Doping, fairness, and unequal responsiveness: A response to Lavazza
In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. First, we argue th...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Contributors: | |
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2021
|
| In: |
Bioethics
Year: 2021, Volume: 35, Issue: 7, Pages: 714-717 |
| IxTheo Classification: | NCA Ethics |
| Further subjects: | B
Responsiveness
B Fair play B Doping B Lavazza |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | In a thought-provoking article in Bioethics, Andrea Lavazza defends the view that for reasons of fairness, those who cannot benefit from the use of performance-enhancing methods such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) should receive compensation for their inability. First, we argue that Lavazza’s proposal to compensate athletes who are non-responsive to tDCS is practically unfeasible. Second, the compensation principle—which he appeals to in his defense of his compensation scheme—is false, as it is incoherent to focus only on the compensation of athletes who respond less well to tDCS, and not to compensate athletes who respond less well to all other types of enhancers such as mental training and food supplements. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1467-8519 |
| Reference: | In Beziehung stehende Manifestation "Transcranial electrical stimulation for human enhancement and the risk of inequality (2019)"
Kritik von "Transcranial electrical stimulation for human enhancement and the risk of inequality (2019)" |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Bioethics
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/bioe.12908 |