Responses
Sports ethics
The not-so-sweet science: the role of the medical profession in boxing
Compose a Response to This Article
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 4 January 2005
- Published on: 4 January 2005Reply to Daniel K. Sokol: "The not-so-sweet science: the role of the medical profession in boxing."Show More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
Other content recommended for you
- The search for meaningful comparisons in boxing and medical ethics
- Could boxing be banned? A legal and epidemiological perspective
- Health protection of the Olympic athlete
- Boxing, mixed martial arts, and other risky sports: is the BMA confused?
- Amateur boxing and risk of chronic traumatic brain injury: systematic review of observational studies
- A prospective cohort study of injury in amateur and professional boxing
- The ethics of boxing
- More data needed on injury risk among young elite athletes
- Compulsory brain scans and genetic tests for boxers—or should boxing be banned?
- ‘Knowing we have these rights does not always mean we feel free to use them’: athletes’ perceptions of their human rights in sport