Literature DB >> 21472395

Harm, risk, and doping analogies: a counter-response to Kious.

Oskar MacGregor1, Mike McNamee.   

Abstract

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21472395     DOI: 10.1007/s11017-011-9178-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth        ISSN: 1386-7415


  4 in total

1.  Philosophy on steroids: a reply.

Authors:  Oskar MacGregor; Mike McNamee
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2010-12

2.  Philosophy on steroids: why the anti-doping position could use a little enhancement.

Authors:  Brent M Kious
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2008-10-22

3.  Clean Olympians? Doping and anti-doping: the views of talented young British athletes.

Authors:  Andrew Bloodworth; Michael McNamee
Journal:  Int J Drug Policy       Date:  2010-01-06

4.  Dispelling a few false-positives: a reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping.

Authors:  Brent Michael Kious
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2011-06
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.