Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 31, Issue 6, pp 401–410 | Cite as

Philosophy on steroids: a reply

Article

Abstract

Brent Kious has recently attacked several arguments generally adduced to support anti-doping in sports, which are widely supported by the sports medicine fraternity, international sports federations, and international governments. We show that his attack does not succeed for a variety of reasons. First, it uses an overly inclusive definition of doping at odds with the WADA definition, which has global, if somewhat contentious, currency. Second, it seriously misconstrues the position it attacks, rendering the attack without force against a more balanced construal of an anti-doping position. Third, it makes unwarranted appeals to matters Kious considers morally ‘clear’, while simultaneously attacking a position many others take to be equally morally ‘clear’, namely that of anti-doping. Such an inconsistency, attacking and appealing to the moral status quo as befits one’s argument, is not acceptable without further qualification. Fourth, his position suffers from a general methodological flaw of over-reliance upon argumentation by analogy. Moreover, it is argued that the analogies, being poorly selected and developed, fail to justify his conclusion that the anti-doping lobby lacks philosophical and moral authority for its stance. These issues are symptomatic of a more fundamental problem: any attempt at providing a blanket solution to the question of whether doping is morally acceptable or not is bound to run up against problems when applied to highly specific contexts. Thus, rather than reaching any particular conclusion for or against doping products or processes in this article, we conclude that an increased context-sensitivity will result in a more evenhanded appraisal of arguments on the matter.

Keywords

Sports ethics Doping Moral methodology Sports Performance enhancement 

References

  1. 1.
    Kious, Brent M. 2008. Philosophy on steroids: Why the anti-doping position could use a little enhancement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29: 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). 2009. World anti-doping code. http://www.wada-ama.org/Documents/World_Anti-Doping_Program/WADP-The-Code/WADA_Anti-Doping_CODE_2009_EN.pdf. Accessed 4 Jan 2010.
  3. 3.
    Møller, Verner. 2009. The ethics of doping and anti-doping: Redeeming the soul of sport? London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kerrigan, Sarah, and Tania Lindsey. 2005. Fatal caffeine overdose: Two case reports. Forensic Science International 153: 67–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zalis, Edwin G., and Loren F. Parmley Jr. 1963. Fatal amphetamine poisoning. Archives of Internal Medicine 112: 822–826.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Simon, Robert L. 1991. Fair play. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bloodworth, Andrew, and Mike McNamee. 2010. Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: The views of talented young British athletes. International Journal of Drug Policy 21: 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    McNamee, Mike. 2009. Beyond consent? Paternalism and pediatric doping. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 36: 111–126.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elster, Jon. 1992. Local justice: How institutions allocate scarce goods and necessary burdens. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kass, Leon R. 2003. Beyond therapy: Biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness. President’s Council on Bioethics. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/pcbe/reports/beyondtherapy/beyond_therapy_final_webcorrected.pdf. Accessed 12 Jan 2010.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, History and Law in Healthcare, School of Human and Health SciencesSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations