Harm, Risk, and Doping Analogies: A Counter-Response to Kious
Theoretical medicine and bioethics 2011 Jun; 32(3): 201-7; discussion 209-10
Brent Kious has objected to our previous criticism of his views on doping, maintaining that we, by and large, misrepresented his position. In this response, we strengthen our original misgivings, arguing that (1) his views on risk of harm in sport are either uncontroversially true (not inconsistent with the views of many doping opponents) or demonstrably false (attribute to doping opponents an overly simplistic view), (2) his use of analogies (still) indicates an oversimplification of many issues surrounding the question of doping in sports, and (3) his doping analogies are insufficiently precise to support his conclusions.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
MacGregor, Oskar; McNamee, Mike (2010-12)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 ...
McNamee, Mike J; Tarasti, Lauri (2010-03)Criticisms of the ethical justification of antidoping legislation are not uncommon in the literatures of medical ethics, sports ethics and sports medicine. Critics of antidoping point to inconsistencies of principle in the ...