The british Medical Association wants to criminalise all boxing. This article examines the logic of the arguments it uses and finds them wanting. The move from medical evidence about the risk of brain damage to the conclusion that boxing should be banned is not warranted. The BMA's arguments are a combination of inconsistent paternalism and legal moralism. Consistent application of the principles implicit in the BMA's arguments would lead to absurd consequences and to severe limitations being put on individual freedom.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Other content recommended for you
- The law and ethics of male circumcision: guidance for doctors
- Amateur boxing and risk of chronic traumatic brain injury: systematic review of observational studies
- Value judgment, harm, and religious liberty
- The search for meaningful comparisons in boxing and medical ethics
- The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision
- Boxing, mixed martial arts, and other risky sports: is the BMA confused?
- Boxing should be banned unless rules are tightened, advises Dutch body
- BMA criticises increased funding for boxing
- Rationalising circumcision: from tradition to fashion, from public health to individual freedom—critical notes on cultural persistence of the practice of genital mutilation
- The BMA's guidance on conscientious objection may be contrary to human rights law