spinofflive
Photo: Getty
Photo: Getty

SocietyAugust 14, 2019

The ‘promising young athlete’ cliche risks erasing the victim’s reality

Photo: Getty
Photo: Getty

What does it say about our sporting bodies that we’d even consider letting those who have admitted sexual assault compete under our banner, writes Casey Lucas.

“A promising young athlete…”

It’s startling how a seemingly innocent phrase can conjure cold dread in the stomach before your eyes even reach the end of the sentence.

“You are an avid and talented [sportsman, having competed] at a high-level and that includes representing New Zealand overseas. Your goal is to be a professional [sportsman] and compete internationally. References provided tell of your outstanding talent and your potential bright future.”

These are the words of a Youth Court judge in the recent case of a youth sexual offender. It is now clear that, contrary to early reporting, the teenager’s sporting prowess was not a factor in his avoiding a jail term for repeated sexual assaults – the Youth Court has no such sentencing power, and the offender’s counsel failed in an attempt to keep his offence off the record owing to his sporting potential.

However, the choice of language, and the response to this and other similar stories says a lot about the value we place on athletes. The inference in this and in other stories with similar elements seems to be that he will resume his sporting journey, continue in pursuit of that bright future.

Sportspeople occupy a vaunted position in New Zealand’s cultural pantheon and terms like promising and young and potential are the cloaks we drape upon them.

Even if you don’t personally partake, there’s no denying the prominence with which sport shapes both New Zealand’s culture and our perception of ourselves. Victory and defeat become an intensely emotional processes. And sport is one of the few emotional outlets that men are permitted; to cry after winning a World Cup is noble and justifiable.

When our teams win, we’re winning. When our teams lose, we regret the loss while championing their bravery, their Kiwi battler spirit, their refusal to give up. In my years reporting on sport both in New Zealand and overseas, I’ve found myself swept up in that tide of emotion as fiercely as anyone.

If we project our hard-battling spirit onto our athletes, if we share in their victories, if we expect them to wear our nation’s flag as an avatar of ourselves, what does it say about us when, time and again, we send a message that we value the career potential of athletes over the people they hurt? What values are we espousing then?

Sporting federations and governing bodies around the world behave by codes of conduct, as recently highlighted in the public clash between Rugby Australia and Israel Folau. New Zealand is no different. Take, for example, the New Zealand Football Code of Conduct.

In order to play the sport officially in New Zealand, players must sign a document affirming that they will abide by the Code of Conduct, the very first line of which is this:

Club members must: respect the rights, dignity and worth of others.

Is there any act which disregards the rights, dignity, and worth of others more than sexual violation?

The stereotype of the student athlete who ducks consequences as easily as dodging tackles is well established. From cases like US swimmer Brock Turner to the antagonists of many a teen movie, societies the world over are too often hesitant to punish athletes for their transgressions, resulting in a culture of harmful, self-feeding entitlement.

It’s easy to perceive these problems as overseas issues, to designate the Brock Turners of the world as products of their own countries’ social ills. It’s easy to say our kids aren’t like that. But here we stand, with one more brick of irrefutable evidence on the pile that at least some of our kids are. Some of our kids are like that and some of our adults need to ask whether they are complicit, parts of the apparatus that denies victims the dignity of being heard.

This isn’t a call for tougher punishment, or longer jail terms, or punitive justice. This is a call to examine what it says about us when we acknowledge that our cultural avatars, our stand-ins on the world stage, can be rapists. Regardless of punishments that bar athletes from receiving travel visas, what does it say about our sporting bodies that we’d even consider letting those who have admitted sexual assault compete under our banner?

The machine that shields assaulters from consequences and sees them representing our country in sport is not piloted by a single driver. It’s a twisted assembly line of coaches, commissioners, law enforcement personnel, judges, and more. At its worst it is a suit of armour that we build up around promising young athletes. We tell ourselves we can spit-shine it clean again with good old Kiwi elbow grease and maybe it will win a few jousting tournaments and hopefully it won’t rape anybody else along the way.

If we share in the victory when our teams get a podium finish, so too must we share this.

What about a different variety of promising young athlete — the ones who match these predators’ victim profiles? They and all their teammates sign their codes of conduct under the expectation that the bodies who govern their sports will hold male athletes to the same standards.

So often this issue is framed as Sports People versus Everyone Else, athletes versus not. But writing off the whole of sporting culture as rape-abetting discounts the possibility that victims can also be athletes who have promising careers they don’t wish to see derailed. The breathless thrill of victory, the lifelong friendships and bonds, the honour of representing their country on the national stage — these are not solely the property of predators. 

What if his victims are promising young athletes; what promises are we breaking to them? 

Keep going!
Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

SocietyAugust 13, 2019

Coroner says breastfeeding mums should never drink alcohol. 400 doctors disagree

Photo: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images

Over 400 doctors, most specialising in child health, have signed an open letter to the coroner expressing concerns about a judgement which blamed alcohol in breast milk for the death of an infant.

Update 13/08: The open letter to the coroner has now been submitted with a total of 727 doctors’ signatures.

Sapphire Rose and her twin sister Honey were born on November 4, 2016 at 33 weeks gestation. Honey and Sapphire should be two and a half now. But only one little girl is still alive. Sapphire died on 2 January, 2017.

Contributing factors cited included a dangerous sleeping environment, prematurity, possible septicaemia, suffocation – and acute alcohol intoxication. Sapphire’s mum mostly formula-fed her but said she sometimes breastfed too. And the day before Sapphire died her mum said she consumed a large amount of alcohol.

There are other factors, too. Sapphire had six siblings. And she, along with her mum and dad, were homeless. They were waiting on a Housing New Zealand home.

Subsequent reporting has focused on Coroner Debra Bell’s comments regarding Sapphire’s blood alcohol content and the direct line she draws to her mother’s breast milk. “[Sapphire’s mother] accepts the alcohol in Sapphire’s blood must have come from her consumption of alcohol. Sapphire’s mother’s actions highlight what has been well documented; alcohol can pass to a child via breast milk,” she said.

“Therefore, I stress the importance of breastfeeding mothers not to consume alcohol at any stage,” she is reported to have written.

Yet pathologist Dr Simon Stables and Coroner Debra Bell could not ascertain Sapphire’s direct cause of death. Somehow, as we have seen before with coroners, this has been translated into a blanket message for mothers. This time it’s not to have alcohol if you’re breastfeeding. This is an easy comment to make – as popular as “don’t let your child walk to school” or “don’t ever co-sleep”.

This time, however, a groundswell of medical professionals have hit back. More than 400 doctors have so far signed an open letter to the coroner expressing their concerns at the judgement and questioning whether the amount of alcohol in Sapphire’s system could have been ingested through breastmilk alone. The letter, which The Spinoff has seen, was written by Dr Heather Johnston in collaboration with other doctors around the country. Dr Johnston said she was astonished by the Coroner’s judgements.

“General consensus is that a breastfeeding mother consuming alcohol in moderation is unlikely to put her baby at risk. A mother who has a drink or two, and would still be under the New Zealand blood alcohol limit to drive (50mg alcohol/ 100ml) would have a breastmilk alcohol level of 50mg/ 100mL (or 0.05% alcohol by volume) – which is the same as a glass of orange or apple juice, a ripe banana, and less than a glass of kombucha or some types of bread rolls,” she told The Spinoff in an email.

“There is no evidence that a baby being fed breastmilk with this kind of alcohol concentration is at risk of harm. If a woman is safe to drive, she is safe to feed her baby breastmilk.”

She said that a recent cohort study from Australia confirmed that mothers who are breastfeeding will usually consume alcohol at a low level if they are going to consume any, or that they will employ strategies to minimise the alcohol passing to their baby. “The study also confirms that there are no known adverse health effects in babies under 12 months, who are exposed to low levels of alcohol via breastmilk.”

The research into the effects of alcohol through breastmilk is cited heavily in the letter to the coroner.

“Despite the old wives’ tales, alcohol does not increase breastmilk production, or relax babies,” Dr Johnston said. “Alcohol inhibits the milk letdown reflex when at high levels in the mother’s blood, after around five standard drinks, reducing the amount of breastmilk that the baby receives. It’s like a built-in protective mechanism. It has been postulated that an even higher amount of alcohol, 12 standard drinks or above, could completely inhibit the suckling-induced oxytocin surge, meaning no milk letdown at all.”

That’s not at all to say that drinking is a good idea when you’re looking after a small baby, but where the coroner is looking is confusing at best, according to Dr Johnston.

“The main dangers from drinking and breastfeeding are not the ingestion of alcohol by the baby, but rather the intoxication or limitations of the mother.

“Dangers of making poor decisions, dropping the baby, or falling asleep in bed with the baby while under the influence of alcohol and unsafely bedsharing, are much more dangerous than the baby consuming a small amount of alcohol via the breastmilk,” Dr Johnston said.

Photo by Veejay Villafranca/Getty Images

Sapphire’s siblings slept five to a bed because there was nowhere else to sleep. Because they were homeless, her mother did not have access to her medication. Her mother consumed a lot of alcohol the day before she died.

The amount of alcohol in Sapphire’s blood was 308mg per 100mL of blood. Yet no alcohol was found in her stomach. Forensic pathologist Dr Simon Stables was at a loss to explain the high reading. Health professionals have publicly and privately said they’re baffled by the result. Auckland paediatrician Dr Alison Leversha told the New Zealand Herald that the case was “very unusual”.

“I haven’t, in my professional experience, ever seen a case of alcohol poisoning through breast milk,” she said.

Dr Johnston agrees. “My letter has gathered over 400 signatures from doctors in less than 24 hours, and I expect that this will only continue to gain traction as everyone finishes work for the day. Many of the concerned doctors are obstetricians, paediatricians and general practitioners, and several have a joint qualification as lactation consultants.”

“When the information publicly available is used, and combined with some reasonable assumptions, the science of alcohol ingestion and metabolism, as well as infant feeding knowledge – it can be calculated that the maximum blood alcohol concentration that baby Sapphire could have reached by ingesting her mother’s breastmilk is around a tenth of what has been reported,” Dr Johnston said.

She, along with other health professionals have run the numbers. “To reach a blood alcohol level of over 300mg/ 100mL from drinking breastmilk, her mother’s blood and breast alcohol level would likely have needed to be four times higher than the highest levels ever recorded,” Dr Johnston said.

“Breastmilk alcohol is not the same percentage alcohol as a beverage that has just been consumed, it is a tiny fraction of that. Just like if you drink a glass of 12% wine, your blood alcohol is nowhere near 12% – in fact it would usually be less than 0.05% and you would be safe to drive. If we take this case at face value, Sapphire would be the first baby ever reported to have died from acute alcohol intoxication from breastmilk.”

Years ago I wrote about how the coroner’s guidelines on co-sleeping. It’s my view that the guidelines actually put children at risk. By placing a blanket ban on co-sleeping instead of explaining how to do it safely, they have mothers up all night, falling asleep on couches and rocking chairs with their babies in a desperate attempt not to fall asleep in bed because they’ve been told that’s dangerous. And then the worst happens – and the coroner says: “See? No co-sleeping”.

Again, in the current case, the target for judgement and popular condemnation is mothers. The evidence, however, offers no discernible basis for a blanket ban on having a drink while breastfeeding.

“By recommending that all mothers who breastfeed entirely abstain from alcohol, the potential to make really meaningful recommendations was lost,” says Dr Johnston. “Instead of placing the blame and responsibility at an individual level, change could have been made on a population level. What could have been learnt from this case, is what moderation looks like for a breastfeeding mother, or what steps a mother could take to help increase safety.”

The national conversation has instead turned into another chance to vilify mothers.

“It is not fair to scaremonger and recommend all mothers to remain alcohol-free for the duration of her time trying to conceive, her pregnancy, and then two years or longer of breastfeeding. Breastfeeding mothers already get an incredibly hard time in our culture. They’re told they’re breastfeeding too long or stopping too early, they’re told off when they do it publicly, when they eat certain foods or take certain medications.

“There’s so much judgement,” Dr Johnston said. “A breastfeeding mother’s body is subject to a lot of arbitrary rules and perspectives by the public. To have a non-evidence based recommendation of total sobriety serves only to isolate mothers further.”

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said it is Coronial Services policy not to comment on individual coroner’s findings.