Doping, sport and the law: time for repeal of prohibition?

This article concerns the legal issues that surround the prohibition of doping in sport. The current policy on the use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) in sport is underpinned by both a paternalistic desire to protect athletes’ health and the long-term integrity or ‘spirit’ of sport. The policy is put into administrative effect globally by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which provides the regulatory and legal framework through which the vast majority of international sports federations harmonise their anti-doping programmes. On outlining briefly both the broad administrative structures of international sport’s various anti-doping mechanisms, and specific legal issues that arise in disciplinary hearings involving athletes accused of doping, this article questions the sustainability of the current ‘zero tolerance’ approach, arguing, by way of analogy to the wider societal debate on the criminalisation of drugs, and as informed by Sunstein and Thaler’s theory of libertarian paternalism, that current policy on anti-doping has failed. Moreover, rather than the extant moral and punitive panic regarding doping in sport, this article, drawing respectively on Seddon’s and Simon’s work on the history of drugs and crime control mentality, contends that, as an alternative, harm reductionist measures should be promoted, including consideration of the medically supervised use of certain PEDs.

Moral Compromise

A moral compromise is a compromise on moral matters; it is agreement in the face of moral disagreement but where there is agreement on the importance of consensus – namely that it secures a morally desirable outcome. It is distinguishable from other forms of agreement, and an important distinction between moral compromise with public agreement and moral compromise with public disagreement is also made. Circumstances in which the former might be permissible are outlined, and the sense in which it is allowed all things considered to agree is made clear. The relevant discussions of Dan Brock and Mary Warnock on the role of the philosopher to public policy are critically reviewed. Finally, a brief list is offered of the considerations relevant to an estimation of whether and, if so, when such compromise is allowed.

Moral distress experienced by health care professionals who provide home-based palliative care

Health care providers regularly encounter situations of moral conflict and distress in their practice. Moral distress may result in unfavorable outcomes for both health care providers and those in their care. The purpose of this study was to examine the experience of moral distress from a broad range of health care occupations that provide home-based palliative care as the initial step of addressing the issue. A critical incident approach was used in qualitative interviews to elicit the experiences on moral distress from 18 health care providers drawn from five home visiting organizations in south central Ontario, Canada. Most participants described at least two critical incidents in their interview generating a total of 47 critical incidents. Analyses of the critical incidents revealed 11 issues that triggered moral distress which clustered into three themes, (a) the role of informal caregivers, b) challenging clinical situations and (c) service delivery issues. The findings suggest that the training and practice environments for health care providers need to be designed to recognize the moral challenges related to day-to-day practice.