Essential equipment or “unnecessary expense”? head protection in ice hockey and girls' lacrosse

The regulatory bodies of numerous organized sports have debated banning, permitting, or mandating protective headgear to prevent concussions and other head injuries. This analysis will use high school and college ice hockey and girls' lacrosse as case studies to examine the ethical arguments surrounding such equipment. In the last decades of the 20th century, head and facial protection became a standard requisite for playing ice hockey in the United States and Canada. Paternalistic arguments in favor of mandatory headgear were first and most easily made in the context of protecting child athletes, and were later extended to include adult players. Since the late 1970s, the National Federation of State High School Associations and the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) have required full face masks for ice hockey players. Girls' and women's lacrosse, however, largely bans the use of hard helmets for its players, with the exception of goaltenders. Opponents of helmets in women's lacrosse contend that the equipment would increase risks for players by encouraging more dangerous play and would constitute an “unnecessary expense.” Meanwhile, advocates of helmets argue that female athletes, like their male counterparts, need the protection from balls, sticks, collisions, and other safety threats inherent to the sport. The age of participants (youth vs. adult), their gender, concerns about expense, and arguments about how equipment influences player behavior have shaped the ethical debates around head protection in these sports.