Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Freedom to box

N Warburton1

  • 1Department of Philosophy, Open University, Milton Keynes.

Journal of Medical Ethics
|April 29, 1998
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

The British Medical Association

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Increased expression of a cloned gene by local mutagenesis of its promoter and ribosome binding site.

Nucleic acids researchยท1983
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Sports Medicine
  • Medical Ethics
  • Legal Philosophy

Background:

  • The British Medical Association (BMA) advocates for the criminalization of all forms of boxing.
  • This stance is primarily based on concerns regarding the risk of brain damage associated with the sport.
  • The BMA's position raises questions about the ethical and legal justifications for banning a sport based on potential harm.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To critically analyze the logical coherence of the BMA's arguments for banning boxing.
  • To evaluate the BMA's reasoning, particularly the transition from medical evidence to a call for prohibition.
  • To assess the underlying ethical and legal principles guiding the BMA's position.

Main Methods:

  • Argument analysis
Keywords:
British Medical AssociationHealth Care and Public HealthLegal Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Ethical principle evaluation
  • Legal moralism assessment

    • Main Results:

    • The BMA's arguments for banning boxing are found to be logically inconsistent and "wanting."
    • The direct move from medical evidence of brain injury risk to a ban is not adequately justified.
    • The BMA's position relies on a blend of paternalism and legal moralism that is inconsistently applied.

    Conclusions:

    • The BMA's arguments do not logically support a complete ban on boxing.
    • Consistent application of the BMA's stated principles would lead to untenable consequences and significant infringements on personal liberty.
    • Alternative approaches to managing risks in boxing may be more appropriate than outright prohibition.