Performance Enhancing Drugs

[Magnanimity]

Hi all!

I’m wondering what you think is a good Catholic perspective on the use of performance enhancers in the form of drugs or hormones, etc? I’ve been influenced by the writings/lectures of Julian Savulescu of the Oxford Euhiro Centre on bioethics. He comes across pretty strongly as a consequentialist in his overall approach to ethics, which I can’t really agree with. But, many of his positions I think are very reasonable.

He takes a position on the usage of performance enhancement drugs that I find convincing, but I imagine some, if not many, here will object to it. So, I’d like to hear your arguments against the usage of things like growth hormone or steroids. To keep it simpler and focused maybe we should stick to considering this within the realm of athletics.

If the usage of specified performance enhancers were regulated by an overall body, composed of those with specialized scientific/medical knowledge to govern which and how much of the approved substances could be used in competitive sports, would this be permissible? If not, why not? That is, if you think there are moral arguments against using performance enhancers, what are those arguments/reasons?

 

[Catholictrain]

Let’s see if I can contribute anything from my simplistic viewpoint.

God made us. God doesn’t make junk. We shouldn’t put junk into this wonderful creation that God made for us.

Another simplistic viewpoint: We are, in a way, just borrowing our bodies for the short while that we live here. If you borrow something from your neighbor, wouldn’t you take great care of it knowing that it will be returned to them someday? The same is true of our bodies… God wants them back… in good shape. (yes I know that our souls will be reunited with our bodies at the end of time… which is yet another reason to not do drugs!)

 

[Magnanimity]

God made us. God doesn’t make junk. We shouldn’t put junk into this wonderful creation that God made for us.

Fair enough. Supposing there were enough medical/scientific evidence to suggest to you that whatever detrimental effects there may be to, say, human growth hormone or anabolic steroids is minimal with minimal risk to the individuals who partake of these performance enhancers, would you then be OK with it? No other moral objections?

 

[Catholictrain]

At a minimum, the moral objection would have to be related to the sin of pride. One has to ask him or her self… what is the underlying reason for taking these performance enhancing drugs. If a person is honest with themself, most likely the reason will boil down to pride.

 

[Magnanimity]

At a minimum, the moral objection would have to be related to the sin of pride. One has to ask him or her self… what is the underlying reason for taking these performance enhancing drugs. If a person is honest with themself, most likely the reason will boil down to pride.

But, the taking of various performance enhancers is just one particular way of attempting to be a better athlete than the next guy (faster, a better hitter, etc). I’m concerned that your position here would entail something which would make you uncomfortable (eg, any athlete who does what he can to gain an advantage over his fellow athletes is being prideful).

 

[thistle]

But, the taking of various performance enhancers is just one particular way of attempting to be a better athlete than the next guy (faster, a better hitter, etc). I’m concerned that your position here would entail something which would make you uncomfortable (eg, any athlete who does what he can to gain an advantage over his fellow athletes is being prideful).

The taking of performance enhancing drugs or substances is simply CHEATING. Such athletes try to dress it up nicely but it is CHEATING.

 

[Magnanimity]

The taking of performance enhancing drugs or substances is simply CHEATING. Such athletes try to dress it up nicely but it is CHEATING.

This is true, but it doesn’t really address my questions, which are somewhat ‘meta’ questions. That is, why would the use of some performance enhancers be considered cheating? Why have that rule? We obviously are not against the usage of any and all methods that athletes take to give themselves competitive advantage, so what’s with this objection to HGH or various steroids? I’m just looking for the reasons for being opposed to them.

 

[Timbothefiveth]

I think the reason is because they hurt your body.

Here, try this.
gsearch.vatican.va/search?q=sports

 

[Newbie2]

At a minimum, the moral objection would have to be related to the sin of pride. One has to ask him or her self… what is the underlying reason for taking these performance enhancing drugs. If a person is honest with themself, most likely the reason will boil down to pride.

Morally speaking, this is an excellent observation.

This is true, but it doesn’t really address my questions, which are somewhat ‘meta’ questions. That is, why would the use of some performance enhancers be considered cheating? Why have that rule? We obviously are not against the usage of any and all methods that athletes take to give themselves competitive advantage, so what’s with this objection to HGH or various steroids? I’m just looking for the reasons for being opposed to them.

1. They are cheating because they’re against the rules.
2. The rule is there because such substances 1) can be harmful to the body and 2) give an competitive edge to those who take them, and punish those who choose not to.
3. I beg to differ that we are “obviously not against the usage of any and all methods that athletes take to give themselves competitive advantage”. Not so. Such performance enhancing drugs are banned. A priori we are against them, or this whole discussion is moot.

Perhaps the best reason is that they have been shown to be harmful to some individuals (Lyle Alzado of the NFL is the poster child for steroid abuse). Now, many athletes take vitamin and mineral suppliments and have special diets that might, in the doses athletes are taking them, be harmful for Joe Average Six-pack. But taken in moderation, these vitamins, minerals and diet changes are necessary to maintain the body’s health when it is stressed to such an extent as higher-level athletes do.

It could be argued, I suppose, that such suppliments are “unnatural” and should be banned as well. I think, rather, that there is enough evidence that GH and anabolic steroids used in the doses that athletes use them are harmful to the body in one way or another. Through a moral lens, doing harm to one’s body violates the “prime directive” of Do Good, Avoid Evil, not to mention that so is breaking the official rules of competition.

