Framing the Issue
Every day in the United States, ten people die from unintentional drowning. Among children between ages one and four, drowning is the leading cause of death apart from birth defects (CDC 1). However, despite these numbers, unintentional drowning is frequently preventable. But, some would ask, “Why does drowning prevention even matter? Why not just avoid the water completely if you’re not comfortable with swimming?” This approach has some appeal in that it simply eliminates the problem. However, it ignores the reality that children are exposed to water on a regular basis. There are many activities that take place in or on the water that children are likely to feel left out, or try the activities anyway, even if they aren’t comfortable in the water. Some examples include water tubing, boating, fishing, water polo, or even just hanging out at a local or public pool. Because of the likelihood of these experiences, it is important that both children and adults have a good grasp of water safety. Additionally, some childhood drowning does not happen in public pools or natural bodies of water; young children can drown in apartment pools, or even bathtubs.
This reality leads to an obvious follow up question: If children can’t avoid the water, then what is the best way to prevent unintentional drowning? Some argue that formal swimming lessons are the best solution. Others claim that water safety awareness for parents and bystanders is the most important area to focus on. Still other people say that different technologies, both older, well tested devices and newer, modern inventions, are the only way to guarantee safety. The best solution is one that combines all three, leading to general awareness, knowledge about the issue, and overall decreased risk.
This reality leads to an obvious follow up question: If children can’t avoid the water, then what is the best way to prevent unintentional drowning? Some argue that formal swimming lessons are the best solution. Others claim that water safety awareness for parents and bystanders is the most important area to focus on. Still other people say that different technologies, both older, well tested devices and newer, modern inventions, are the only way to guarantee safety. The best solution is one that combines all three, leading to general awareness, knowledge about the issue, and overall decreased risk.
Swim Lessons
Swimming lessons can range from a careful, slow process with certified instructors to just throwing a child in the water and having them learn then and there. While the latter really doesn’t help at all, the former is a great example of what swim lessons today look like. In fact, formal swimming lessons “decrease the risk of drowning by 88%” (Brenner). Such a dramatic difference clearly makes swim lessons a good solution, or at least one which has very clear benefits.
While there are many lesson providers across the country, including the YMCA or the American Red Cross, one great example is the Foss Swim School, which has locations throughout Minnesota and Illinois. This is where I took lessons, so I can speak from both personal experience and from observation that their teaching method is very effective. Foss claims that over 100,000 children have graduated and that there are currently 80,000 active students in their programs (Foss Swim School). Additionally, two American record holders have come out of Foss, including Rachel Bootsma, who competed in the 2012 Olympic Games in London (Foss Swim School). The lessons and methods are designed to lead into a competitive swimming experience, with instructors building proper stroke technique at an early age. However, even if the children don’t go on to swim competitively, they are taught important skills that help increase their safety in the water. These skills include getting out of the pool when there is no ladder or place to step on, floating on your back, and diving underwater or swimming without goggles (Field Observation).
These benefits are great, but unfortunately, they are not available to everyone. Staying with the same example, Foss is very expensive. For a normal class, the cost is $22 per class, which works out to about $88 per month (Foss Website). For some families, this cost eliminates the option of lessons. The problem with this barrier, according to Director Tina Dessart of the USA Swimming Foundation Make A Splash Program, is that only 19% of children whose parents don’t know how to swim will learn themselves. So, if the parents are unable to afford lessons, and their children never get them, then the next generation is very likely to not take lessons as well. Many populations, especially minorities, can get stuck in this cycle. This is one reason for the ethnic disparities in drowning rates among children. According to a study done by the CDC from 1999 to 2010, African-American children were 1.4 times more likely to drown than Caucasian children (CDC 1). Between the ages of 11 and 12, African American children were 10 times more likely to drown (CDC 2). So, while the benefits of lessons are clear, they are not always a viable solution for everyone.
