Doing the right thing and subcommittees

At what point do you stop doing the right thing and start protecting yourself? I have a friend that was elected to the city council of our small town. When re-election came he decided not to run again. His frustration level was so high because the other people on the council didn't want to vote for or against anything controversial or co-sponsor bills because they were afraid of being sued.

We have presented three times to the UIL Medical Advisory board and all three times have gotten the impression that our input is valued but nothing will be done. The board is the same group of people every time with very little change in the membership. They are required to listen to the public twice a year. If you want to say something, you get five minutes. The first time we presented we went with another non-profit organization and had them present the risks of sudden cardiac death and asked that the UIL website be changed because it showed that one in three hundred thousand high school kids are at risk for sudden cardiac death. Recent studies have shown that the number is more like one in three thousand for sports like basketball, cross country, and water polo. Our request was denied because the recent publications focused on NCAA sports and not high school sports in Texas. The doctor that came with me to testify left in anger saying that the board was a waste of her time and she would never return to present. The second time we presented we cited high school deaths in the state and the board questioned our numbers. They don't record or track athlete deaths and wanted to know why we had access to data that they did not. A subcommittee was formed to look into getting the data for the board. The third time that we presented we asked for an update on the subcommittee and presented new data that the history and physicals used to screen athletes are ineffective and generate way too many false results both negative and positive. We got agreement that there was debate over the questions used but our screening results were not 100% so recommending a change was not suggested at this time. They will get back to us in October about the subcommittee because they need to consult with the Attorney General of the state and he had not returned their calls from the previous October.

Here we are 18 months later and nothing has changed. We have concussion screening, which no one has died from, that they are 100% focused on because the state legislature passed this as a requirement. The medical board decided that concussion screening was too controversial and did not need to be done when it reviewed the options. The state legislature mandated it and everyone in the state needs to be screened for concussions prior to participating in athletics.

Our programs growing but not fast enough in my opinion. We cover about 6% of the state. If we had something like a checkbox on the physical form suggesting cardiac screening for those doctors that do not know how to perform screening that number would be significantly higher. If the UIL would acknowledge that a higher number of students are at risk, people would take screening more seriously. I don't understand the reservation in protecting student athletes as more and more die each year from sudden cardiac death. The board is more concerned with not being at risk themselves than adequately protecting students.

I realize that my statements are a bit inflammatory but it is frustrating when a leading Cardiologist who volunteers his time to screen students in a non-profit organization recommends against cardiac screening across the state. I'm not sure if he is against ECG screening, ECG and Echo screening, or screening of any type. We were not recommending any specific type of screening just that something be done. Death of students is something that needs attention. Doing nothing to protect your job is something that does get me angry.