Is the Use of Performance-enhancing Drugs in Sports Morally Permissible - Coursework Example

Bioethics Introduction Performance enhancing drugs in sports has always brought about ethical debates. An investigation carriedout shows that several sports individuals use performance-enhancing drugs such as steroids. The drugs are used to achieve excellent performance in sports. Most people believe that the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports is not morally right and thus needs banning. In this paper, an evaluation is made on three main arguments on why use of performance enhancing drugs is morally wrong. The first argument is on the basis that use of performance enhancing drugs is against the rules. The second argument has focus on how unfair the users achieve success. The third argument is based on the health risks that are related to use of performance enhancing drugs. However, the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports has been in use for several years. Several athletes have used the drugs for a long time and have emerged as champions (Corlett 2012). The first argument based on performance enhancing drugs being against the rules is very straightforward. Currently many performance-enhancing drugs are banned. Players are fined or get a suspension if they are caught using Performance enhancing drugs. If an athlete tests positive for steroid use, they get a punishment and are prevented from competing. Use of performance enhancing drugs is equivalent to cheating. Using these drugs violates set rules in sports that require that the players or participants stay on a course without any assistance of any form. Thus, use of performance enhancing drugs breaks the rules and therefore, is morally wrong (Christman 2011). However, this argument does not strongly show that the use of performance enhancing drugs is morally wrong. The problem comes in from different reactions arising that the use of these drugs is accepted by some sports. Therefore, this line of argument only shows that performance enhancement drugs are against the set rules but does not show that it is fundamentally wrong. The question is; are the rules morally justified? Sometimes a participant of a particular sport may use a drugs to enhance performance but on a different reasoning such as in case of a headache or use of anti depressant. For example, is the use of ibuprofen to cure a headache and enhance performance morally wrong? If sports did not ban use of steroids would use of steroids be wrong? This argument thus, does not address the issue deeply. The second argument addresses this situation by providing a reason why use of performance enhancement drugs is morally wrong because of the unfairness it brings in a competition and not just because of set rules (Savulescu 2012). In the second argument, use of performance enhancing drugs provides participants with unfair advantage over others. Anything that gives a sports participant an advantage over others is wrong, and thus, it is wrong to use performance-enhancing drugs. For example, athletes who use performance enhancement drugs are faster than those who do not use the drugs. The athletes are stronger, jump higher, and recover faster, which is equivalent to cheating against opponents who do not use performance enhancement drugs. When outstanding performers miss out and loose because others are using performance-enhancing drugs the question on morality comes up. It is not morally right when another person wins unfairly. Sports contests are supposed to be purely fair and any violations of fairness are wrong (Julian 2014). An unfair situation is one where the opportunities, treatment, and resources are not equal. Some arguments have been raised that allowing use of performance enhancing drugs will create fair situations. However, the performance enhancing drugs are not legal and if they were, they would come at a cost. Even though the participants were allowed, an equal chance of using the drugs it is clear that they would not have n equal opportunity in purchasing and correctly using them. Unfairness of any sort is morally wrong. Athletes who have used performance-enhancing drugs have a history of beating records and having advantage over those who do not use the drugs. There are several things that are not fair to participants of sports activities other than use of performance enhancement drugs. Economic circumstances make some athletes better than others. For example, some athletes have better nutrition, supplements, coaches, trainers, nutritionists, information, lawyers, and even equipment than others. Other have more free time for training than others, while some are stronger, faster, and naturally smarter than others are. This means that athletes or players whether on performance enhancement drugs or not, cannot be equal since there will always be factors causing unfairness. Therefore, the argument that use of performance enhancement drugs is unfair to sports individuals is not strong enough. Questions arise if it is morally wrong for an individual to exploit an advantage that is unfair. Is it morally wrong for a player to have better equipment than other players are? It is evident that the sports world is full of unfairness of all types and those opposed to use of performance enhancing drugs are only not willing to accept this extreme (Quigley 2013). The third argument is based on the premise that health risks associated with use of performance enhancing