uu.seUppsala University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Doping and The Participatory Responsibility of Sports Physicians
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Medicine and Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Caring Sciences, Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics. (Centre for Research Ethics & Bioethics)
2013 (English)Article in journal (Other academic) Submitted
Abstract [en]

In this paper it will be argued that notwithstanding the need for more clear regulative measures in relation to sports physicians’ doping behaviour, the predominant medical/legalistic approach in/by itself is not sufficient, and fails in doing what sports anti-doping authorities whish it to do, i.e., to define and to assign sports physicians’ responsibility in an adequate way. High-performance sport is a form of social practice and sports physicians are an integrated part of the practice. In dealing with such a large-scale social process as high-performance sport, the above approach is lacking since it (a) proceeds from a conception of responsibility which limits the scope of responsibility in athletic settings, and (b) overlooks social aspects of responsibility and responsibility-attributing processes. Furthermore, it will be maintained that responsibility is relational, and as such, it is chiefly created and assigned within the social practice, rather than imposed from authoritative sources that are external to the practice itself. It will be concluded that sports physicians, given their position in relation to athletes and sports management, should actively assume prospective responsibilities beyond those pre- defined responsibilities that are expressed in rules, regulations and policies issued by sports’ governing bodies.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013.
Keyword [en]
Sports Physician, Doping, Responsibility
National Category
Ethics
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-206605OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-206605DiVA: diva2:644703
Available from: 2013-09-02 Created: 2013-09-02 Last updated: 2014-01-23Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Transforming the Doping Culture: Whose responsibility, what responsibility?
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Transforming the Doping Culture: Whose responsibility, what responsibility?
2013 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

The doping culture represents an issue for sport and for society. Normative debates on doping have been mainly concerned with questions of the justifiability of doping. The practice of assigning responsibility for doping behaviour has chiefly been individual-based, focusing mainly on the individual athlete’s doping behaviour. The overarching aim of this thesis is to investigate the relevance and the importance of the ideas of responsibility in relation to ethical debates on doping. The more specific aim is to examine the possibility of broadening the scope of responsibility beyond the individual athlete, and to sketch a theoretical framework within which this expansion could be accommodated. In the first study, it is argued that bioethicists have a moral/professional responsibility to start out from a realistic and up-to-date view of genetics in ethical debates on gene doping, and that good bioethics requires good empirics. In study 2, the role played by affective processes in influencing athletes’ attitudes towards doping behaviour is investigated, both on an individual and on a collective level. It is concluded that an exclusive focus on individual-level rule violation and sanctions may entail overlooking the greater social picture and would prove to be ineffective in the long term. In study 3, the common doping-is-cheating arguments are examined and it is argued that they fail to capture vital features of people’s moral responses to doping behaviour. An alternative account of cheating in sport is presented in terms of failure to manifest good will and respect. It is concluded that putting cheating in the broader context of human interpersonal relationships makes evident the need to broaden the scope of moral responsibility and agency beyond the individual athlete. In study 4, the particular case of assigning responsibility for doping to sports physicians is used to examine the current individual-based approach to responsibility. This approach underestimates the scope of the responsibility by leaving out a range of other actors from the discourse of responsibility. The central conclusion of the thesis is that transforming the current doping culture requires broadening the scope of responsibility to include individuals and groups of individuals other than the athletes themselves.  

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2013. 72 p.
Series
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Medicine, ISSN 1651-6206 ; 931
Keyword
Doping, responsibility, prospective responsibilities, cheating, good will, interpersonal relations, sports
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-206607 (URN)978-91-554-8738-6 (ISBN)
Public defence
2013-10-11, Auditorium Minus, Museum Gustavianum, Akademigatan 3, Uppsala, 13:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2013-09-20 Created: 2013-09-02 Last updated: 2014-01-23

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Authority records BETA

Atry, AshkanHansson, Mats G.Kihlbom, Ulrik

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Atry, AshkanHansson, Mats G.Kihlbom, Ulrik
By organisation
Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics
Ethics

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

urn-nbn

Altmetric score

urn-nbn
Total: 534 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf