Testosterone, steroids; the juice, protein shakes; all words synonymous with performance enhancing drugs (PED). When we think about PED’s most of us think about sports and more specifically people getting an unfair advantage. As an idea PED’s are almost always assumed to be negative. This view though can be very short sighted. Not all PED’s are bad and it is time to discuss what PED’s are and why and when we assume they are negative.
Many people think of or define Performance Enhancing Drugs as: substances that when taken improve ones physical abilities and performance. Within this light we see things like steroids and testosterone rear their ugly head because of their connections to sports, associating their use with cheating and how they were used to break records. Sports is not the focus of this discussion; what makes a taking a PED morally allowable or forbidden is.
The interesting thing about performance enhancers is that depending upon the situation the same drug or substance can go from being allowable to forbidden, simply based on context. Steroids and Ritalin are both good examples here. Take a steroid during an allergy attack and the performance boost is lifesaving; take it to get a better work out and you are doing something wrong. Take Ritalin as a treatment for ADHD and you are regaining control of your impulses so you can be a productive member of society. Take it to pull an all-night-er and you are morally corrupt. Many drugs we take are not only morally permissible, but are also performance enhancers: Ritalin, steroids, heart medication, asthma inhalers, extends, Viagra, etc…. are all drugs that increase our bodies’ ability in some way shape or form. In a sense they bring us back to a “normal” level and when taken for this purpose are completely permissible in our society. (for any of my readers screaming about the over prescribed nature of our society please place that aside as this is not the time for that discussion).
So what makes a PED permissible or forbidden? Some may think it is obvious: PED’s should be taken when they can save someone’s life or increase performance back to a point of equilibrium. PED’s should not be taken when they are increasing one’s ability beyond a standard level of performance (i.e. giving someone an unfair advantage.) Unfortunately as much as I wish it was, the issues is is not as cut and dry as these answers. PED’s occupy a gray area that can be exposed with an example.
Assume for a second that you are a very nervous person who has a very difficult time performing in front of groups. You get nervous, sweat, lose your place, and become panicked. If you need to give a good performance (speech, presentation, etc...) you will need help. Performance anxiety of any type is not uncommon, but it does have a myriad of treatments. Some people may go to a psychologist to get a prescription to deal with this problem. Another popular method of dealing with this type of stress (popularized by a musician stereotype) is to take a drink before a performance. Not over drinking, but simply calming ones nerves and relaxing by taking a drink. Some people may just try to suck it up and get through. Others may use yoga or breathing techniques. Some people even drink tea. I guess the point here is that there are a multitude of ways, but only a few do we count as PED’s and more to the point as permissible or forbidden.
In the list above there are two treatments I want to focus on for our discussion: the drink and the prescription. I understand that it is a possibility that the drink and prescription may do different things (one being a suppressant, the other possibly being a stimulant), however let us assume that they are both suppressants. Let us even say that the side effects of the prescription is worse than the drink. All in all the person who drinks will be healthier overall than the person on medication. If this is the case why is the person who self-medicates designated morally corrupt? A large contributing factor deals with our own social prejudices on drinking. To society the person who drinks like this is an alcoholic, an addict, or simply someone who can not deal with their own problems. In contrast, the person who is prescribed the drug is praised as taking responsibility for their life and most certainly is not blameworthy.
I know it is not these things are never this simple, but above we have started to outline why some treatments are allowed and others are not. We are beginning to expose where we draw the line between morally acceptable and morally corrupt. Thirty years ago cigarettes were prescribed as appetite suppressants and relaxers. Using this treatment today would be considered morally corrupt.
There are large social implications attached to what is morally permissible or forbidden. In many situations the channels one goes through to acquire the treatment plays a large role to determine if something is morally permissible. A solution prescribed by a doctor is fine, socially acceptable. The same thing done outside the blessing of a doctor is reckless at best, forbidden and deadly at worst. Regardless of what we want to think we must recognize that Ritalin along with steroids, heart medication along with alcohol are all performance enhancing (or altering) drugs and their acceptance is determined largely by illegible scrawl on a piece of paper.
A PED becomes permissible when at least two standards have been met. First the drug must be taken to increase or raise an aspect of one's performance back to what would be considered a standard level. Blood thinners that allows one's blood to flow thoroughly through their veins or a steroid taken to help stimulate healing. In this requirement we see that the drug is being used only to elevate performance back to an “even” level. Now how we define “even”, “standard”. etc.... that becomes very difficult and for now we will leave the first standard where it is.
With the first requirement met it is assumed that the drug taken is procured in a morally permissible way. We assume that the drug is being monitored and controlled as not to become harmful to the body or to give one an unfair advantage. This is where drugs become interwoven with doctors and our social notions. Marijuana prescribed by a doctor is easier to accept than weed purchased from a dealer on the street. These two standards not only give us guidelines for what is a morally permissible PED, but allow us to understand why morally permissible PED’s are normally not considered PED’s and why forbidden ones are.
There is a large social stigma attached to any PED received outside of mainstream medicine. Morally permissible PED’s are taken to overcome a “diagnosed” ailment of some sort. In this way the PED becomes more of a cure or a remedy than a PED. A PED that is not morally permissible is assumed to be granting someone an unfair advantage. Even if someone takes a prescription drug that they could greatly benefit them, but is not prescribed to them, we consider it a crime and morally reprehensible. Having the blessing of a doctor, a condition, is in a way a social blessing to take something to help ones performance. Place yourself in the shoes of the terrified state of someone about to perform and for arguments sake let as assume you are in a competition. You do not take anything, one of your competitors takes Ritalin to control their “adhd”, and the other takes Ritalin just to give them increased focus. If the person with adhd performs better than you, then nothing morally forbidden was committed. However, if the person without diagnosed adhd performs better than you then you were cheated and the line of forbidden was most definitely crossed. Does then it most certainly was morally reprehensible.
The example above though illuminates the largest problem we have with PED’s and determining their permissibilty. When it comes to PED’s they are all performance enhancers. The idea of creating a standard level of human performance is obscene and convoluted. What would a standard level of human performance even be? Everyday as we come into contact with more information the idea for standard health and the standard human changes. Is the proper standard performance our romanticized view of a Herculean god? or is the standard lower? Is the presidential fitness test the standard health we all strive for? Or do we simply take a mean of all the data and use a mid point? How do we even decide what creates the standard human? What counts? Weight, height, eyesight, hearing ability? Where do we place body types? These questions above are just a few that would have to be answered before we could create a “standard” level of human performance. Even if we throw out these questions I would like you to name one “normal”, “standard” person that you know. The person that you could describe to me as the standard for which the rest of human performance should be based. If you can do that then explain to me why they are the person that is the standard. It is all subjective and imprecise. Everyone is different and this makes it infinitely harder to create some imaginary standard. There are simply too many variables that go into human performance and the human experience. Because of this there is no reason a steroid, blood thinners, weed, extends should be attached with moral weight. A PED is just a performance enhancer and context is the only thing that makes them permissible or not.
Many people think of or define Performance Enhancing Drugs as: substances that when taken improve ones physical abilities and performance. Within this light we see things like steroids and testosterone rear their ugly head because of their connections to sports, associating their use with cheating and how they were used to break records. Sports is not the focus of this discussion; what makes a taking a PED morally allowable or forbidden is.
The interesting thing about performance enhancers is that depending upon the situation the same drug or substance can go from being allowable to forbidden, simply based on context. Steroids and Ritalin are both good examples here. Take a steroid during an allergy attack and the performance boost is lifesaving; take it to get a better work out and you are doing something wrong. Take Ritalin as a treatment for ADHD and you are regaining control of your impulses so you can be a productive member of society. Take it to pull an all-night-er and you are morally corrupt. Many drugs we take are not only morally permissible, but are also performance enhancers: Ritalin, steroids, heart medication, asthma inhalers, extends, Viagra, etc…. are all drugs that increase our bodies’ ability in some way shape or form. In a sense they bring us back to a “normal” level and when taken for this purpose are completely permissible in our society. (for any of my readers screaming about the over prescribed nature of our society please place that aside as this is not the time for that discussion).
So what makes a PED permissible or forbidden? Some may think it is obvious: PED’s should be taken when they can save someone’s life or increase performance back to a point of equilibrium. PED’s should not be taken when they are increasing one’s ability beyond a standard level of performance (i.e. giving someone an unfair advantage.) Unfortunately as much as I wish it was, the issues is is not as cut and dry as these answers. PED’s occupy a gray area that can be exposed with an example.
Assume for a second that you are a very nervous person who has a very difficult time performing in front of groups. You get nervous, sweat, lose your place, and become panicked. If you need to give a good performance (speech, presentation, etc...) you will need help. Performance anxiety of any type is not uncommon, but it does have a myriad of treatments. Some people may go to a psychologist to get a prescription to deal with this problem. Another popular method of dealing with this type of stress (popularized by a musician stereotype) is to take a drink before a performance. Not over drinking, but simply calming ones nerves and relaxing by taking a drink. Some people may just try to suck it up and get through. Others may use yoga or breathing techniques. Some people even drink tea. I guess the point here is that there are a multitude of ways, but only a few do we count as PED’s and more to the point as permissible or forbidden.
In the list above there are two treatments I want to focus on for our discussion: the drink and the prescription. I understand that it is a possibility that the drink and prescription may do different things (one being a suppressant, the other possibly being a stimulant), however let us assume that they are both suppressants. Let us even say that the side effects of the prescription is worse than the drink. All in all the person who drinks will be healthier overall than the person on medication. If this is the case why is the person who self-medicates designated morally corrupt? A large contributing factor deals with our own social prejudices on drinking. To society the person who drinks like this is an alcoholic, an addict, or simply someone who can not deal with their own problems. In contrast, the person who is prescribed the drug is praised as taking responsibility for their life and most certainly is not blameworthy.
I know it is not these things are never this simple, but above we have started to outline why some treatments are allowed and others are not. We are beginning to expose where we draw the line between morally acceptable and morally corrupt. Thirty years ago cigarettes were prescribed as appetite suppressants and relaxers. Using this treatment today would be considered morally corrupt.
There are large social implications attached to what is morally permissible or forbidden. In many situations the channels one goes through to acquire the treatment plays a large role to determine if something is morally permissible. A solution prescribed by a doctor is fine, socially acceptable. The same thing done outside the blessing of a doctor is reckless at best, forbidden and deadly at worst. Regardless of what we want to think we must recognize that Ritalin along with steroids, heart medication along with alcohol are all performance enhancing (or altering) drugs and their acceptance is determined largely by illegible scrawl on a piece of paper.
A PED becomes permissible when at least two standards have been met. First the drug must be taken to increase or raise an aspect of one's performance back to what would be considered a standard level. Blood thinners that allows one's blood to flow thoroughly through their veins or a steroid taken to help stimulate healing. In this requirement we see that the drug is being used only to elevate performance back to an “even” level. Now how we define “even”, “standard”. etc.... that becomes very difficult and for now we will leave the first standard where it is.
With the first requirement met it is assumed that the drug taken is procured in a morally permissible way. We assume that the drug is being monitored and controlled as not to become harmful to the body or to give one an unfair advantage. This is where drugs become interwoven with doctors and our social notions. Marijuana prescribed by a doctor is easier to accept than weed purchased from a dealer on the street. These two standards not only give us guidelines for what is a morally permissible PED, but allow us to understand why morally permissible PED’s are normally not considered PED’s and why forbidden ones are.
There is a large social stigma attached to any PED received outside of mainstream medicine. Morally permissible PED’s are taken to overcome a “diagnosed” ailment of some sort. In this way the PED becomes more of a cure or a remedy than a PED. A PED that is not morally permissible is assumed to be granting someone an unfair advantage. Even if someone takes a prescription drug that they could greatly benefit them, but is not prescribed to them, we consider it a crime and morally reprehensible. Having the blessing of a doctor, a condition, is in a way a social blessing to take something to help ones performance. Place yourself in the shoes of the terrified state of someone about to perform and for arguments sake let as assume you are in a competition. You do not take anything, one of your competitors takes Ritalin to control their “adhd”, and the other takes Ritalin just to give them increased focus. If the person with adhd performs better than you, then nothing morally forbidden was committed. However, if the person without diagnosed adhd performs better than you then you were cheated and the line of forbidden was most definitely crossed. Does then it most certainly was morally reprehensible.
The example above though illuminates the largest problem we have with PED’s and determining their permissibilty. When it comes to PED’s they are all performance enhancers. The idea of creating a standard level of human performance is obscene and convoluted. What would a standard level of human performance even be? Everyday as we come into contact with more information the idea for standard health and the standard human changes. Is the proper standard performance our romanticized view of a Herculean god? or is the standard lower? Is the presidential fitness test the standard health we all strive for? Or do we simply take a mean of all the data and use a mid point? How do we even decide what creates the standard human? What counts? Weight, height, eyesight, hearing ability? Where do we place body types? These questions above are just a few that would have to be answered before we could create a “standard” level of human performance. Even if we throw out these questions I would like you to name one “normal”, “standard” person that you know. The person that you could describe to me as the standard for which the rest of human performance should be based. If you can do that then explain to me why they are the person that is the standard. It is all subjective and imprecise. Everyone is different and this makes it infinitely harder to create some imaginary standard. There are simply too many variables that go into human performance and the human experience. Because of this there is no reason a steroid, blood thinners, weed, extends should be attached with moral weight. A PED is just a performance enhancer and context is the only thing that makes them permissible or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment