A friend recently called for “pros and cons” of getting a trampoline for her children from her social media contacts.

One of her friends is an Emergency Medicine specialist and he said that he would never get a trampoline for his kids.  Everyone else spoke of how much their children loved having a trampoline and how it kept them active and out of the house.

I also have a lot of friends who are doctors and it is interesting how their different specialties have impacted their perspective.  One friend who is a paediatrician bought his children a trampoline as soon as they were big enough to bounce.  Another friend, a GP who trained for a time as a dermatologist, didn’t want her children to have a trampoline because they would spend too much time outside increasing the risk of sun damage.  One of my friends was raised by a maxilo-facial surgeon who would not allow him to ride a bike because of the horrendous facial injuries he had seen from cyclists.

I do not have any medical training and I have no way of analysing the statistics but these differing approaches from different specialities has convinced me that our choices as parents are often based on our anecdotal experiences rather than on a considered assessment of risks.  It is hardly surprising – if you see a truly awful situation, you are not going to want to see it repeated even if it is highly unlikely.

A famous House of Lords decision, which is still considered in determining liability in Queensland personal injuries cases, of Bolton v Stone is always at front of mind for me when I am making decisions about what risks I am prepared to take for my children.

In that case, a pedestrian walking outside a cricket ground was struck by a ball that was hit outside the grounds by a talented batsman.  The court found that the risk of someone being hit by a cricket ball was small and the seriousness of any injury was unlikely to be great.  It was therefore not necessary for the cricket club to take any steps to avoid such an incident occurring.

To use the trampoline example, modern trampolines have protective screens.  Ours has no springs.  The risk of injury is small.  If they were to suffer an injury, it would be unlikely to be anything serious.

Risk analyses also need to take into account the risk of not permitting the activity.  In Bolton v Stone the unspoken consideration was that the incident may only have been avoidable by banning cricket.  The House of Lords would obviously never allow that!

For our kids, refusing to allow them any outdoor activity poses a very serious risk.  All of my medically trained friends agree that the biggest health threat to our kids is obesity.

It reminds me of the story of Terry in the 26-Storey Treehouse who was locked in a room and forced to sit in a non-falloutable armchair with airbags, a seatbelt and inflatable underpants.

I am all in favour of thinking through the risks to which we expose our kids.  However, just like risk assessments in a workplace, we cannot avoid taking risks – we can only manage them.