While there are many lesson providers across the country, including the YMCA or the American Red Cross, one great example is the Foss Swim School, which has locations throughout Minnesota and Illinois. This is where I took lessons, so I can speak from both personal experience and from observation that their teaching method is very effective. Foss claims that over 100,000 children have graduated and that there are currently 80,000 active students in their programs (Foss Swim School). Additionally, two American record holders have come out of Foss, including Rachel Bootsma, who competed in the 2012 Olympic Games in London (Foss Swim School). The lessons and methods are designed to lead into a competitive swimming experience, with instructors building proper stroke technique at an early age. However, even if the children don’t go on to swim competitively, they are taught important skills that help increase their safety in the water. These skills include getting out of the pool when there is no ladder or place to step on, floating on your back, and diving underwater or swimming without goggles (Field Observation).
These benefits are great, but unfortunately, they are not available to everyone. Staying with the same example, Foss is very expensive. For a normal class, the cost is $22 per class, which works out to about $88 per month (Foss Website). For some families, this cost eliminates the option of lessons. The problem with this barrier, according to Director Tina Dessart of the USA Swimming Foundation Make A Splash Program, is that only 19% of children whose parents don’t know how to swim will learn themselves. So, if the parents are unable to afford lessons, and their children never get them, then the next generation is very likely to not take lessons as well. Many populations, especially minorities, can get stuck in this cycle. This is one reason for the ethnic disparities in drowning rates among children. According to a study done by the CDC from 1999 to 2010, African-American children were 1.4 times more likely to drown than Caucasian children (CDC 1). Between the ages of 11 and 12, African American children were 10 times more likely to drown (CDC 2). So, while the benefits of lessons are clear, they are not always a viable solution for everyone.
Awareness
Drowning can also be prevented through water-safety awareness for parents and bystanders. The most common problem with parents and bystanders is not that they fail to actually save the child, but that they fail to see them drowning in the first place. Of the 750 children that drown each year, “375 of them do so within 25 yards of their parents.” (Bornhoft). Additionally, “10 percent of parents watch their children drown because they don’t know it’s happening.” (Bornhoft). Because of this statistic, many argue that the real focus should be on educating those around the water, so that they can more effectively assist those at risk in the water.
The largest misconception about drowning is that it is a violent, dramatic event, with the victim screaming for help and splashing the water with his or her arms. However, this image is often not what real drowning looks like. There are a few things to look for to help spot drowning individuals. A low head in the water with the mouth at water level, glassy/empty eyes that are unable to focus, closed eyes, gasping or hyperventilating, or the appearance of “climbing an invisible ladder” are all indicators of a drowning victim (HealthyChildren.org). Don’t count on screaming or someone splashing or waving their arms to call your attention to them either. Francesco Pia, a lifeguard who coined the term “instinctive drowning response”, says that most drowning victims are “physiologically unable to call for help,” as speech is a secondary function to breathing (Bornhoft). Also, when drowning, the victim will automatically press their arms down to keep their mouth above the surface. This tendency prevents them from using their arms to wave for help or splash the water (Bornhoft).
Bystander awareness will greatly decrease unintentional drowning rates, but there are also issues with this solution. First, it’s a responsive, not a preventative, measure. Children will still be drowning, even if it’s not fatal, and human error will allow holes for accidents to happen. Second, bystanders who witness a drowning victim may not be proficient swimmers. A study by the Red Cross shows that nearly a fifth of adults who couldn’t swim at a safe level expected that they would supervise water activities during that summer (Red Cross). Adults who don’t know how to swim proficiently are unlikely to save their children from drowning. Finally, the reality is that some unintentional drowning occurs when children are not around adults or lifeguards, especially as they grow older. Adolescents, according to the CDC, are most likely to drown in natural water areas, like lakes or rivers, and these places traditionally have less supervision than a place like a public pool (CDC 3).
