There's a vacuum there for all sorts of ideas in scenarios where there are no real answers and that's what we're seeing at the moment.
Look it what Dr Trump came out with and it just goes to show the extent to which the bizarre can start to become even considered ( not that it was by most sane individuals).
" a culling of the herd " is another possibility often touted. There's a culling of the herd in that case every day, week , month and year through natural causes , heart attacks, cancer and the annual outbreak of flu.
Whether you sign a contract or not won't make a difference other than the fact that if you get ill you can be put to the back of the queue for any treatment because you put yourself at risk and others who didn't sign up but might be completely irresponsible or responsible, didn't.
This will pass for certain but in the meantime you'll have some crazy developments and suggestions.
catch22 (USA) - Posts: 1492 - 25/04/2020 07:33:06
Thee concept is an interesting one and to be honest its not that unusual in relation to managing risk. Its less about opinion and more about rights. The guy suggesting it is just following to law to be honest.
Some will feel the risk is to great and think there should be blanket banning, others might feel its a risk they are prepared to enter into. Ultimately it doesnt matter. It comes down to rights.
There are a number of legislative instruments that allow people to take on a measure of informed risk, even if its not in their best interests, its enshrined in the constitution, numerous Irish statutes and EU law and UN conventions.
Essentially, its illegal to restrict liberty or deny someone the ability to make an informed choice around risk and not to allow them to take that risk on if they have capacity.
For example, you can sit in a cafe every morning, eat a greasy fry, with a full understanding you will probably have a good chance of having a heart attack at some stage, but no one has the right to deny you ordering or eating that or to take it away while you are eating because its bad for you.
You can choose to go Sky diving, sign a waiver that there is a risk the parachute wont open, acknowledging that you know there is a risk but are choosing to to do it any way.
You might be an older person in hospital, who wants to go home but maybe there is a huge risk of falling or limits aorund other health related issues and of hurting yourself to a great extent. Maybe your family really wish and implore you to go into a residential care home, it doesn't matter you are entitled to make a decision to go home if you understand the risks and are entitled to take on that personal risk and not have your liberty restricted.
The rights and wrongs of the above are subjective in terms of opinion, but they are rights assigned by law that every citizen is allowed make an informed choice about taking on personal risk and in regard to their liberty. Usually when it involves risking others you are into criminality.
Not that i agree with some of the cases being taken here in Ireland and abroad on testing legality of the recent lock down legislation, but these are the points of law that are being tested.
Where this all gets a bit muddy is the public good, simply individual risk taking decisions has impact on others, which is why recent legislation, while logical and apt to keep us all safe, creates a conflict between individual rights and social good. Essentially recent lock down legislation has put a pause or at least a huge mitigation on our civil legal rights - for our own good. But you can see the dilemmas.
So the complexity of the decision that comes next fort he GAA, is an individual rights based approach, VS the public good, via public health advise and what the government within with what we believe is temporary legislation.
These are frankly very interesting times from a sociological, psycho social, socio - democratic point of view. Even more interesting theoretically politically, we have abandoned capitalism/democracy in a time of crisis and veered more toward socialism/communism - but thats for future study.
So where does all that leave us and GAA. On a micro level we can go down the route with both players and supporters, that they have a right to make an informed choice about risk and take that risk on. Some players might decide to play, some might take the year off. Some supporters might decide to go (if games happen), other wont. Im sure no one will force anyone, its a choice really and one everyone is legally allowed make.
Else wise it might not even get that far, the government, or public health might step in with the GAA and just say listen lads just dont run anything this year and we will back it up with emergency legislation, ala, like the lock down legislation. I imagine the Government might throw in a good few bob in sweeteners to see the GAA through the year, given there are credit lines now open through Europe, maybe that the sweet spot the GAA are waiting for and negotiating around and likely the most logical outcome.
So it will be either a blanket decision made for us, or people having the right to take on a degree of personal risk with hopefully limits and precautions taken, it will be the same for players. Players and supporters, if the opportunity arises some will engage some wont, but will have a right to do so if anything played.
TheUsername (Dublin) - Posts: 3411 - 25/04/2020 09:48:25