The Concussion Call
Jordan is 17, in the first XV, and had a concussion 10 days ago in a trial match. He still gets headaches after 20 minutes on his laptop, feels dizzy when he stands quickly, and sleeps 10 hours but wakes unrefreshed. The team plays the final in 12 days; a sports scholarship scout will attend. The coach says, 'Just tell the nurse you're fine-we need you.' Jordan's whānau worry that missing the game could cost him the scholarship, but also worry about his memory. The GP said no contact sport for four weeks but the next appointment is in three weeks and costs $45. The school nurse cannot clear him to play. Jordan feels pressure from teammates, whānau, and the coach, and does not want to be seen as weak.
1. Analyse the risk and protective factors in Jordan's situation. Explain how they interact and why the short-term decision is difficult.
Read the worked answer
Risk factors: ongoing headaches, dizziness and unrefreshed sleep suggest Jordan is not recovered; pressure from the coach, scholarship stakes and whānau expectations increase the chance of concealment; the $45 cost and three-week GP wait make clearance harder; a single scout visit feels like a one-off chance. Protective factors: whānau concern, the GP's four-week advice, the school nurse, and Jordan's own ambivalence. Interaction: the risk is not just another knock-it is that pressure plus access barriers push Jordan to lie about symptoms. Hiding symptoms removes the very support that could protect him. Hauora: playing would affect taha tinana (brain recovery), taha hinengaro (anxiety, identity as an athlete), and taha whānau (family conflict). Judgement: the short-term reward is vivid; the long-term risk is less visible, which is why a structured decision is needed. A strong answer names the pressure, not just the concussion.
2. Describe a decision-making process Jordan could use and recommend what he should do. Justify your recommendation.
Read the worked answer
Decision process: identify options (play, sit out, seek a second opinion, ask for deferral), weigh consequences for health, scholarship and relationships, check values (long-term health vs loyalty), seek advice from the GP or nurse, and communicate the decision. Recommended action: do not play in 12 days. Ask the GP for written advice and a clear return-to-play plan; ask the school to contact the scout about a medical withdrawal and explore video, references or a later trial; ask the coach to stop pressuring. Assertive script: 'I'm not cleared. I want to play, but I'm not risking another head injury. Please support me in telling the scout.' Reasoning: Jordan cannot consent to risk safely while symptomatic; the coach's instruction is not medical clearance. Trade-off: he may lose this opportunity, but a second injury could cost more-schooling, memory, and future sport. The decision should be Jordan's, with whānau and clinician support, not the coach's.
3. Explain how Jordan could advocate for himself and others when facing pressure from the coach and whānau. Give specific steps and discuss one trade-off.
Read the worked answer
Advocacy steps: (1) bring the GP's written advice to a meeting with the coach, nurse and a whānau support person, so the message is not just Jordan's word; (2) ask the school to formally notify the scout and request flexibility; put this in writing; (3) if pressure continues, escalate to the principal or board using the school's safety policy; (4) ask the nurse to help monitor symptoms and plan a gradual return. Reasoning: Jordan is 17 and under pressure; advocating alone is unrealistic, so allies and documentation shift the power. The coach may genuinely believe sport comes first, so a medical note and a face-saving route (e.g., 'medical withdrawal') are more effective than a confrontation. Trade-off: escalation could strain the coach relationship, but allowing pressure to continue risks Jordan's health and teaches teammates that concealment is normal. A strong answer protects both Jordan and the team culture.