The largest misconception about drowning is that it is a violent, dramatic event, with the victim screaming for help and splashing the water with his or her arms. However, this image is often not what real drowning looks like. There are a few things to look for to help spot drowning individuals. A low head in the water with the mouth at water level, glassy/empty eyes that are unable to focus, closed eyes, gasping or hyperventilating, or the appearance of “climbing an invisible ladder” are all indicators of a drowning victim (HealthyChildren.org). Don’t count on screaming or someone splashing or waving their arms to call your attention to them either. Francesco Pia, a lifeguard who coined the term “instinctive drowning response”, says that most drowning victims are “physiologically unable to call for help,” as speech is a secondary function to breathing (Bornhoft). Also, when drowning, the victim will automatically press their arms down to keep their mouth above the surface. This tendency prevents them from using their arms to wave for help or splash the water (Bornhoft).
Bystander awareness will greatly decrease unintentional drowning rates, but there are also issues with this solution. First, it’s a responsive, not a preventative, measure. Children will still be drowning, even if it’s not fatal, and human error will allow holes for accidents to happen. Second, bystanders who witness a drowning victim may not be proficient swimmers. A study by the Red Cross shows that nearly a fifth of adults who couldn’t swim at a safe level expected that they would supervise water activities during that summer (Red Cross). Adults who don’t know how to swim proficiently are unlikely to save their children from drowning. Finally, the reality is that some unintentional drowning occurs when children are not around adults or lifeguards, especially as they grow older. Adolescents, according to the CDC, are most likely to drown in natural water areas, like lakes or rivers, and these places traditionally have less supervision than a place like a public pool (CDC 3).
Technology
Today, technology is stepping up in many areas to provide new solutions to old problems, and drowning is no exception. Devices like the iSwimBand and the Seal Swimsafe Band are worn on the swimmer’s wrist and are wirelessly linked back to a hub on land. If the band is submerged for a set amount of time, it will set off an alarm, so that those on land can spring into action to save the drowning victim (Staying Afloat). On a larger scale, automated drones are starting to be used on public beaches. In Santiago, Chile, the companies X-cam and Green Solutions partnered to create drones that can deliver flotation devices, project messages from the lifeguard, and have a GPS system that allows rescue teams to easily find the victim (Staying Afloat). In addition to these new inventions, old ones like life jackets or even a simple barricade or fence around a pool have been proven successful in reducing drowning. “Debbie Munson Badini, the outreach director for the DNR’s boat and water safety program,” has said that the recent drop in Minnesotan drowning rates is partially due to the “2005 law that requires children under 10 to wear life jackets while boating,” (Kaul). This correlation shows how technology can have a positive impact.
The technological solution to the problem of unintentional drowning is designed to avoid human error and fill in those “holes” that humans sometimes create. However, some of these newer devices can be extremely expensive, like the automated drones, or not available to the everyday family. Also, relying on these technologies can create a dependence on them, which could lead to laziness in lifeguards, parents, or others. If the technologies were to ever fail, the swimmers would suddenly be at a much higher risk of drowning. So, once again, this solution is not perfect.
The technological solution to the problem of unintentional drowning is designed to avoid human error and fill in those “holes” that humans sometimes create. However, some of these newer devices can be extremely expensive, like the automated drones, or not available to the everyday family. Also, relying on these technologies can create a dependence on them, which could lead to laziness in lifeguards, parents, or others. If the technologies were to ever fail, the swimmers would suddenly be at a much higher risk of drowning. So, once again, this solution is not perfect.
Conclusion/Solution
If all of these solutions have these faults, then which one is best? The answer is all three working together. The technology takes care of the human error presented by lessons and general awareness. Swimming lessons offset the reactive nature of technology and drowning awareness. Drowning awareness is completely free, so it doesn’t have the problem of cost that limits swimming lessons and technology. In fact, there are many programs in place, like the Michael Phelps Foundation or the Make A Splash program by the USA Swimming Foundation, that work to provide lessons and swimming materials to providers across the country. By combining all three of these solutions—lessons, awareness, and technology—we can significantly reduce the risk of unintentional drowning and give children a safe and fun experience in the water.