CMA vs. MMA

The Canadian Medical Association has voted out a resolution to lobby against MMA's legalization in Canada.

It already has on its books a similar resolution concerning boxing.

I understand that the CMA did not engage in a comparative analysis as to injury and death in MMA compared to other sports. My understanding is that MMA stands up well in such a comparison, and not only just compared to boxing.

The CMA's oppposition is ideological, a misconceived liberalism, an instance of irrelevant moralizing. The driving impulse behind the CMA's opposition is that the aim in MMA is to inflict injury, to beat up the opponent, in order to win, just as, esssentially, though there are differences, in boxing. In other sports, injuring, beating into submission, the opponent is no part of their purpose. They have an entirely different notion of winning which does not entail that kind of physical vanquishing as such.

A problem with the CMA's position, and which marks it ludicrous, is that the CMA does not lobby against sports more physically dangerous to their participants than MMA because it finds the purposes of those sports acceptable. The CMA doesn't know, I surmise, that when the UFC brought in its new regime of rules, in July 2001, doctors and sports regulators were part of the convention that drew the new rules.

The CMA has got to get over itself. It's not our moral guardian. If it wants to act within the scope of its competence and politick on that basis, then let it. Let it bring forth evidence as to the dangers MMA poses that will withstand scrutiny and will not entangle its positions in logical absurdities.

But its recent position on MMA has done none of that.