Skip to main content
Log in

Response to MacGregor and McNamee: Risks, relativity, and wrongness

  • Published:
Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. MacGregor, Oskar, and Mike McNamee. 2011. Harm, risk and doping analogies: A counter-response to Kious. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. doi:10.1007/s11017-011-9178-9.

  2. Kious, Brent M. 2008. Philosophy on steroids: Why the anti-doping position could use a little enhancement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29: 213–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kious, Brent M. 2011. Dispelling a few false-positives: A reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. doi:10.1007/s11017-011-9173-1.

  4. MacGregor, Oskar, and Mike McNamee. 2010. Philosophy on steroids: A reply. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 31: 401–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Firth, Paul, Hui Zheng, Jeremy Windsor, et al. 2008. Mortality on Mount Everest, 1921–2006: Descriptive study. British Medical Journal 337: a2654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brent M. Kious.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kious, B.M. Response to MacGregor and McNamee: Risks, relativity, and wrongness. Theor Med Bioeth 32, 209–210 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9181-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-011-9181-1

Keywords

Navigation