Search

Opinions News

District should consider annual exams

Next
Previous Page
Share
Print
Email

Tragedy struck Steven’s High School and a local family recently when a 16-year-old boy died on the athletic field. It was a shock to family, friends and the community.

There was no blame to place, nor should there have been.

But it does open the door to examine the Rapid City Area School District policy of sports’ exams every three years, rather than every one year, however. We do need to make it clear that an annual exam wouldn’t have changed what happened at Stevens. Ryan Gramberg’s enlarged heart would only have been detected by more advanced testing, such as an echocardiogram.

But in light of this tragic incident, we do think there’s a possibility an annual exam could detect a health/fitness issue that would  otherwise be missed over the course of two high school athletic seasons.

Why not err on the side of caution and require annual physical exams for athletes taking part in  school-sponsored activities?

Currently, the South Dakota High School Activities Association sets minimum standards for physical exams — once every three years for the exam and a comprehensive medical history.

In addition, if the physical isn’t done annually, a parental permit for the athlete is required each year.

The current physical examination has been in place for about 15 years. At the recommendation of the medical community, a more comprehensive physical examination was put in place. When that was done, athletes were required to receive the physical every third year rather than annually.

At this time, the South Dakota High School Activities Association (SDHSAA) isn’t discussing any changes in regards to the frequency of the physical exam policy.

Bob Lowery, assistant executive director of the SDHSAA said changes in policy would likely be recommended by the medical community, not the high school activities association.

“We feel very comfortable with the form we have in place and if there needs to be updates we’ll take our lead from the Department of Health and the medical community,” Lowery said.

However, even without the   directive from the activities association to require annual exams, the Rapid City school district should  consider requiring annual physicals for its athletes. It isn’t cost prohibitive to the athletes and it simply would be an additional safeguard in place.

Douglas School District and Sioux Falls School District require annual exams as do Wyoming and Nebraska.

Rapid City should err on the side of caution and follow suit.

Rapid Reply

Send us your Rapid Reply

(optional)
   
The preceeding are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

The opinions above are from readers of rapidcityjournal.com and in no way represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

Rapidcityjournal.com provides this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If you don't see your comment, perhaps...

  • you called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).
  • you rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
  • YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.
  • you named a business or identified a business in a way good or bad. Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns or your praise – they’ll likely appreciate your feedback.
  • you believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write Jerry Steinley at jerry.steinley@rapidcityjournal.com or call him at 394-8427. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.
  • you included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
  • you accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
  • your comment is in really poor taste.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Top Jobs

Featured Dealers

Newspaper Ads

RCJ Extras

Advertisement