Download PDFPDF

The not-so-sweet science: the role of the medical profession in boxing
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Reply to Daniel K. Sokol: "The not-so-sweet science: the role of the medical profession in boxing."

    Dear Editor

    Mr Sokol defends boxing on three grounds:

    1. Respect for autonomy;
    2. Doctrine of double effect (DDE);
    3. Consequentialism.

    I will address each of these defences in turn:

    1. Respect for autonomy.

    Sokol claims that as patients are owed a duty to respect autonomy so boxers should be owed the same duty. However, it is not clear that a...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.