drugs. Performance enhancement drugs are harmful to athletes and anything that is harmful to any participant of sports is morally wrong. Risks such as vision problems, liver problems, cardiovascular problems, adverse effects on blood lipids, fertility problems, baldness, extreme acne, and other behavior problems are associated with the use of performance enhancing drugs. Several sports people have been diagnosed with brain cancer after use of steroids in sports career. On another premise, there is a lot of pressure within the sports as the young participants are under pressure to use the drugs to be able to compete to the highest levels. From investigations carried out it is clear that there are dramatic improvements when an individual is under use of performance enhancing drugs. Some people never get the chance to get involved in their desired games until they use the performance enhancing drugs. The world of sports is very competitive and every participant wants to be a champion thus the use of the drugs. Moreover, if something is harmful and people are under pressure to use it, then there is a moral obligation to make it illegal (Ryan 2008). The first premise is empirical and some facts can be useful in evaluating the premise. It is important to note how serious the risks are for athletes or players using performance-enhancing drugs. Most individuals are willing to put up with short-term effects such as acne, anger, baldness, and temporary fertility problems just to benefit by being a professional winner. It is important to know how many performance-enhancing drugs can help a typical player or athlete. Great players and athletes can do better on steroids. It is important to find out the effects of performance enhancing drugs under monitored conditions that are legal. Athletes buy the drugs from unauthorized people who are not even medical or pharmaceutical credentials. Probably if the drugs are used and developed in scientific labs the risks associated with them will be lower. Perhaps performance-enhancing drugs that have lower risks and huge benefits could be developed. Scientists should consider trying to rule out if there is such a possibility. Based on the second premise, philosophers prefer leaving the decision on whether to use a substance that is risky to an individual. Some sports are quit dangerous yet they have not been banned. Therefore, an argument arises that even though use of performance enhancing drugs can be dangerous and individuals are under pressure when using them, it is not morally wrong and they should be acceptable in sports. The participants should be left to decide if they want to use the drugs. Furthermore, testing for the drugs is not accurate since some do not immediately show or some masking agents can be used to pass the test. This means that under all circumstance players and athletes will always use performance enhancing drugs and allowing them to use will ensure they use them correctly (Tom 2013) Conclusion Accepting performance-enhancing drugs in sports should not be necessarily labeled as immoral. The arguments on how morally wrong it is to use the drugs do not fully support that they should be banned. In sports, there are always new developments on fabrics, shoes, helmets and many other things. Does this mean that some should be allowed and other banned? If performance-enhancing drugs are developed and given under legalized conditions the harm will be less. Some athletes have turned to using blood doping and peptides since it is not easily detected. This is evident that even though the performance enhancing drugs are not allowed the athletes and players will always use them and go unnoticed. A solution to all these is to allow taking of performance enhancing drugs under medical supervision at an individual’s risk. It is already difficult to control the use of performance enhancing drugs since individuals are using them while hiding. If they were made legal, probably controlling how much individuals can use will be easier (Ryan 2008). References Angelo Corlett, V. B. 2012. Coping with Doping. Journal of the philosophy of sport , 41-64. This journal explains on how the athletes use coping and doping in sports. the author explains on the use of such practices in sports. Christman, J. 2011. Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopidia of Philosophy , 229-237. The author explains on what is considered moral and how philosophy is used in judging morality. J Savulescu, B. F. 2012. Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British journal of sports medicine , 660-670. This Journal supports the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports and explains why it is important that they should be allowed. Julian, L. 2014. Distributive Justice. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . The author focuses on what is considered as just in philosophy. Quigley, M. 2013. Nudging for Health: On Public Policy and Designing Choice Architecture. Medical Law Review , 588-621. This review is based on health. It focuses on policy of health and choices people make. Ryan, S. 2008. What’s So Bad About Performance Enhancing Drugs? Philosophy and Football , 1-17. The author reviews both advantages and disadvantages of using performance-enhancing drugs. Tom, L. (2013). Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press. The author of this book focuses on ethics that are involved in making decisions on use of performance enhancing drugs. Read More