Pressure to Clear a 17-Year-Old Gymnast
A 17-year-old competitive gymnast presents with 3 weeks of low back pain that worsens with back extension and dismount landings. She has no leg pain, bowel or bladder symptoms, or night pain. Examination shows pain with lumbar extension and a positive single-leg extension test on the right, mild paraspinal spasm, and no neurologic deficits. She is scheduled for nationals in 10 days. Her mother says another chiropractor adjusted her and cleared her, and the coach tells you she needs to compete to keep a scholarship offer. The mother refuses MRI because she fears it will end the season. Plain radiographs from 1 year ago were normal, but no current imaging is available. The athlete is quiet, avoids eye contact, and says she will do whatever it takes.
1. What is your clinical concern, and why is clearance inappropriate at this point?
Read the worked answer
The presentation is suspicious for lumbar spondylolysis, particularly given extension-related pain, a positive single-leg extension test, and gymnastics loading. A stress fracture or bone stress injury must be excluded before clearance. Normal radiographs from a year ago do not rule out early spondylolysis; current MRI, or CT if MRI is unavailable, is needed. Clearing her or adjusting her through pain would risk progression, chronic pain, and a longer absence. She should not compete in 10 days unless imaging is negative and she is pain-free with sport-specific movements. The prior chiropractor's clearance is not sufficient without a current evaluation. Red flags are absent, but that does not exclude structural injury. The plan should include no extension loading, avoidance of dismounts and tumbling, relative rest, and urgent sports medicine referral.
2. What ethical and legal issues arise with the parent, the coach, and the athlete being a minor?
Read the worked answer
She is a minor, so parental consent is required for evaluation and imaging, but her assent matters. The mother's refusal of imaging is a refusal of a recommended diagnostic test, not a demand for treatment; you cannot provide false clearance. The coach's scholarship pressure is not a medical indication. Relevant ethical principles are beneficence and nonmaleficence, respect for autonomy through shared decision-making, and justice. Explain the rationale, the risks of competing, and the alternatives; document the refusal and the advice given. Do not perform high-velocity manipulation or adjustments over an undiagnosed stress fracture. If the parent continues to refuse, offer a second opinion and a written plan. You may speak with the coach only with consent. If there is concern about coercion or unsafe participation, follow safeguarding policies.
3. How would you communicate and document your decision?
Read the worked answer
Use plain language, show the examination findings, explain that clearance is a medical decision based on diagnosis and criteria, and separate the athlete's worth from one competition. Ask the athlete privately about pain, fear, and pressure, and screen for anxiety. Offer a shared plan: imaging, relative rest, pain-free conditioning, and a realistic timeline. Provide written instructions to the athlete, parent, and coach, with consent, that she is not cleared until imaging and clinical criteria are met. Document the refusal, the risks discussed, and the referral. Contact the team physician or sports medicine physician. If the coach or parent pressures you to change the record, decline and follow organizational policy. Maintain confidentiality and avoid disparaging the other chiropractor. Schedule follow-up.