From Therapy and Enhancement to Assistive Technologies: An Attempt to Clarify the Role of the Sports Physician
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 6 (4):480-491 (2012)
| Abstract | Sports physicians are continuously confronted with new biotechnological innovations. This applies not only to doping in sports, but to all kinds of so-called enhancement methods. One fundamental problem regarding the sports physician's self-image consists in a blurred distinction between therapeutic treatment and non-therapeutic performance enhancement. After a brief inventory of the sports physician's work environment I reject as insufficient the attempts to resolve the conflict of the sports physician by making it a classificatory problem. Followed by a critical assessment of some ideas from the US President's Council on Bioethics, the formulation of ethical codes and attempts regarding a moral topography, it is argued that the sports physician's conflict cannot be resolved by the distinction between therapy and enhancement. Instead, we also have to consider the possibility that the therapy-based paradigm of medicine cannot do justice to the challenges of the continuously increasing technical manipulability of the human body and even our cognitive functions as well. At the same time we should not adhere to transhumanist ideas, because non-therapeutic interventions require clear criteria. Based on assistive technologies an alternative framework can be sketched that allows for the integration of therapeutic and non-therapeutic purposes. After a thorough definition of standards and criteria, the role of the sports physician might be defined as that of an assistant for enhancement. Yet the process of defining such an alternative framework is a societal and political task that cannot be accomplished by the sports physicians themselves. Until these questions are answered sports physicians continue to find themselves in a structural dilemma that they partially can come to terms with through personal integrity | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesMike McNamee (2007). Whose Prometheus? Transhumanism, Biotechnology and the Moral Topography of Sports Medicine. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):181 – 194.
Stephen Mumford (2011). Watching Sport: Aesthetics, Ethics and Emotion for the Spectator. Routledge.
Jan Boxill (ed.) (2003). Sports Ethics: An Anthology. Blackwell Pub..
Christian Lenk (2007). Is Enhancement in Sport Really Unfair? Arguments on the Concept of Competition and Equality of Opportunities. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):218 – 228.
Paul Davis & Charlene Weaving (eds.) (2010). Philosophical Perspectives on Gender in Sports. Routledge.
M. J. McNamee (ed.) (2007). Philosophy, Risk and Adventure Sports. London ;Routledge.
Spencer K. Wertz (1991). Talking a Good Game: Inquiries Into the Principles of Sport. Southern Methodist University Press.
Yotam Lurie (2002). The Ontology of Sports Injuries. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 16 (2):265-276.
Oskar MacGregor & Mike McNamee (2011). Harm, Risk, and Doping Analogies: A Counter-Response to Kious. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 32 (3):201-207.
Susan Sherwin (2007). Genetic Enhancement, Sports and Relational Autonomy. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):171 – 180.
Oskar MacGregor (2010). Performance-Enhancing Technologies in Sports: Ethical, Conceptual, and Scientific Issues. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (1):106 – 108.
Analytics
Monthly downloads
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
|
Added to index2012-11-10Total downloads1 ( #274,921 of 549,128 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,128 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
