmets are for. Helmets displace the force of impact and protect the brain from damage, helping prevent just this kind of injury.
She was fine after the fall, at least for awhile. Talking, laughing, declining to see a physician (from reports). And yet the damage was still there, taking time to make itself manifest.
We talk sometimes about how our kids are overprotected, how we never wore helmets when riding bikes or skiing (or, for some of us, even seatbelts). There is indeed a tradeoff. Just please be aware of the reality of what is being traded as you make decisions for yourselves and your families.
---
Edited to add: Traumatic brain injury is the most frequent cause of disability and death in US children and adolescents. If we are afraid of anything in protecting our children's health, this should be it.
[ March 18, 2009, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
When I was hit by a truck while riding a bike in Germany, a paragraph and picture appeared in the local paper, and the text said "The damage would not have been as great if she had been wearing a helmet."
I'm pretty sure I wasn't meant to see that. But they weren't wrong.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Rest assured, I won't take out an advertisement or write a letter to the editor in the local paper of that ski resort. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:We talk sometimes about how our kids are overprotected, how we never wore helmets when riding bikes or skiing (or, for some of us, even seatbelts). There is indeed a tradeoff. Just please be aware of the reality of what is being traded as you make decisions for yourselves and your families.
At the same time, the existence of one (or even many) incidents like this does not mean kids aren't sometimes overprotected. People should be aware of what is being traded off on both sides.
For instance, some people could look at this and say this shows it's worth the time to put on a helmet if it keeps you safe from injuries like this - that's probably true. But others might look at this and say this shows it's worth never skiing if it keeps you safe from injuries like this - that's probably not as true.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This just makes me sad.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Oh, my heart goes out to her kids and her family. It's so hard, and must be so much harder with the press trying to get pictures and information. On a completely personal note, it feels weird; I just watched Parent Trap two days ago. She's lovely. I'm sad.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert: But others might look at this and say this shows it's worth never skiing if it keeps you safe from injuries like this - that's probably not as true.
Yeah, that would be the whole "there is indeed a tradeoff" and "make decisions for yourselves and your families" part.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that this is making me particularly sad because we "know" so many of her family.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
She just passed away, according to CNN breaking news My thoughts go out to her family and loved ones.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
At this point, I'm just hoping the media has the particulars wrong. Very sad to hear.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Vanessa Redgrave's daughter!
EDIT: And Liam Nesson's wife?! I had no idea! Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't want her to be dead.
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
While I do not know much of her work I certainly feel for Liam Neeson, I hope he and his can cope with this lose.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Oh, their poor family.
(I hope Liam Neeson is not Super Guilt Person the way I am; because if I were Liam Neeson, I would feel like it was completely my fault for being in a movie where my character's wife had just died.)
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The Globe and Mail has a longish article on the incident, including more information on the skiing conditions. (Richardson succumbs to head injury)
---
In a paroxysm of irony, the G&M Life section has a concurrent "humorous" essay of the very sort I was talking about above:
My daughter's world is quite unlike my childhood. Her world is full of safety devices, toy recalls, peanut-free classrooms and smoke-free environments. It's a wonder I ever survived my youth. ... We didn't have all the safety apparel for sports that we do today. I thought it would be a good idea to sign up my daughter for skating lessons since she received her first pair of ice skates this past Christmas. That's when I discovered it's mandatory for kids to wear a hockey helmet approved by the Canadian Standards Association. They also suggested that she wear a face mask for extra protection. Whatever happened to the good old days when falling down and smacking your head on the ice meant seeing stars. ...
It's in striking contrast to this excerpt from the first article:
quote:“When you have a head trauma, you can bleed. It can deteriorate in a few hours or a few days,” Mr. Coderre said. “People don't realize it can be very serious. We warn them they can die, and sometimes they start to laugh. They don't take it seriously.”
Falling down and smacking your head on the ice never meant just seeing stars. It meant sometimes "just seeing stars," but also a substantial number of times it meant a more serious injury. (Again, traumatic brain injury is the leading cause of death and disability in children and adolescents, both for the US and for Canada.) However, we used not to hear so much about how many substantial injuries there were: national databases were not regularly accessible, and illness or death more often meant silence and hushed tones than shared information.
Wearing a helmet is a way to pursue dangerous sports more safely. It isn't a guarantee, but it also doesn't mean giving up the sport altogether.
---
Added: I can't imagine the agony her husband and children are going through. This is truly terrible. If she was taken off life support, someone had to make that decision, and making that kind of decision is itself a trauma many surviving family members never fully recover from.
[ March 19, 2009, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Of note, one major reason to seek medical assessment in such situations even if one feels fine is that oftentimes rising pressure in the skull cavity can be detected on physical exam--detected early enough to address it and prevent longterm damage.
When a physician or EMS person looks into the eye with a bright light through an opthalmoscope, this is one of the primary things being looked for. If there is heightened pressure, the edges of the optic nerve disk become blurred as they swell out. That development can be visible in the back of the eye even when the person feels just fine: talking, laughing, maybe even refusing medical assessment because they feel fine.
Usually such heightened pressure is caused by bleeding into the enclosed skull cavity. That blood can be safely drained in most cases, and that is effective treatment. Without such treatment, if the pressure continues to rise, the person gets a headache, develops altered consciousness, passes out, and--as the soft brain is forced out through the only opening it has, which is the hole at the base of the skull by the brainstem--dies.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
My husband always checks the kids pupils after any bump to see if they are round, reactive and symmetrical. Though I hadn't heard that about the optic nerve disk.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
In a paroxysm of irony, the G&M Life section has a concurrent "humorous" essay of the very sort I was talking about above:
"Awww, you're just a bunch of nervous Nellies! Besides, safety equipment isn't fun!"
Injury and death: Even less fun than wearing a helmet.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
I hate that article too, for a lot of different reasons. Can I please elaborate on why I hate it -- even though I know most of you agree with me? It would make me feel better. Thanks.
quote: My daughter's world is quite unlike my childhood.
Duh. Your childhood was thirty years ago. Did you expect everything to stay the same?
quote: I don't remember toy recalls, although I'm sure most of the things we played with were laden with toxins. My younger brother used to chew on his painted crib — it was probably lead paint.
People get lead poisoning. That's a fact. It's not so hard to make sure your toys and your point don't have lead in them.
quote: Out of boredom I would suck on my offering before it was collected in church. I can still remember the metallic taste of the coins. This probably helped boost my immune system — I don't recall catching as many colds as my daughter seems to get. Now I carry hand sanitizer in my purse and slather it on her after she even looks at money.
Well, that's a dumb thing to do.
quote: I don't remember my parents censoring what we watched on our black-and-white television. Mind you, we could only get about three channels, and that was on a clear day. Reality shows didn't exist so we had to watch shows with plots. Actors played roles in functional families and dialogue didn't require bleeping out every other word. Talk shows were about people talking, not throwing stage props.
Get down off your high horse. It's as simple as turning off American Idol and watching The Office or Scrubs.
quote: Text messaging was secretly passing handwritten notes to a friend during class. The few electronic gadgets we had were attached to an outlet, not to our heads or hands.
Times change. Get used to it. Do you expect technology to always remain in the same stage? You probably just wish you knew how to text.
quote: We didn't have all the safety apparel for sports that we do today. I thought it would be a good idea to sign up my daughter for skating lessons since she received her first pair of ice skates this past Christmas. That's when I discovered it's mandatory for kids to wear a hockey helmet approved by the Canadian Standards Association. They also suggested that she wear a face mask for extra protection. Whatever happened to the good old days when falling down and smacking your head on the ice meant seeing stars.
Even without the glaring example of what just happened to Natasha Richardson, this is just plain dumb. I'm a skater and I have seen countless skaters being taken to the hospital because of head injuries over the years. It isn't funny, and beginner skaters should DEFINITELY wear helmets.
quote: Now I find myself on the coldest day in January struggling to get my four-year-old strapped into her Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards-approved car seat. It's quite the time consuming and strenuous feat to get the seatbelt to stretch across her snowsuit-clad body.
Oh no, you have to put a seatbelt your kid. I'm so sorry. Don't you know that car accidents are one of the leading causes of death? I know I can think of three or four acquaintances who have died in a car accident, in some cases because they weren't wearing a seatbelt -- can't everybody? Is it really that hard?
quote: Not long after my daughter started junior kindergarten, a note came home informing us that her school would be having lockdown drills in the event of an emergency. When I was in school the only weapons a kid might have on them would have been a slingshot or a plastic straw and tiny wads of paper.
This is the only point in the whole article I almost agree with, although I would still never write it in a public article, as I would be sure that someone would pull out a bunch of statistics on me.
quote: My daughter's world is different and I fully understand this is all for her safety and well-being. But am I the only one still struggling to open the childproof lock on an Advil bottle?
Nothing written in this article has not been said thirty times already. The author is just snobby and wants to prove she has better taste and judgment that everyone else -- which is probably not true. Just because it hasn't happened to you yet doesn't mean it won't happen to you in the future. Also, times change -- deal with it.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
There is a tradeoff and there is a balance that needs to be sought. I am as anti over-protectionism as I am a casual attitude toward safety that could cause serious injury.
You have to consider that sometimes safety measures can wind up costing you more than you gain. For example, my husband is a firefighter. A while back, they came out with Nomex hoods designed to protect firefighters and reduce the risk of burns on the face and head. Great, wonderful idea.
However, they shielded your ears and insulated them from the heat. Now, an old firefighter's adage was when your ears are burning, it's time to get out. When they felt their ears getting too hot, the fire was too hot for safety and it was time to pull out of the building. The new hoods did such a good job insulating their ears from the heat, they no longer had a good gauge on the heat of the fire...and some got seriously injured because they stayed too long. They also lowered the firefighter's ability to hear...and their hearing is already highly compromised in a fire with their helmets, breathing masks,water rushing and things falling around them. More than one firefighter has lost his life because he could not hear his officer telling him to abandon the building because a roof or floor was about to collapse.
Does that mean Nomex hoods are a bad idea and not worth using? Of course not...but it illustrates that sometimes in our rush to protect people we don't think things all the way through. What has made a bigger difference in protecting firefighters is better communication gear..such as strobe lights and alarms that firefighters can't miss while in a fire and cameras that can help you locate people inside burning buildings. Nomex hoods will help protect you if you go down inside a fire, but much better to prevent that happening in the first place - hence a focus on better communication and locator beacons.
In sports with high injury rates - much better to work on preventing the injury from ever taking place than slapping a helmet on someone and calling that person now "safe." I think sometimes we look at safety gear as a false sense of security. Like in football...teaching a player to use proper technique when tackling (head up, leading with the shoulder and driving with the legs) is much more likely to prevent serious injury than the helmet. Just because he's wearing safety gear doesn't mean he is safe.
And in some sports, helmets may be more detrimental than helpful. The article mentioned figure skating, for example. In that sport, the helmet seems like a huge liability - compromising peripheral vision which is very important in sports like skating and gymnastics which rely on "spotting" to perform moves safely. I would think a skater wearing a helmet is MORE likely to be injured.
When I read about the tragic story of Natasha Richardson, I don't take away from it "Everyone who skis should wear a helmet." I take away from it "Everyone who has a head injury, regardless of how minor it seems, should seek immediate medical attention." Even people wearing helmets can have concussions and brain injuries, after all. The real tragedy here is that she didn't recognize the severity of her injury until far too late - not that she didn't wear a helmet.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I must say that I do get tired of "good old days" articles.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Yeah, I mean, before we had internet there weren't so many "good old days" articles!!! Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: You have to consider that sometimes safety measures can wind up costing you more than you gain.
Thankfully, this is exactly what "outcomes measures" are designed for.
Edited to add: I should be more precise. It is, indeed, a good question to raise, and it is a concern that has been extensively studied with regards to skiing and helmets.
--- There is no increase in: 1) the rate of collisions (studied because of concern about loss of peripheral vision), or 2) the rate of cervical neck injuries (studied because of concern that the helmet might potentially redirect forces in a way that harms the neck).
There is a definite decrease in the rates of traumatic brain injury when helmets are used.
