As children continue to enter contact sports, concussions will undoubtedly go up — but so does the chance of CTE.
C/O Molly Ferguson Art
Traumatic brain injuries are everywhere, from the workplace to sports. It is estimated that there are nearly 500 TBIs per 100,000 individuals annually in Canada; to narrow that down, one person in Canada would suffer a TBI every three minutes.
A TBI occurs due to shaking of the brain caused by blows to the head. It is the most apparent cause of death among young adults. TBI can range from being either mild, moderate or severe, depending on the results retrieved from neurological assessments. A concussion is often referred to in clinical settings as mild TBI.
Concussions can typically resolve spontaneously after 7-10 days with close monitoring of symptoms but can lead to immediate impairment of neurologic function with subsequent head injuries. Common symptoms present in the diagnosis of a concussion include headaches, dizziness, nausea, lack of concentration, memory impairment and tiredness.
It is estimated that 200,000 concussions occur per year in Canada alone, and of that, children under the age of five were the most prevalent demographic to experience a concussion.
Now, when looking at sports-related concussions, football is the most common sport in which concussions are diagnosed, where a study showed it accounted for more than half of all 2561 concussions reported.
In the NFL, the position played is an important factor for predictions on concussions and brain injuries, where offensive and defensive linemen are more prone to concussions than any other position. However, these concussions may be caused by low impact hits due to the short distance between the hitting and receiving players, whereas a quarterback would receive stronger hits at a lower frequency.
Though as players become sidelined for injuries, the media has a tendency to blow up injury stories and depending on fan support, the player may be ridiculed for not playing, as opposed to receiving empathy. Thus, many players who may indeed have a concussion go undiagnosed to ensure they are not portrayed as “weak” in their own perspective, in addition to the media’s and fans’ perspectives.
Now as players become injured with concussions repeatedly, long-term neurodegenerative effects may result and more specifically, chronic traumatic encephalopathy. Impulsivity, aggression, and suicidal behaviour encompass the clinical presentation for CTE, alongside the loss of memory and muscle spasms. However, a key limitation with the diagnosis of CTE is the requirement for it to be post-mortem.
CTE has gained recent attention from a study in 2017, where the CTE centre in Boston University concluded that CTE was diagnosed in 110 of 111 former deceased NFL players. More specifically, there was global attention on the specific case of Aaron Hernandez.
Hernandez was on route to becoming one of the greatest tight ends at the time. However, his life turned upside down when he was convicted guilty in 2015 and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for the first-degree murder of Odin Lloyd in 2013.
Just two years after his conviction, Hernandez committed suicide in April 2017. But after further studies by the Boston University CTE centre, it was found that Aaron Hernandez suffered the most extreme case of CTE ever found in anyone of his age.
Ann McKee, director of the BU CTE centre, was shocked to find Aaron being diagnosed with Stage III CTE at only 27 years old, exclaiming that his problem-solving, judgement and impulse control behaviours may have been compromised.
“This would be the first case we’ve ever seen of that kind of damage in such a young individual,” said McKee at the time.
“This would be the first case we’ve ever seen of that kind of damage in such a young individual.”
Ann McKee
When looking at concussion rehabilitation programs, it is never that simple, especially for children and youth; but at McMaster University, the CanChild research centre has a specific attention to youth and children with disabilities, and in this case, concussion education and rehabilitation.
More specifically, the centre developed evidence-based protocols for Return to Activity and Return to School for children and youth, led by Professor Carol DeMatteo. It was found that roughly 50 per cent of children and youth adhered to the protocols, and it is primarily dependent on education and awareness of concussion protocols.
To help with adherence, DeMatteo and her team developed the Back2Play app, where concussion symptoms are regularly monitored with an apple watch and real-time activity data is recorded. With that being said, return to school has happened quicker than return to activity.
As children consistently enter themselves into contact sports leagues, it will be no surprise that the prevalence of concussions will rise. However, with greater emphasis on the education of brain injuries, further concussions can be avoided and prevent the unfortunate cases of CTE.
The McMaster Students Union recognizes over 350 clubs. According to the MSU Clubs page, the purpose of these clubs is to “provide an insightful and meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community.”
Being a MSU recognized club affords certain privileges including being eligible for funding from the MSU. This funding comes directly from the MSU organizational fee, a $130.26 fee that all full-time undergraduate students pay. Within this fee, $8.02 are collected per student to support MSU clubs.
As students are paying for the operations of these clubs, the MSU has a responsibility to ensure that these clubs are not deliberately sharing and promoting misinformation that can be harmful to students.
McMaster Lifeline is the pro-life group on campus. Their mission statement is “to advocate with loving care the legal rights and social support of pregnant women and their unborn children.”
While the presence of a pro-life group on campus is already cause for controversy, the issue at hand is not solely the groups’ existence but that they use student space and resources to share information that is factually incorrect.
The group can often be found at a table in the McMaster University Student Centre, a privilege of being a MSU club, spreading scientifically false information on abortions and reproductive health. In addition to misinformation, the group is known for distributing graphic and potentially triggering images.
Groups like McMaster Lifeline should not be given a platform by the MSU to disseminate false information about individuals’ health.
Namely, the group fails to state that abortions are safe, medical procedures that are fully legal in Canada. Instead, they spread the false rhetoric that “abortions are never medically necessary”, which is simply a lie.
In fact, any student-run group on campus does not really have the credentials to provide healthcare information or advice to students. Abortion is a serious topic that should be discussed with a healthcare professional who can provide factual, non-judgemental information, not with students who some of which have “no experience engaging with people on the topic.”
The MSU should be cautious in ratifying clubs that provide this type of information, as the results can be extremely harmful to students.
With over 350 clubs, it can be difficult for the MSU to ensure that operations of each of their clubs are aligned with the core goal of supporting students. However, that is not an excuse for allowing this behaviour to occur.
Multiple students have on many occasions voiced their concerns against these clubs’ actions. The MSU failing to take action blatantly goes against their responsibility towards their student constituents.
The MSU Clubs Operating Policy states that the MSU “will not attempt to censor, control or interfere with any existing MSU club on the basis of its philosophy, beliefs, interests or opinions expressed until these lead to activities which are illegal or which infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others”.
Due to this policy, on March 22, pro-choice students who were protesting McMaster Lifeline’s table in MUSC were removed and not allowed to distribute pro-choice pamphlets. A claimed “victory for free speech on campus” by the MSU only served to help promote the misinformation on campus.
While the actions of McMaster Lifeline may not be illegal, they certainly are harmful to students and may actually be violating the Clubs Judicial Policy, stated under the MSU Clubs Operating Policy.
Specifically, their actions may be considered to “unnecessarily cause a significant nuisance for an individual or group” (5.1.1.3), have “conduct unbecoming of an MSU club” (5.1.2.7) and most importantly, actions that “unnecessarily jeopardize the safety or security of any person or property” (5.1.3.3).
If the MSU truly wishes to provide a meaningful contribution to the McMaster and Hamilton community, it can begin with properly investigating clubs that may be found guilty of any offences described by the Clubs Judicial Policy. Only then can they truly ensure that their clubs support and protect McMaster students.
If students do wish to learn about their options with respect to their reproductive health, the Student Wellness Centre offers birth control counselling. If a student wishes to speak in a more informal setting, the MSU Student Health Education Centre offers relevant literature, referrals and peer support.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Most family neighbourhoods know that one house where the residents are really into Halloween. Before September is over they’re already setting up in the light of day knowing that in a few weeks, the cover of night and the cloak of costume will transform it into something haunted or simply spectacular.
Casey and Jen Rovinelli own that house. From when they moved into their Glenfern Avenue property in 2010, they began creating large Halloween displays such as a toxic waste dump and a UFO crash landing site. After they had kids, they decided to do something more traditional.
Traditional for them took the form of 140 carved pumpkins. The impressive display drew press attention and positive feedback from the community so the couple decided to do it again the following year for charity, raising money for the Hamilton Food Bank.
“[M]y favorite part [is] just standing up front and seeing everybody looking at the different pumpkins. It's exciting. I think it's a nice thing to have in the community that everybody sort of swings by the house, has a look,” explained Casey Rovinelli.
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bb2FTSqHLaD/?taken-at=1906454469606434
For this its third year, the Rovinellis are decking their house out with 200 pumpkins, donated by Scotlynn Sweet-pac. They’ve recruited the help of about fifteen neighbours to help them carve all the pumpkins the weekend before Halloween.
This year they are collecting donations for An Instrument for Every Child (AIFEC), a key initiative of the Hamilton Music Collective. The music program pairs professional musicians with inner city children and provides instruments, introducing them to creative and improvised music.
“I think it's a great charity because it's a lean organization, it needs the money…[M]usic is one of those subjects that…[is] the first to get cut… [but] it's important to building well rounded kids so it's a nice charity to support. They need the money and they have an immediate impact on the community,” Rovinelli explained.
The house will be lit from Wednesday October 31 to Friday November 2 from 6pm-11pm. While visiting the house is free, donations are appreciated and are being accepted online and in person. Every penny will be donated to AIFEC.
[spacer height="20px"][thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
[feather_share show="twitter, google_plus, facebook, reddit, tumblr" hide="pinterest, linkedin, mail"]
By: Sophie Geffros
I tend to view having a relationship with your biological father as being somewhat akin to owning a dishwasher. It’s nice, sure. It takes some of the work and pressure off of your primary caregiver, and a lot of people have them. But fundamentally, plenty of us grow up without them and do just fine. That said, nobody assumes you will be a criminal if you grow up without a dishwasher.
In July, Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said, “We are seeing the fabric of this country fall apart, and it’s falling apart because of single moms … What we have is moms raising children in single-parent households simply breeding more criminals.”
I wish I could say that I was surprised. As one of four children raised by a single mother, I have spent my life being alternately outraged and depressed by these statements. I also wish I could pretend that this sentiment is simply a disease of the far right, and that good liberals are immune. However, I have heard the same poisonous sentiments from the left — they simply phrase it more gently. Liberals will praise the strength of single mothers while still implying heavily that being the wrong kind of single parent is a tragedy. That is, it’s very impressive if you are a white middle class woman in her thirties who chooses to have a baby by herself; but if you are poor or a teenager or a person of colour, it is the result of systemic failures. Often, single mothers and their children are thrown into debates on abortion in a way that feels distinctly eugenicist.
I often describe myself, semi-jokingly, as “not anti-dad, but certainly dad-critical.” As a society, we place minimal demands on fathers, and we applaud them when they satisfy the most basic of expectations. Married fathers refer to watching their own children as “babysitting”. Single fathers are treated with the kinds of accolades usually reserved for returning war heroes. Every couple weeks a story goes viral which could be summarized as “single father does bare minimum.” When men do their daughter’s hair, or play pretend, or tend to their children’s emotional well-being, we treat them as though they have done something amazing. A single mother is a whore, a single father is a hero.
Attitudes towards single parenthood are not benign. Aside from the damage it causes to children to hear the way society speaks about them and their mothers, it also forces women to stay in unhealthy relationships. My mother divorced my step-father when I was 12 after enduring years of domestic abuse. She has told me that she stayed so long because she wanted my little brother to grow up with a dad. She is not an isolated case. In the view of society, it is often better to grow up with an abusive or neglectful father than an absent one.
It feels distinctly radical to say that growing up with a single mother made me a better person. There is no better role model on earth than a loving single mother. She was determined that all of her children know that despite what we might hear, there was nothing wrong with any of us. She loved us enough for three parents, and she nearly killed herself with work to try and give us a better life. When she was my age, my mother was the sole caregiver of two small children. As of this writing, I have killed two ferns. She somehow found the time to teach us to read and ride our bikes while working two jobs and putting herself through school. I can barely manage to wake up in time for my 8:30 class on Wednesday morning.
When she was my age, my mother was the sole caregiver of two small children. As of this writing, I have killed two ferns.
Correlation is not causation. Rates of addiction and poverty are not higher in children of single parent households because there is something intrinsically damaging about it. The attitudes of Mr. Santorum and his ilk would be far better directed to the systems, which conspire to keep single mothers in poverty and abuse, which condemn their families to bad neighbourhoods and bad schools, and which demean families like mine as “trash”. Until they change targets, they can take a hike. That’s the other thing being raised by a single mother taught me; nobody talks shit about my family and gets away with it.
[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]
Taylor Dysart
The Silhouette
“Well how is that going to get you a job?” This is one of the many responses I received when I added History as a second major to my degree this past November, which turned my Honours B.Sc. in Psychology to a Combined Honours B.A. in History and Psychology. This particular response came from a family friend we have known for years - let’s call him Rodger. Rodger is one of those family friends you see once a year (only once) and you wish to spend your limited time with him catching up on exciting personal events. You don’t want to spend this time being bullied into believing that your education has become worthless.
As open-minded as our society claims to be, there exists a narrow-mindedness in terms of our education. This tunnel vision is focused on one aspect of education: choose your major based on your prospects of getting a job. Many articles have recently been published comparing the “worst” and “best” majors, based on rates of employment and median salary for graduates, and which majors are most likely to get university graduates a job. Can students really benefit from these articles? Maybe, if you would like to spend four years of your life studying a subject that makes you cringe, followed by a life of boredom and regret.
While some place a lesser value on the education of students who choose to study fine arts or philosophy or drama or peace studies I applaud it. I applaud the choice they’ve made to study something they love. I applaud their authenticity. Finding a job after graduation may not be the easiest for them, but the journey that took them to graduation will have been one they genuinely enjoyed and will cherish for years. For the people who are fortunate enough to turn what they love into a career, everything else is a bonus. Having said that, almost everyone will have to suffer through a job they don’t like in order to get to where they want to be (I have spent enough time working at a golf course to know this first hand). But enduring a painful job shouldn’t be a lifestyle choice.
Some people will disagree, and say that if everyone studied what they loved then there would be no one else available to take on the positions that need to be filled. There is not one ounce of truth in that. For example, my friend could never see himself studying language for four years in order to work with children and their speech impediments. Another friend, on the other hand, cannot fathom the idea of receiving an undergraduate degree in math that would lead her to deal with abstract numbers for the rest of her life. Not everyone has a desire to be a performer or an artist - believe it or not some people really do like chemistry and engineering, and to them I give my sincerest congratulations. To each their own.
Regardless of program, undergraduates should emerge with a number of invaluable skills. Although content is specific to a major, an array of abilities are waiting to be developed and refined by each student. There is no other place like university to learn to think critically, to problem solve and to communicate through various mediums. Students practice these skills for the duration of their studies, along with learning to balance their time. This versatile set of tools should be capable of merging seamlessly from one position to the next, be it graduate school or a job, and be accessible to all undergraduates. How much more likely are we to work harder at these skills and spend more time on them when we enjoy what we’re doing as opposed to when we don’t?
So before anyone else feels the need to tell a student that what they’re taking in school will fail to get them what they want, I ask you to please consider what is most important in terms of gains from education. Is it really receiving a degree that will land you an adequate but dull job? Spending four years in lectures that are so uninteresting that they are really just scheduled naptime?
Or, should your education have the ability to turn you into a keener who sits in the front row and bounces with anticipation before lecture? Give you the opportunity to harvest skills that you can take with you to pursue what you leave? That’s where the tunnel vision should be.
To Rodger, and those who doubt our pursuits as students, consider this.
When I was younger, art was my favourite class. It didn’t matter if you were good at it or not, you got to play with art supplies, put sparkles on everything and leave your desk and talk to your classmates. So when I got involved with McMaster Arts for Children last year, I was reminded of the importance of creativity. I was placed at the St. Brigid’s Catholic Elementary School in downtown Hamilton with some other students from McMaster for the entirety of second semester.
The most amazing thing about the program was the change I saw in the students over the months. My favourite was a youngin’ named Malakai who initially thought the crafts were lame but was bragging about his ideas by the end.
In an interview, Amy Lu, the president of MAfC, described the ideas behind the club.
Can you describe what you do, who are you affiliated with, and how you decided to reach out to specific parts of the community?
McMaster Arts for Children (MAfC) members work in teams to run weekly arts & crafts and music activities for children in the Hamilton community throughout the school year. We work with several placements in the community, including the MSU Daycare, a number of elementary schools through the Virtual Y afterschool program run by the YMCA, and women’s and homeless shelters such as Inasmuch House and the Good Shepherd Centre. We choose placements based on where we think we can contribute positively, as well as based on our members’ interests and passions. For example, students at many of the inner city elementary schools with whom we work don’t have many opportunities to pursue artistic endeavors. The weekly visits by our MAfC teams give these students a chance to explore and engage their creative sides. Our work with Inasmuch House and the Good Shepherd Centre began more recently, based on our members’ passion to bring our work to children who stay at these local shelters.
What prompted the start of your club? What was the inspiration behind your initiative?
MAfC was started around eight years ago by a small group of students who just wanted to bring their own passion for the arts to students in the local community. At that time there were really no other opportunities to do so, and so MAfC was born.
How do the children react to your presence? Do you notice a positive change in the children with every visit?
The best part of MAfC is seeing the smiles on the faces of the children every week; I know it sounds cheesy, but it’s true. Our teams are like special guests that come every week, so the children are always excited when we come in, and eager to find out what activity they’ll be doing that week. Over the course of our visits -- and often even after a single one -- we definitely notice some positive changes and growth in the children. Some of them may learn to tie knots or cut in a straight line for the first time. Over time they begin to discover their creative sides, and many of them are so proud that they’re beaming when they finish their craft for the week.
Why do you think the club has been so successful?
Our club has been growing steadily: we now have more volunteers than ever before, and in response, have expanded our number of placements. I think that part of what makes MAfC successful is the fact that it provides opportunities to students who are passionate about what we do to be fully engaged in the process. Our members design the arts and music curricula that all teams follow, and each team works together before every placement to prepare the activity. We are not a club that just asks members to show up to a placement; our members are more involved and invested in what we do. Most of all, though, I think we are lucky to have a vision that resonates with so many students who are all passionate about what we do.
If you would enjoy bringing some artistic fun to children, email mcmasterarts@gmail.com.
Palika Kohli
Kacper Niburski
Assistant News Editor
Watermelons. Helium balloons. Cookies with pink icing.
While such novelties could very well describe the perfect picnic, these instead were present at the Children’s Emergency Department open house on Nov. 5.
Having closed their doors to anyone older than eighteen years of age since Apr. 4, the open house served as an invitation from the hospital to the broader community to showcase both what has been built and what currently goes on in the Children’s Emergency Department at McMaster Children’s Hospital.
Visitors were given a look into various areas of the Emergency Department, from the trauma rooms to the casting areas for broken bones. Additionally, demonstrations of IVs and cast moldings were performed for children.
The entire emergency has been tailored to meet the needs of children. Waiting and treatment areas are more spacious to accommodate family comfort, from bulky strollers to worrisome grandparents. Separated ambulances and walk-in entrances, as well as an isolated trauma bay and treatment room, serve to minimize a child’s exposure to the more gruesome aspects of medicine.
Dona Teles, Clinical Manager for the Children’s Emergency Department, stressed this design layout, saying “the point of the Children’s Emergency Department’s infrastructure was to limit the experience with needless trauma.”
Unique to the hospital is an overwhelmingly child-friendly environment. Bright colours highlight an otherwise bleak hospital exterior. Areas have been designed as to mirror the urban landscape. Interactive screens with a variety of games function as apt distractions. Together, these unique features further assist the children and families during the stressful time of a hospital emergency.
“We did not want it [the Emergency Department] to look so medicalized, with equipment right when you entire the room. We didn’t want people to be looking at it as a hospital, but as a welcoming playland,” said Teles.
But not all was gumdrops and lollipops, despite the fact that the current infrastructure and infantile atmosphere may remind some of exactly that.
Teles noted that, “The ER change was very controversial in the beginning, when we were separating the hospitals and putting them into their centres of excellence. We became the centre of excellence for children.
“It wasn’t that we were building a centre for children. It was that we were taking something away from the adult population; and in a sense we did,” said Teles.
Plans to do just that began in 2008 when Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) introduced the “Access to Best Care” (ABC) plan, which served to ensure healthcare was coordinated to be at the highest quality possible.
To do this, the hospital planned to strengthen its centre of excellence in Pediatrics, which culminated in a pediatric Emergency Department, Pediatric Critical Care Unit, and an inpatient mental health unit.
Last summer saw the application of this plan for the Hamilton Health Sciences began construction of a new Children’s Emergency Department. The opening of the Emergency Department represented the very butt-end of nearly $650-million in investments.
Despite this, controversy swelled. Ward 14 Councillor Robert Pastua was worried that besides some people being unaware of the change, others would have to drive further to receive the same care.
Other politicians chimed in, including Flamborough Ward 15 Councillor, Judi Partridge, who went so far to say that, “The pressure on the system created by this closing appears to be ill thought out – the risk is someone may die.”
“The days of every hospital being exactly the same as the others are long gone. Modern medicine and the need to have high technologies in places means you can’t have one of everything in every place,” said Jeff Vallentin, Vice President of HHS in charge of Communications and Stakeholder Relations, in response.
While both sides boomed their voices of concern, lost in the verbal fireworks was that the switch not only altered the way in which immediate care was carried out, but implicitly refashioned the entire hospital’s method of care, from how it operates to how it delivers various services.
To this point, the 270 staff members, 102 beds, and numerous departmental changes were observed. Much of the staff and medical equipment was partitioned between other Hamiltonian hospitals such as the Juravinski Hospital, which received 185 of the staff members, or Hamilton General Hospital, which received six of the beds.
Irrespective of these changes, the explicit benefits of whether or not the move has been advantageous remains to be seen. Certainly, the youngest of the population are being cared for. But lingering questions still remain to those left behind, especially considering that the hospital is situated in a University with some 20,000 students that are not eligible for immediate care.
Perhaps in an attempt to answer the enduring concerns, or perhaps to appease the bitterness some community members may still hold, Teles boldly concluded with, “It is the best and only place we should be bringing our children to for care.”
And with an entire emergency department retrofitted for children and familial needs, from distracting games to a child-friendly environment, this may certainly be true.
Children may not want to just be brought to the hospital. Instead, they may want to stay there too.
