Freedom to box
The british Medical Association wants to criminalise all boxing. This article examines the logic of the arguments it uses and finds them wanting. The move from medical evidence about the risk of brain damage to the conclusion that boxing should be banned is not warranted. The BMA's arguments ar...
Главный автор: | |
---|---|
Формат: | Электронный ресурс Статья |
Язык: | Английский |
Проверить наличие: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Опубликовано: |
BMJ Publ.
1998
|
В: |
Journal of medical ethics
Год: 1998, Том: 24, Выпуск: 1, Страницы: 56-60 |
Online-ссылка: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
Итог: | The british Medical Association wants to criminalise all boxing. This article examines the logic of the arguments it uses and finds them wanting. The move from medical evidence about the risk of brain damage to the conclusion that boxing should be banned is not warranted. The BMA's arguments are a combination of inconsistent paternalism and legal moralism. Consistent application of the principles implicit in the BMA's arguments would lead to absurd consequences and to severe limitations being put on individual freedom. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1473-4257 |
Второстепенные работы: | Enthalten in: Journal of medical ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1136/jme.24.1.56 |