There is inconclusive data as to whether helmets decrease the rate of facial injuries, but they do not increase them. ---
This is information that comes from several large- and small-scale studies, including one that assessed thousands of injuries over a period of 5 years at each of 3 major ski resorts. The evidence is as conclusive as it gets, at this point:
Helmets significantly help prevent traumatic brain injury when used while skiing, and they do not increase the overall rates of collisions or other injuries.
[ March 21, 2009, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote: When I was in school the only weapons a kid might have on them would have been a slingshot or a plastic straw and tiny wads of paper.
That's funny. When I was in school it was against the rules to bring a knife to school, but most kids (boys anyway) did anyway, and when the teacher saw it she told us to put it in our pocket so no one could see it. I lived in a rural area, and knives were just tools, much the same as cell phones are considered "just tools" that aren't allowed in class, but most teachers look the other way.
I learned later that one of my teachers had actually taught in a one room schoolhouse, and that students were required to bring a knife so they could sharpen their pens, which explained why there was so much graffiti carved into the wooden desktops.
As for Natasha Richardson, she lived about 8 miles from me. The newspaper is reporting that police are preparing for crowds at the funeral.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I don't think "You should always wear a helmet when skiing" is that bad of a moral, though. I feel the same way about bike helmets, after I had a client whose toddler fell off a toddler "bike" (one of those sit on and scoot with your feet toys)in her driveway and had to grow up neurologically altered as a result. Of course no one has to use them, but brain buckets are a good idea.
Ugh. On a personal note, I've been a wreck over this. I keep thinking about her boys, and my boys, and how I have been that person who says, "No, no, I'm fine" when maybe I shouldn't have.
Also, (I hate to post this because it makes me so angry, and I don't like being angry):
I should add that I don't think actual figure skaters should wear helmets -- that would really be ridiculous. But definitely skaters who have never skated in their lives, for the first three or four hours at least -- both kids and adults.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
quote:
Also, (I hate to post this because it makes me so angry, and I don't like being angry):
Are you sure that's not a joke? Or maybe you're angry even though it's a joke?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
They have it up on their God Hates Fags site, but I didn't want to link to them.
It's not a joke. Whether they go through with it or not remains to be seen.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
quote:Not long after my daughter started junior kindergarten, a note came home informing us that her school would be having lockdown drills in the event of an emergency. When I was in school the only weapons a kid might have on them would have been a slingshot or a plastic straw and tiny wads of paper.
I know the author of that column is certainly older than me but we were doing school lock-down drills when I was elementary school (from 1991 and on.) At the time they weren't concerned with student violence so much as adopt violence. This was in a developing suburb of Houston which was still quite small at the time.
And even though my mother put three kids through the same elementary schools and was a very active and present volunteer, she ALWAYS had to provide a valid driver's license and sign a log in order to get us out of school for doctor appointments. The same thing was required when I was in junior and senior high school. Even in high school with a signed note from our parent and a call home to verify it, if we didn't have a parking tag and our parents were picking us up, they HAD to come into the office. We couldn't just meet them at the curb.
I remember how pissed my mom was when my younger brothers began attending high school in Louisiana. The secretary in the school office gave my mom a hard time because my mom insisted on showing her driver's license before picking up my bother. Apparently, the thought had never occurred to them that certain parents may have restricted access to their children.
Five years later and they are finally making proof of ID a requirement in our parish schools.
I don't think we should bubble-wrap our children and bathe them in antibacterial soaps every twenty minutes, but some precautions make sense to me and they should be taught to children so they can pass that responsibility onto their kids.
My mom trained my brothers and I to get on my dad's and her's case if they ever forgot their seat-belt. We were told that if we were afraid to be teased for wearing a helmet while bike-riding or roller-blading we had the choice of dealing with it or staying inside. They always made it a point to buy us new helmets in colors that we'd love with stickers to customize so that we'd never have an excuse to not wear them.
My brother in high school took a line drive to the face while playing short-stop in a baseball league. He was unconscious before he hit the ground. The result was multiple facial fractures. The dentist said if he hadn't been wearing braces, he probably would have lost all of his teeth. He spent a long time with a swollen face and so many pain meds that he couldn't be allowed to walk on his own for the first week or two. His orthodontist actually made multiple photo copies of his x-rays in order to show parent the importance of mouth guards while playing sports.
