Search

Abstract ethics mostly focuses on what we do. One form of action is a speech act. What we say con have profound effects. We can and should choose our words and how we speak wisely. When someone close to us suffers an injury or serious illness, a duty of beneficence requires that we support that person through beneficial words or actions. Though our intentions are most often benign, by what we say we often make the unfortunate person feel worse. Beginning with two personal accounts, this article explains what can go wrong in the compassionate speech of wellwishers, and uncovers some of the reasons why people say things that are hurtful or harmful. Despite a large body of clinical evidence, there is no perfect strategy for comforting a friend or relative who is ill, and sometimes even the best thing to say con still be perceived as insensitive and hurtful. In some cases, we may have good reason to knowingly say a hurtful or insensitive thing. Saying these 'wrong' things can sometimes be the best way to help a person in the long term. To complicate matters, there can be moral reasons for overriding what is good for the patient. What kind of admonishments should we make to a badly behaved patient? What is the value of authenticity in our communication with the people we love? These questions demand an ethical defence of those speech acts which are painful to hear but which need to be said, and of those which go wrong despite the best efforts of the wellwisher. We offer an ethical account, identifying permissible and impermissible justifications for the things we say to a person with a serious injury or illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on legalization of performance enhancing drugs in sport. The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games of the third Olympiad, when Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race. The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organization was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, but it is becoming more effective.

The article presents information about a genetic test used for sports performance which is offered by Genetic Technologies Ltd. The test tells what kind of sports one is likely to be good at. In the test, a cheek swab for the R577X variant of the ACTN3 gene is tested. This gene normally produces a protein which helps to produce the fast twitch muscles used in sprint and power sports. The R577X variant is a common version of this gene which produces less of this protein. People with this variant therefore will grow less fast twitch muscle tissue in their body.

The case of Caster Semenya provides a vivid illustration of the ways in which natural genetic variation can generate large differences in athletic performance. But since we normally segregate athletic sports along the lines of this particular variation-gender-her case also highlights problems with the current approach to justice in sporting competition. Female athletes seem to have a valid complaint when they are made to compete against athletes who are, in one sense or another, male. But once we recognise that gender is not a binary quantity, sex segregation in competitive sport must be seen as an inconsistent and unjust policy, no matter what stance we take on the goals of sport or on the regulation of doping.