If substances were ever produced that were proven to be not harmful to the body, i.e. were innocuous as vitamins, yet were able to enhance performace, there would be few moral objections as long as they were legal to take.

 

[Magnanimity]

1. They are cheating because they’re against the rules.

Well, sure. But, this is little more than a definition–to cheat is to go against the rules. The question to be answered is why are they against the rules.

1. The rule is there because such substances 1) can be harmful to the body and 2) give an competitive edge to those who take them, and punish those who choose not to.

As to the first point above, from the recent reading I’ve done, the medical science just doesn’t support your assertion here, except in extreme cases (examples of overdosages), but one could use that fact to support just why we need a regulating body to oversee the use of such “enhancers.”

Your second point above is a good point, but it doesn’t really get you as far as you’d like to go, I don’t think. There is nothing wrong, per se, with an athlete trying to give himself a competitive edge. That’s basically what athletes have always done. So, this is just the most recent way of trying to give yourself that edge. You’d have to know ahead of time that taking GH or steroids is an illegitimate way to enhance yourself, but how does one know that?

1. I beg to differ that we are “obviously not against the usage of any and all methods that athletes take to give themselves competitive advantage”. Not so. Such performance enhancing drugs are banned. A priori we are against them, or this whole discussion is moot.

My point was that we are not against athletes having the ability to give themseles competitive advantages when they can. We’re not against it, per se. “A priori we are against them,” just isn’t good enough. Those who are so stringently against them need to start articulating their reasons, or they are surely going to lose the overall argument against performance enhancing drugs. The incentives are too high and the rates of detection are too low for athletes to have any real reason not to use them, unless someone starts giving these reasons. That’s what I’m trying to do here: provide individuals who think like yourself with the opportunity to articulate those reasons…

Perhaps the best reason is that they have been shown to be harmful to some individuals (Lyle Alzado of the NFL is the poster child for steroid abuse). Now, many athletes take vitamin and mineral suppliments and have special diets that might, in the doses athletes are taking them, be harmful for Joe Average Six-pack. But taken in moderation, these vitamins, minerals and diet changes are necessary to maintain the body’s health when it is stressed to such an extent as higher-level athletes do.

OK, so how about controlled, regulated (iow, moderate) use of performance enhancing drugs, then? That way we can avoid this abuse, and allow our athletes to be monitored by actual doctors while taking these substances, rather than the current, dangerous and underground market.

It could be argued, I suppose, that such suppliments are “unnatural” and should be banned as well. I think, rather, that there is enough evidence that GH and anabolic steroids used in the doses that athletes use them are harmful to the body in one way or another.

There isn’t. Not that I know of anyway. Of course, as I note above, overdosing oneself is a given that it will be harmful…

If substances were ever produced that were proven to be not harmful to the body, i.e. were innocuous as vitamins, yet were able to enhance performace, there would be few moral objections as long as they were legal to take.

Now, we may be getting somewhere with your last line here.

 

[Newbie2]

Well, sure. But, this is little more than a definition–to cheat is to go against the rules. The question to be answered is why are they against the rules.

Medical concerns, methinks.

As to the first point above, from the recent reading I’ve done, the medical science just doesn’t support your assertion here, except in extreme cases (examples of overdosages), but one could use that fact to support just why we need a regulating body to oversee the use of such “enhancers.”

Then you need to do more reading. But let’s say that such enhancers are safe up to a point. Where is that point? It will be different for every athlete. How does any such regulating body safely over see such use? And what happens when they’re “wrong”; oops, I guess you got too much. To bad, and please don’t sue us.

Your second point above is a good point, but it doesn’t really get you as far as you’d like to go, I don’t think. There is nothing wrong, per se, with an athlete trying to give himself a competitive edge. That’s basically what athletes have always done. So, this is just the most recent way of trying to give yourself that edge. You’d have to know ahead of time that taking GH or steroids is an illegitimate way to enhance yourself, but how does one know that?

?????? Anyone taking these suppliments knows it’s an illigitimate way of enhancing oneself, otherwise why take them? You assume *a priori *that anything goes in gaining a competative edge. That can be taken to the extreme; bionics, 6 Million dollar man stuff.

My point was that we are not against athletes having the ability to give themseles competitive advantages when they can. We’re not against it, per se. **“A priori we are against them,” just isn’t good enough. **Those who are so stringently against them need to start articulating their reasons, or they are surely going to lose the overall argument against performance enhancing drugs. The incentives are too high and the rates of detection are too low for athletes to have any real reason not to use them, unless someone starts giving these reasons. That’s what I’m trying to do here: provide individuals who think like yourself with the opportunity to articulate those reasons…

That’s not what I’m saying. There are legitimate medical concerns with these substances.

OK, so how about controlled, regulated (iow, moderate) use of performance enhancing drugs, then? That way we can avoid this abuse, and allow our athletes to be monitored by actual doctors while taking these substances, rather than the current, dangerous and underground market.

That would be OK in principle, methinks, but problematic as to where that endpoint of safety is for any one particular individual, especially when adverse effects can be seen years after ceasing to take such substances. In other words, what levels are safe and which are not both in the short and longterm? When we can answer those questions, perhaps such substances that are illegal now will become legal.

There isn’t. Not that I know of anyway. Of course, as I note above, overdosing oneself is a given that it will be harmful…

Long-term adverse affects are of most concern. We cannot test such drugs in humans like we can in animals.

Now, we may be getting somewhere with your last line here.

Yes, of course. I make a great deal of sense. LOL.