My brother never went back to playing baseball. He switched to basketball and while he wasn't happy to be the only kid on the court ever wearing a mouth guard, all we had to do was mention his facial x-rays and he'd stop his complaining.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't have a problem with beginning skaters wearing helmets, but then I doubt the risk of serious injury is very high in beginning skating. The speed is not there. The risk of injury seems to be there for either impact sports like hockey (and they DO wear helmets) and in the elite figure skaters who are flying through the air doing jumps, spins, or in the case of pairs - throws. However, I think the helmet would be more of a liability for those people than it would be a help.
As for the idea of elite skaters wearing helmets being silly, it seems so but I specifically remember commentators discussing it during the last world championships because a pair skater had suffered a major concussion. The people demonizing figure skating and screaming for helmet obviously knew nothing about skating or they would know that the visual impairment caused by the helmet would make figure skating impossible...not to mention what it would do to balance.
Elite skiers DO wear helmets, espcially the downhillers. Since they are going sixty miles an hour down a hill I think it's a good idea on their part. Most people like Ms. Richardson who are taking beginning ski lessons with a qualified instructor are not going to be going sixty miles an hour.
I'm not anti-helmet and I'm certainly not anti-safety. I do however, think it is possible to get so insistent on one safety feature (like helmets) that we can be blind to the larger picture. Sort of a forest/trees analogy.
I'm certainly not disputing your expertise, CT. That would be silly of me. But I think it's still worth looking at more than just the data on helmets...there are other ways to make people safe than just sticking a helmet on them and saying "there, all better now."
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I don't have a problem with beginning skaters wearing helmets, but then I doubt the risk of serious injury is very high in beginning skating. The speed is not there. The risk of injury seems to be there for either impact sports like hockey (and they DO wear helmets) and in the elite figure skaters who are flying through the air doing jumps, spins, or in the case of pairs - throws. ... Elite skiers DO wear helmets, espcially the downhillers. Since they are going sixty miles an hour down a hill I think it's a good idea on their part. Most people like Ms. Richardson who are taking beginning ski lessons with a qualified instructor are not going to be going sixty miles an hour.
It's really the reverse. The best protection from head injury (and this is at about 60% reduction of risk for head injury) is at the lower speeds, averaging less than 15mph. Current helmet standards are geared to maximal effectiveness at those speeds, not at high speeds, as most injuries are at lower speeds (i.e., collisions with solid objects). Nonstandard helmets may be available to elite athletes, and that would be great, but such a group is not where the bulk of serious injuries lies.
(This varies a bit with snowboarding, both in mechanism of injury and recommended equipment, but that's another story.)
According to a 1999 US Consumer Product Safety Commission report, there are an estimated 7700 traumatic brain injuries from skiing per year that could be prevented by routine use of properly fitted [standard] helmets.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I do however, think it is possible to get so insistent on one safety feature (like helmets) that we can be blind to the larger picture. Sort of a forest/trees analogy. ... But I think it's still worth looking at more than just the data on helmets...there are other ways to make people safe than just sticking a helmet on them and saying "there, all better now."
Well, yes, indeed. Which is one reason why I'd never recommend the latter.
Recommending or requiring helmets does not rule out other actions, concurrently. This isn't an either-or choice, no moreso than making your own child wear a helmet while on a bike prevents you from talking to him or her about other issues in traffic safety.
There has been concern raised that using helmets while skiing may lead to riskier behavior, but the best studies (especially a case control and case crossover study of thousands of participants) does not show this concern to bear out, certainly not in a way that affects measurable outcomes. If people are behaving in what we may consider to be a more risky way when wearing helmets, that does not translate into more harms. And it is the latter which is the outcome of interest.
---
Edited to add: I know there are multiple things to take into account when making decisions for oneself and one's family, just as there are in making public policy decisions. I don't want to discourage good questions and good discussion while people make sense of it--however, there is a lot of misinformation and mistaken assumption about this topic, and it seems important enough to make clear what it is that is actually known about these injuries, how they occur, and how to best prevent them.
Not just what we might expect to be true, but (as always in these matters) what is shown to be true when the matter is studied thoroughly and systematically. All the supposition and well-considered theoretical concerns in the world can't tell us what actually happens. For that, we have to measure and track what actually is happening, not what we expect to happen or what we believe may happen.
On the other hand, supposition, theory, and anecdote give fantastic impetus to generating hypotheses for testing. It's just that they don't substitute for them.
---
Added again: I'd also agree wholeheartedly on the need to have well-rounded emphasis on safety in sports, not just on any one facet. That I'd hold in hand with the recommendation for helmet use.
I wouldn't have posted my original comment if I didn't have good substantiation for it. I don't work that way. But if I know there is clear and well-replicated evidence in support of something like this recommendation, coupled with clear outcomes research to address the issues of unanticipated consequences, then--and only then--would I come down in a clear-line stance. Here, I do, and for good reason.
[ March 23, 2009, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
As I'm going about my night and thinking about this, I can see how I've been brusque and dismissive. That is totally unfair, not to mention uncharitable, because you are raising excellent concerns and questions, Belle. The issue of unintended consequences always has to be addressed, and it's understandable to assume that helmets are most helpful at higher speeds.
It does happen that over the last 20 years, these issues have been specifically studied, as they should have been. I've been focused on the conclusion and paying less credit to the ancillary discussion than I should. In thinking about it, I'm quite glad and grateful that the right surrounding questions were brought up in an intelligent and thouightful way.
And yes, there's a lot more to injury prevention than just helmets. I would certainly agree with that, as well as emphasizing how much is carried by proper helmet use.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
My kids wear helmets and pads when rollerskating. I don't see why I wouldn't put them in them while ice skating, too, especially since it's harder. My mom made me wear a helmet and elbow and knee pads while learning to rollerblade and while learning to ride a bike (once I was proficient I kept the helmet but was allowed to remove the pads.) Was I embarassed? A little. But we lived on a hill and the first time I lost control of my speed and went down the hill at about 15 or 20 MPH and fell at the bottom boy, was I glad for mom's rules...
quote:The seven-year-old girl was hit on the side of the head on March 17 by a baseball...
Two nights later, as her parents watched news reports about Ms. Richardson's death after a head injury, their minds immediately turned to their daughter, who was upstairs getting ready for bed. ... "Morgan complained of a headache, which quickly turned to a crying pain" her father, Don McCracken, said in an e-mail yesterday. ... Morgan underwent a craniotomy to remove an acute epidural hematoma. Four days later, the little girl was discharged from the hospital. She is expected to make a full recovery.
quote:I don't want to discourage good questions and good discussion while people make sense of it--however, there is a lot of misinformation and mistaken assumption about this topic, and it seems important enough to make clear what it is that is actually known about these injuries, how they occur, and how to best prevent them.
Not just what we might expect to be true, but (as always in these matters) what is shown to be true when the matter is studied thoroughly and systematically. All the supposition and well-considered theoretical concerns in the world can't tell us what actually happens. For that, we have to measure and track what actually is happening, not what we expect to happen or what we believe may happen.
On the other hand, supposition, theory, and anecdote give fantastic impetus to generating hypotheses for testing. It's just that they don't substitute for them.
Yes, but data from studies is also not a substitute for individual experience. Trying to make decisions based on studies has at least two major flaws of its own....
Firstly, controlled studies are usually limited in what they can tell you. They can tell you whether helmet use correlates with fewer injuries across a broad population. But they can't tell you what effect it will have on you, given your unique circumstances. And generally studies are not so extensive that they can tell you the complete effect that helmet use will have across a person's entire life; usually the number of variables is limited. So whereas a study might say doing X is generally good because it reduces Y, an expert with a lot of experience with individual cases might be able to tell you than in your particular circumstances doing X is not advisable, or might be able to tell you that even though it reduces Y he's seen it cause Z so much that he doesn't consider it productive. That's where the "forest/trees" problem mentioned earlier comes into play.
And then the second problem with that kind of data is that, when viewed by average people, it is often interpretted with emotion rather than rationally. If a study comes out and says 1,000 people have had life-threatening head injuries this year due to skiing, the reaction from people might be to ignore the details of the study (like if it also found 5,000,000 people did not have life-threatening head injuries while skiing) and simply assume skiing was too dangerous to do. Of course, the same problem exists for anecdotal evidence too - all it takes is one shark attack in the news for some to become irrationally afraid that a shark is going to eat them whenever they go to the beach. So, to some extent, I think getting more information out to the public can actually tend to result in too much fear.
So, I really do think we need to look at more than just the "data" when making decisions on these things. Personal experience and individual circumstances need to come into play. But more than anything, I think we need to be able to identify and generally trust the people who are experts in their particular fields, who have the time to look at the whole picture, all the data, and factor in their own more extensive experience. If the ski expert says it's too dangerous to ski without a helmet, you should probably ski with a helmet.
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
Thanks for sharing that, CT. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tara: Thanks for sharing that, CT.
As my husband said, it's good when there are positive spin-offs of terrible things, even when they do nothing to mitigate the original tragedy itself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Derek Kieper, yeah. I've talked to people who knew him. I read his vehemently libertarian op-ed where he took a firm line against seatbelt laws.
He wrote "Telling me to wear my seat belt is the same as making sure I have some sort of proper education before diving into a swimming pool. If I want to dive in without knowing how to swim, that is my right. And if I want to be the jerk that flirts with death and rides around with my seat belt off, I should be able to do that, too."
Prophetic, in a tragic way. He turned himself into a cautionary tale.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Prophetic as it was, I agree with him though. We shouldn't try to protect people from themselves through legal measures.
(Side note, I always wear a seatbelt.)
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Alcon: Except that without education on how to swim, were you to jump into a pool and start drowning you'd become a serious hazard to other swimmers as you may drown them in your attempts to live, when they take you to the hospital you cost money, if you have dependents others are forced to take care of them, if you had debts somebody has to pay them. If you're driving a car without a seat belt and get killed in an accident all those things still apply except that it's unlikely that your flying body is going to kill somebody, but the possibility exists. The person that you hit has to live with the fact that your dead, for many people that will weigh on them the rest of their lives regardless of genuine fault.
I'm leery of over legislating safety as well, but according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2007, there were 6,024,000 reported accidents in which 41,059 people died and 2,491,000 people were injured. Now I am not sure at what point we draw a line between letting people take care of their own safety and when to step in, but I think driving is sufficiently dangerous that it's irresponsible for people not to use seat belts. I understand you yourself use them, and that's good, but driving to me is not a right, it's a privilege you have to qualify for. If you can't commit suicide, why should you be allowed to live your life in such a way that you maximize your chances of dying?
edit: Added what year the report covers.
[ April 03, 2009, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Prophetic as it was, I agree with him though. We shouldn't try to protect people from themselves through legal measures.
You are ignoring the interconnectedness of all things. When someone's death or serious injury could have been prevented by wearing a seatbelt, they are not the only ones who suffer.
The bottom line is that seat belt laws lead to a reduction in the cost of automobile insurance. Find a way to make it so I don't end up bearing part of the cost of fools who don't wear their seat belts, and I'll be glad to grant them that freedom. Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Now I am not sure at what point we draw a line between letting people take care of their own safety and when to step in, but I think driving is sufficiently dangerous that it's irresponsible for people not to use seat belts. I understand you yourself use them, and that's good, but driving to me is not a right, it's a privilege you have to qualify for.
The only thing I would add here is that the streets belong to all of us. What one person does on the road, necessarily impacts on others who also use the roads. Society has not only the right but the responsibility to limit road use to those who behave responsibly.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...the S-100B [blood] test accurately predicts which head injury patients will have a traumatic abnormality such as hemorrhage or skull fracture on a head CT scan. It takes about 20 minutes to get results. The test is used routinely in 16 European countries as a screening device. If a person falls and gets a head injury in Munich...during Oktoberfest...a neurosurgeon is on duty within 500 meters of the beer tent, ready to administer the blood test..."
Unfortunately it is not used in either the US or Canada.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
She has 2 kids. The article says they'll most likely take her off life support soon.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
But they weren't wrong.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)