In violation of medical ethics?
The council recently discussed whether doctors may participate as the ringside doctor in combat sports events where knockout is permitted, or accept assignments as the medical expert in approvals or appeals boards for such events without violating their code of professional ethics. The starting point for this discussion was an enquiry underscoring how the changes to the safety regulations had made it impossible for doctors to ensure the safety of contestants engaging in combat sports that permit knockouts.
The Council for Medical Ethics is of the opinion that given the risk of health injury, combat sports that permit knockouts ought to be banned completely. This is consistent with the views of the Norwegian Medical Association and the World Medical Association, whereby the latter has taken the position that: 'Boxing is a dangerous sport. Unlike most other sports, its basic intent is to produce bodily harm in the opponent. Boxing can result in death and produces an alarming incidence of chronic brain injury. For this reason, the World Medical Association recommends that boxing be banned' (9).
In a number of contexts, the Norwegian Medical Association has voiced criticism of legal amendments that weaken the safety regulations in sports in which a knockout is the goal, and has issued strong warnings against such softening of the rules (10). The Council for Medical Ethics is especially concerned that the softening-up of the regulations and the consequent undermining of safety highlight the challenges associated with the role of the doctors involved, which is difficult as it is.
The regulations for safety provisions pursuant to Section 4 of the law on combat sports that permit knockouts require a ringside doctor to be present (5). The ringside doctor is responsible for 'ensuring that the contestant is able to compete before the start of the match' and for 'informing the manager responsible for the match if participation is medically unjustifiable'. Furthermore, the ringside doctor is 'authorised to stop organised combat sports events where there is risk of injury'.
There are ethical, legal and medical challenges associated with the responsibility of the ringside doctor, irrespective of the changes to match length and age limit. Whether participation is 'medically justifiable' for anyone is an open question, especially in light of the loosening of the safety requirements.
The Council for Medical Ethics will discourage doctors from participating in events that violate the Code of Ethics for Doctors, including acting as 'ringside doctor' or participating in any of the boards referred to above. However, each doctor is free to individually assess the medical, legal and ethical justifiability of accepting such assignments and the responsibility they involve.
An argument used against discouraging doctors from accepting such assignments is that the presence of medical personnel promotes safety. However, the Norwegian Medical Association has warned against the view that the presence of medical personnel during combat sports events may help reduce some of the injuries that occur. 'This is not the case. The most frequent injuries caused by this sport only manifest themselves long after the injuries have been sustained, and will often be difficult to identify immediately after the injury has been caused. Therefore, qualified medical personnel will only in exceptional and acute cases be able to counteract the consequences of such injuries. Moreover, studies show that there is no correlation between self-reported symptoms after injuries and the extent of the neuropsychological outcomes. (...) The belief that health personnel will be able to prevent a deterioration in injuries gives rise to a false sense of security in the contestants. In addition, the risk of injuries has increased in recent decades because boxers today are more muscular and punch harder than previously. This applies to both genders' (10, 11).