No Harm, No Foul? Justifying Bans On Safe Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 4 (3):269-283 (2010)

Abstract
Scholars such as Simon and Loland as well as the authors of the World Anti-Doping Code argue that using performance-enhancing substances is unhealthy and unfairly coercive for other athletes. Critics of the anti-doping position such as Hoberman, Miah et al. and Tamburrini are quick to argue that such prohibitions, even though well-intended, constitute an unjustifiable form of paternalism. However, advocates for both of these positions assume that preserving good health and, conversely, avoiding health-related harms, lie at the centre of the debate. Given the apparent stalemate in the debate over the validity of health concerns on performance-enhancing drugs, in this essay, I investigate ethical issues of?harm-free? pharmaceutical performance enhancement. Beginning with the hypothesis that a harm-free performance-enhancing drug may be produced in the future, I ask if there would still be compelling reasons for prohibiting such a drug. I address this question by providing two arguments against allowing athletes to use pharmaceutical performance-enhancing drugs? the damage to the testing and contesting of sport and the loss of internal goods that are intrinsically satisfying. These two arguments taken together, I argue, are sufficient to sustain the prohibition of pharmaceutical performance-enhancing drugs without citing their harmful side effects
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/17511320903521068
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,299
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory.Alasdair C. MacIntyre - 1983 - University of Notre Dame Press.
The Case Against Perfection.Michael J. Sandel - 2004 - The Atlantic (April):1–11.
Are Rules All an Umpire Has to Work With?J. S. Russell - 1999 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 26 (1):27-49.

View all 12 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Performance-Enhancing Drugs as a Collective Action Problem.J. S. Russell & Alister Browne - 2018 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 45 (2):109-127.
Philosophy of Sport: Core Readings.Adam G. Pfleegor - 2014 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 8 (1):103-108.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Cognitive Enhancement, Cheating, and Accomplishment.Rob Goodman - 2010 - Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 20 (2):pp. 145-160.
Genetic Technologies and Sport: The New Ethical Issue.Andy Miah - 2001 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 28 (1):32-52.
Drugs, Sport, Anxiety and Foucauldian Governmentality.Michael Burke & Christopher Hallinan - 2008 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 2 (1):39 – 55.
Why Athletic Doping Should Be Banned.Eric Chwang - 2012 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (1):33-49.
'Human-Ness', 'Dehumanisation' and Performance Enhancement.Leon Culbertson - 2007 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (2):195 – 217.
America's Unjust Drug War.Michael Huemer - 2004 - In Bill Masters (ed.), The New Prohibition. Accurate Press.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2010-12-03

Total views
119 ( #71,959 of 2,290,759 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
6 ( #184,585 of 2,290,759 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature