Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Harm, risk, and doping analogies: A counter-response to Kious.Oskar MacGregor & Mike McNamee - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):201-207.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Dispelling a few false-positives: A reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping.Brent Michael Kious - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):195-200.
    McGregor and MacNamee recently, in this journal, offered several criticisms of an earlier article in which I attempted to refute a number of arguments for the claim that doping in sports is morally wrong. Their criticisms are numerous, but focus on four domains. First, they sketch a view on which the risk profiles of different sports may make doping permissible in some and impermissible in others. Second, they suggest that my criticisms of safety-based arguments assume that doping opponents are bent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Response to MacGregor and McNamee: Risks, relativity, and wrongness.Brent M. Kious - 2011 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):209-210.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark