Search

The article presents an abstract "Time to re-evaluate gender segregation in athletics?" by Foddy and Savulescu; journal's comment is also presented.

It is now possible to improve human sporting performance using genetic enhancements. For the time being, these enhancements bear serious health risks, which give us a clear moral imperative to try to prevent athletes from using them. On the other hand, they will be much harder to detect than normal drug-based performance enhancements, and the available detection methods are likely to be more invasive. In particular, the compulsory genetic testing of athletes needs a strong ethical justification. If the health risks decrease over time, should we continue testing athletes for 'gene doping'? The answers depend on the level of risk, the chance of catching the dopers, the intrusiveness of the testing strategy, and on whether we believe gene doping is really as bad as drug-based doping. This article identifies the cases for which testing can be justified, and those for which it cannot. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent research suggests that romantic love can be literally addictive. Although the exact nature of the relationship between love and addiction has been described in inconsistent terms throughout the literature, we offer a framework that distinguishes between a narrow view and a broad view of love addiction. The narrow view counts only the most extreme, harmful forms of love or love-related behaviors as being potentially addictive in nature. The broad view, by contrast, counts even basic social attachment as being on a spectrum of addictive motivations, underwritten by similar neurochemical processes as more conventional addictions. We argue that on either understanding of love-as-addiction, treatment decisions should hinge on considerations of harm and well-being rather than on definitions of disease. Implications for the ethical use of anti-love biotechnology are considered.

One argument which is frequently levelled against the enhancement of human biology is that we do not understand the evolved function of our bodies well enough to meddle in our biology without producing unintended and potentially catastrophic effects. In particular, this argument is levelled against attempts to slow or eliminate the processes of human ageing, or 'senescence', which cause us to grow decrepit before we die. In this article, I claim that even if this argument could usefully be applied against attempts to enhance other human traits, it cannot be valid in the case of attempts to enhance the various processes that constitute senescence. I begin by reviewing the biology of ageing to show how it consists of a number of unrelated traits. Then, following the arguments of a number of evolutionary biologists, I explain that every one of these traits is a product of evolutionary 'neglect' rather than 'intent'. Finally, I consider the strongest version of the argument against enhancing senescence, which acknowledges these facts about the evolution of ageing but insists that we have nevertheless have prudential reasons to avoid enhancement wherever there is some uncertainty about the genetics or evolutionary function of a trait. I provide two reasons for rejecting this version of the argument as well, even in the case of human senescence, where such uncertainty is currently significant.

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.

Unlabelled: Philosophers have been writing about addiction continually since the 1990s, and a number of much older, broader philosophical theories are of direct relevance to the study of addiction. Yet the developments in the philosophical study of addiction have seldom been incorporated into the science of addiction. In this paper I focus upon two issues in the scientific literature: the disease classification of addiction and the claim that addictive behaviour is compulsive. While each of these views is open to debate on empirical grounds, there is a long history of philosophical work which must be engaged if these claims are to be justified in a philosophical sense. I begin by showing how the conceptual work of philosophers such as Boorse and Nordenfelt can be used to critique the claim that addiction is a disease. Following this, I demonstrate how deep philosophical concepts of freedom and willpower are embedded into scientists' claims about compulsion in drug addiction. These concepts are paradoxical and difficult, and they have consumed numerous contemporary philosophers of mind, such as Audi, Arpaly, Frankfurt, Mele, Wallace and Watson, among many others. I show how problems can arise when scientists sidestep the work of these philosophers, and I explain where scientists should seek to include, and sometimes exclude, philosophical concepts., Conclusions: Many philosophical concepts and theories can be of use to addiction science. The philosophical work must be understood and acknowledged if the science is to progress., (© 2010 The Author, Addiction © 2010 Society for the Study of Addiction.)

Philosophers and psychologists have been attracted to two differing accounts of addictive motivation. In this paper, we investigate these two accounts and challenge their mutual claim that addictions compromise a person's self-control. First, we identify some incompatibilities between this claim of reduced self-control and the available evidence from various disciplines. A critical assessment of the evidence weakens the empirical argument for reduced autonomy. Second, we identify sources of unwarranted normative bias in the popular theories of addiction that introduce systematic errors in interpreting the evidence. By eliminating these errors, we are able to generate a minimal, but correct account, of addiction that presumes addicts to be autonomous in their addictive behavior, absent further evidence to the contrary. Finally, we explore some of the implications of this minimal, correct view.

Among medical researchers and clinicians the dominant view is that it is unethical to deceive patients by prescribing a placebo. This opinion is formalized in a recent policy issued by the American Medical Association (AMA [Chicago, IL]). Although placebos can be shown to be always safe, often effective, and sometimes necessary, doctors are now effectively prohibited from using them in clinical practice. I argue that the deceptive administration of placebos is not subject to the same moral objections that face other forms of deception in clinical practice and medical research. Although deception is normally objectionable on the grounds that it limits autonomy and breaches trust, these grounds do not apply to placebos when they are prescribed within appropriate ethical limits. Patients have reason to prefer that doctors can prescribe placebos in ethically responsible ways. Hence, the AMA has an obligation to endorse and to promote the responsible use of deceptive placebos in clinical practice.

It is often claimed that the autonomy of heroin addicts is compromised when they are choosing between taking their drug of addiction and abstaining. This is the basis of claims that they are incompetent to give consent to be prescribed heroin. We reject these claims on a number of empirical and theoretical grounds. First we argue that addicts are likely to be sober, and thus capable of rational thought, when approaching researchers to participate in research. We reject behavioural evidence purported to establish that addicts lack autonomy. We present an argument that extrinsic forces must be irresistible in order to make a choice non-autonomous. We argue that heroin does not present such an irresistible force. We make a case that drug-oriented desires are strong regular appetitive desires, which do not compromise consent. Finally we argue that an addict's apparent desire to engage in a harmful act cannot be construed as evidence of irrational or compulsive thought. On these arguments, a sober heroin addict must be considered competent, autonomous and capable of giving consent. More generally, any argument against legalisation of drugs or supporting infringement of the liberty of those desiring to take drugs of addiction must be based on considerations of harm and paternalism, and not on false claims that addicts lack freedom of the will.

Criminal behaviour is but one behavioural tendency for which a genetic influence has been suggested. Whilst this research certainly raises difficult ethical questions and is subject to scientific criticism, one recent research project suggests that for some families, criminal tendency might be predicted by genetics. In this paper, supposing this research is valid, we consider whether intervening in the criminal tendency of future children is ethically justifiable. We argue that, if avoidance of harm is a paramount consideration, such an intervention is acceptable when genetic selection is employed instead of genetic enhancement. Moreover, other moral problems in avoiding having children with a tendency to criminal behaviour, such as the prospect of social discrimination, can also be overcome.