Article Text

PDF
Ethics of a relaxed antidoping rule accompanied by harm-reduction measures
  1. Bengt Kayser1,2,
  2. Jan Tolleneer2
  1. 1ISSUL, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
  2. 2FABER, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  1. Correspondence to Professor Bengt Kayser, ISSUL, Université de Lausanne, Lausanne 1015, Switzerland; bengt.kayser{at}unil.ch

Abstract

Harm-reduction approaches are used to reduce the burden of risky human behaviour without necessarily aiming to stop the behaviour. We discuss what an introduction of harm reduction for doping in sports would mean in parallel with a relaxation of the antidoping rule. We analyse what is ethically at stake in the following five levels: (1) What would it mean for the athlete (the self)? (2) How would it impact other athletes (the other)? (3) How would it affect the phenomenon of sport as a game and its fair play basis (the play)? (4) What would be the consequences for the spectator and the role of sports in society (the display)? and (5) What would it mean for what some consider as essential to being human (humanity)? For each level, we present arguments for and against doping and then discuss what a harm-reduction approach, within a dynamic regime of a partially relaxed antidoping rule, could imply. We find that a harm-reduction approach is morally defensible and potentially provides a viable escape out of the impasse resulting from the impossibility of attaining the eradication of doping. The following question remains to be answered: Would a more relaxed position, when combined with harm-reduction measures, indeed have less negative consequences for society than today's all-out antidoping efforts that aim for abstinence? We provide an outline of an alternative policy, allowing a cautious step-wise change to answer this question and then discuss the ethical aspects of such a policy change.

  • Applied and Professional Ethics
  • Autonomy
  • Coercion
  • Drugs and Drug Industry
  • Enhancement

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors BK and JT did the preparatory work together. BK wrote the first version of the manuscript. BK and JT wrote the final version.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles