TY - JOUR T1 - The not-so-sweet science: the role of the medical profession in boxing JF - Journal of Medical Ethics JO - J Med Ethics SP - 513 LP - 514 DO - 10.1136/jme.2003.004952 VL - 30 IS - 5 AU - D K Sokol Y1 - 2004/10/01 UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/30/5/513.abstract N2 - The medical profession’s role should be limited to advice and information The medical establishment’s desire to interfere with the autonomous wishes of boxers seems at odds with the principle of respect for autonomy prevalent in contemporary biomedical practice. I argue that the role of the medical profession in boxing should be solely an advisory and informational one. In addition, the distinctions made between boxing and other high risk sports often rely on an insufficient knowledge of the sport. This leads to misdirected criticisms and excessive emphasis on the colourful discourse of boxing, as opposed to the practice of boxing itself. Dr Herrera’s claim in his article (see page 514) that boxing differs from other sports in the acceptability of its acts outside the realm of sport is refuted.1 The importance of consent as a legitimising factor is highlighted, and a number of possible solutions to improve safety within the sport are tentatively suggested. In the United Kingdom, a competent adult may legally refuse medical treatment, irrespective of the severity of his condition or the validity of his reasons. With the pre-eminence of an autonomy based model of bioethics, respecting a patient’s wishes forms an integral part of acting in his best interests. It is puzzling, then, to find that the Australian Medical Association have called for a ban on boxing on the grounds that the activity is excessively hazardous to the health of boxers. The often mentioned principle of respect for autonomy is abandoned once the person drops the privileged title of “patient”. This suggests that being a patient … ER -