Teetzl's article on respecting privacy
What is using genetic technology such as gene transfer or editing to artificially enhance genetic performance called?
This is called gene doping
What kind of paper was Woolways study and what was the goal?
The paper was a systematic mapping review article and its goal was to find and map the perspectives of athletes perception of the legitimacy of anti-doping testing.
If enforcing anti-doping rules equally across all sports is impossible, can the system still be considered just and is it right to put some athletes through every test while others are allowed any ounce of lenience?
does it depend on moral feelings, do some people feel differently, are some people unable to do certain testing, but if they cannot how can WADA subject all athletes to testing and not others.
This dimension asks whether anti-doping is morally necessary and right in principle, focusing on the purpose of testing.
Proper
What is the organization responsible for overseeing anti-doping policies worldwide?
WADA (world anti-doping agency)
How does the genetic testing violate humans autonomy?
athletes cannot freely refuse testing without losing the right to compete so their consent isn't truly voluntary they don't have the right to choose.
If anti-doping procedures cause stress or harm, do the benefits of clean sport outweigh the negative impacts on athletes?
Do the ends of clean sport justify the means that may harm athletes? So from a utilitarian point of view, does the end goal of clean sport outweigh the harm athletes must go through? open to interpretation.
Using performance-enhancing drugs to win challenges violates the term fair play in sport and violates how many of the ethical principles when this happens?
it violates the rule of justice and fairness but could be more.
Athletes worry about inconsistency and unequal enforcement across countries. Which dimension of legitimacy does this focus on and why?
Just
What is the whereabout system and how does it violate human rights and ethical principles, and do you think it should be allowed?
complete invasion of privacy and humans right to choose and protect their autonomy.
Is it fair for athletes to have to give up some of their privacy so that competitions can be kept drug-free? Why or why not?
it is good to have clean sport but again invading peoples privacy is a huge current issue, open to interpretation.
What is the first foundation or viewpoint that people have in Woolway's article and what ethical principle does this foundation cover and why?
The first viewpoint is shared values between public, the people who make the rules which is WADA and the athletes, this serves a utilitarian viewpoint as everyone wants to have the greatest outcome for the greatest amount of athletes.
When athletes perceive anti-doping procedures as invasive, some feel coerced to comply to participate in competitions. Which ethical concern arises from this situation regarding their freedom of choice and why do you think this?
Violates rights to autonomy and goes against non-malfeasance as it can bring stress, trauma and harm to someone ethical rights.
Concerns about surveillance, intrusive testing, and restricting freedom of people are central to which dimension of legitimacy?
appropriate
Some athletes may unknowingly ingest banned substances and face sanctions. Is it ethical to punish them if they didn't know what they were doing and why?
should athletes be penalized for wrongdoings they did not know about, is it ethical to allow them to keep playing, or could they have taken precautions or done research before taking certain medications. This is why as athletes we do a drug course before the start of seasons.
From a deontological perspective, why is mandatory drug testing unethical?
Because it violates the moral duty to respect individuals rights and treats them as a means to and end.
Why do you think WADA believes that what they are doing does not invade peoples privacy and what ethical principle do you think they are using to justify their argument?
I believe they use justice and utilitarianism to justify their argument that they are keeping sport clean for the fairness of competition not thinking about peoples rights along the way.
If athletes feel pressured to comply with invasive anti-doping tests just to compete, is their consent truly autonomous or is it coerced by the system? What ethical implications does this have for fairness and respect in sport?
Your actions I don't think can be truly autonomous if you are under the pressure to comply to play as if you say you don't want to be tested you automatically get a guilty verdict. So athletes don't truly have an option to their autonomy.
How do perceptions of proper, just, and appropriate testing influence athletes’ willingness to voluntarily comply with anti-doping regulations?
They increase moral motivation when perceived positively and decrease it when perceived as unfair or invasive.
How does inconsistent enforcement of anti-doping rules across countries challenge the legitimacy of anti-doping authorities and how does that look for the future of WADA conducting these drug test?
Does unfair enforcement undermine trust and moral obligation to comply, just because athletes feel as though the testing is unfair does that mean they don't have the moral obligation to not comply with testing.