Hastings Cent Rep. 2016 Nov;46 Suppl 2:S28-S30. doi: 10.1002/hast.653.
In the article "A Proposal to Address NFL Club Doctors' Conflicts of Interest and to Promote Player Trust," Glenn Cohen et al. write, "The [NFL's] current structure forces club doctors to have obligations to two parties-the club and the player-and to make difficult judgments about when one party's interests must yield to another's." I can understand why some might be suspicious about bias in the current NFL medical system, in which the club doctors have a professional duty to put their player-patients' best interests first yet are employed by clubs, which have a primary goal of winning football games. It is my opinion, however, that neither the club nor the player needs to be sacrificed. I base this opinion partly on my experience as an NFL player in the early 1980s, partly on several years as team physician for the Boston Red Sox, and partly on my twenty-three-years of experience as a physician with the Connecticut Workers' Compensation medical system, which supposes that physicians can be fair to both workers and employers.
在“解决 NFL 俱乐部医生利益冲突并增进球员信任的提案”一文中，Glenn Cohen 等人写道：“现行结构迫使俱乐部医生对两个方面都有义务——俱乐部和球员——并对何时一方的利益必须让位于另一方的利益做出艰难的判断。”我可以理解为什么有些人会对当前 NFL 医疗体系中的偏见持怀疑态度，在这个体系中，俱乐部医生有专业责任将他们的运动员患者的最佳利益放在首位，但他们受雇于俱乐部，而俱乐部的首要目标是赢得足球比赛。然而，我的观点是，既不需要牺牲俱乐部，也不需要牺牲球员。我之所以有这个观点，部分基于我在 20 世纪 80 年代初作为 NFL 球员的经历，部分基于我作为波士顿红袜队多年的队医的经历，还部分基于我作为康涅狄格州工人赔偿医疗系统医生的 23 年经验，该系统假设医生可以对工人和雇主公平。
