By: Seth Corwin
In 2015, when the Buffalo Sabres drafted Jack Eichel at 2nd overall, it was believed to be a turning point for the struggling franchise. Now, six years have passed and the coveted 6’ 2” centerman from North Chelmsford, Massachusetts wants out of a spiraling Buffalo Sabres organization. On July 30th, the 24 year old officially asked to be traded via his agents, Peter Fish and Peter Donatelli. But what prompted Eichel’s desire to be traded? While there were reports of disconnect between Eichel and the Sabres back in May, according to The Athletic, the biggest contributing factor has been a disagreement over the specific type of surgery to repair Eichel’s herniated disk injury that he suffered last season. More specifically, the Sabres want Eichel to get a procedure known as anterior cervical discectomy with fusion (ACDF) because the procedure has been done on hockey players before. Eichel and his camp on the other hand want Eichel to get a procedure known as artificial disk replacement surgery done for his injury, which has never been done on an NHL player before and why the Sabres are adamantly against it. The dispute between the two sides over what type of procedure Eichel should get leads us to the question as to whether professional American athletes, like Eichel, maintain a Constitutional right to refuse medical treatment that is prescribed by their team or the league and choose their own medical treatment?
To answer this question, you first have to understand the United States Constitution and more specifically, the 14th Amendment. Under Section 1 of the 14th Amendment , it is stated that no State shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”, otherwise famously known as the Due Process Clause. When the 14th Amendment was ratified following the Civil War, it aimed to prevent primarily southern States from denying newly freed slaves their Constitutional rights. However, it has seen slightly different uses by the Supreme Court of the United States, with one of those uses being something known as substantive due process. In essence, the Supreme Court established substantive due process to determine when something not written in the Constitution should be considered a fundamental right. If the court then deems that it is a fundamental right, then that right cannot be taken away without due process (in other words, there must be a compelling reason for denying a citizen their fundamental right). For example, in 1990, in the case of Cruzan v. Director, the Supreme Court determined that under the Due Process Clause and substantive due process, every American citizen has the fundamental right to refuse, and therefore choose, medical treatment and that such right cannot be taken away without due process.
So does this mean teams like the Sabres have to allow Eichel and other professional American athletes to choose or outright refuse medical treatment? No, they do not. While there is a fundamental right for Americans to choose and refuse medical treatment under substantive due process and the 14th Amendment, teams are not bound by it. The reason why the 14th Amendment does not apply to teams is because the 14th Amendment only applies to State governments and not private actors/individuals (i.e. States cannot take away an American’s right to refuse medical treatment without due process). Teams like the Sabres are regarded in the eyes of the government and the Constitution as private actors/individuals, who are not bound by the 14th Amendment. This is how an organization like the National Football League (NFL), which is a private actor/individual, has made a COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for all coaching staff and front-office personnel on all 32 NFL teams. Simply put, professional American athletes, like Eichel, have no right to refuse team prescribed medical treatment or choose their own medical treatment.
But if Eichel has no right to refuse team medical treatment or choose his own form of medical treatment, then how is there a dispute over this? While Eichel does not have any legal recourse to protect his right to choose and refuse medical treatment, under the NHL Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), Eichel is entitled to a second opinion from a doctor of his choosing. This is what Eichel has done and is why there is currently a dispute over his treatment. Under the CBA, the Sabres’ physician has to take into serious consideration the opinion of the second doctor that Eichel has chosen, but the decision ultimately lies with the Sabres’ physician, with their decision being final. However, it seems highly unlikely that Eichel will go forward with any medical treatment prescribed by the Sabres that is not artificial disk replacement surgery. At this point, the most likely scenarios are the Sabres trading Eichel to a team that will allow him to receive the artificial disk replacement surgery or Eichel and the Sabres remaining in a deadlock into training camp and the regular season. Meanwhile, as the Eichel saga in Buffalo continues to play out, an important question still looms in the background; should private individuals/actors, like the Buffalo Sabres, be bound to the 14th Amendment just as States are or should private matters between private parties stay private?
For more Sports Law, Hockey, and NHL news, follow @scorwin97 on Twitter and Instagram and The Daily Goat on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter!