medigraphic.com

2019, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Colombiana de Bioética 2019; 14 (1)

Postconventional Sports Improvement in high performance: bioethics and the participation of economic benefits

Caro RHD

Language: Spanish
References: 33
Page: 10-25
PDF size: 272.67 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The objective of this article is to make a phenomenological approach to the so-called Postconventional Sports Improvement, aimed at prolonging the maximum performance; that is, towards the possibility of maintaining optimal performance for longer, overcoming the natural physiological decline and affecting, in a certain way, the right of athletes in training to enjoy the advantages of belonging to this elite, in terms of honor, status, and the growing economic stimuli offered by professional sport. To do this, a theoretical approach is made to post-conventional Sports Improvement, defined as the use of biotechnological attachments with the ability to produce bodily transformations to increase performance. Then, the concepts of limit and risk are investigated from a psychological perspective, aimed at the idiosyncrasies of the athlete, and analyzed how individual preferences and their evolution originate and sustain. Later, reference is made to profit sharing, the original idea of the field of biomedical research and linked to performance sport, as some of its advances are exploited there. Finally, the concept of justice is retaken to understand the relationship between professional sport, its benefits and the notion of frugality.


REFERENCES

  1. Arnason, G. y Schroeder, D. (2013). Benefit Sharing:From Biodiversity to Human Genetics. En D. Schroeder,y J. Lucas (Eds.), Exploring Central PhilosophicalConcepts in Benefit Sharing: Vulnerability, Exploitationand Undue Inducement (pp. 9-32). Lancashire, UK:Centre for Professional Ethics University of CentralLancashire Preston.

  2. Asociación Mundial Antidopaje, AMA. (2015). CódigoMundial Antidopaje The World AntiDoping Code.Publisher by: World Anti-Doping Agency Montreal,Quebec, URL: www.wada-ama.org.

  3. Beauchamp, T. y Childress, J. (2001). Principios deética biomédica. Barcelona: Masson.

  4. Bhattacharya, A. y Simpson, R. (2013). Life in overabundance:Agar on life-extension and the fear ofdeath. En Ethical Theory and Moral Practice (pp.1-21). The official online version of this article isavailable via: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10677-013-9431-6.

  5. Blader, S. y Chen, Y. (2014). What’s in a Name? Status,Power, and Other Forms of Social Hierarchy. En J.Cheng, J. Tracy, y C. Anderson (Eds.), The Psychologyof Social Status (pp. 71-98). New York: Springer.

  6. Caro, H. (2015a). El Deporte Formativo… No es soloun Juego de Niños: Aspectos Bioéticos Emergentesdel Uso de Ayudas Farmacológicas que Potencian ElDesempeño Deportivo. En Congreso Internacional deDeporte Formativo [Ponencia]. Bogotá: Coldeportes.

  7. Caro, H. (2015b). Mejoramiento Deportivo (EnhancementSport) Vs. Doping Una mirada desdeel Principio bioético de la justicia. “Vistas Filosófi-cas” e-revista. Registro ISSN 2466-3514. doi:http://filozofski-pogledi.weebly.com/pogled-u-bioetiku/mejoramiento-deportivo-sport-enhancement-vsdoping-una-mirada-desde-el-principio-bioetico-dela-justicia1.

  8. Caro, H. y Hoyos, L. (2014). Biotecnología en eldeporte: debate entre los bio-tecno-fascinados y losbio-tecno-fóbicos y su relación con el principio bioéticode la autonomía. Lúdica Pedagógica, 2(20). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17227/01214128.20ludica19.25.

  9. Fairnington, A. (2010). The age of selfish altruism:Why new values aree killing consumerism. Singapore:John Wiley y Sons (Asia) Pte. Ltd.

  10. Foucault, M. (1990). La Hermenéutica del Sujeto.Buenos Aíres: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

  11. Gratton, C. y Jones, I. (2010). Research methods forsports studies. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

  12. Hallmann, K. y Petry, K. (2013). Comparative SportDevelopment Systems, Participation and Public Policy.Sports Economics, Management and Policy. New York:Springer.

  13. Hoberman, J. (2013). Sports Physicians, HumanNature, and the Limits of Medical Enhancement.En J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckx, y P. Bonte, (Eds.), AthleticEnhancement, Human Nature and Ethics, of DopingTechnologies Threats and Opportunities (pp. 255-270).Dordrecht: Springer.

  14. Hoyos, C. (2000). Un modelo para la investigacióndocumental. Medellín: Señal Medellín. Jacoby, L. ySiminoff, L. (2008). Empirical methods for bioethics:a primer. San Diego, California: Elsevier Ltd. AllLinacre House, Jordan Hill, Oxford.

  15. Lipovestsky, G. y Roux, E. (2003). El lujo eterno: de laera de lo sagrado al tiempo de las marcas. Barcelona:Anagrama.

  16. Lochbaum, M., Çetinkalp, Z., Graham, K., Wright,T., y Zazo, R. (2016). Task and ego goal orientationsin competitive sport: a quantitative review of theliterature from 1989 to 2016. Kinesiology, 48(1), 3-29.

  17. López, F. (2014). Mejora humana y dopaje en la actualfilosofía del deporte (Tesis Doctoral). Universidad deValencia: Valencia.

  18. López, F. (2015). Mejora humana y Dopaje. Madrid: Reus.

  19. Missa, J. (2015). El deporte de competición nuevolaboratorio de la medicina del mejoramiento: análisisético y filosófico del dopaje. Revista Colombiana deBioética, 10(2), 210-226.

  20. Nietzsche, F. (1945). El Crepúsculo de los ídolos, máximasy sátiras xxx ii. Buenos Aíres: Sociedad EditoraLatino Americana.

  21. Páramo, P. (2008). Muestreo Temporal de Experienciasen Vivo. La investigación en Ciencias Sociales:Técnicas de Recolección de Información (149-160).Bogotá: Universidad Piloto de Colombia.

  22. Páramo, P. (2011). La investigación en Ciencias Sociales:Estrategias de investigación. Bogotá: UniversidadPiloto de Colombia.

  23. Pellegrino, E. (2006). Bioethics and Politics: “DoingEthics” in the Public Square. Journal of Medicine andPhilosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy ofMedicine, 31(6), 569-584.

  24. Pérez, J. (2013). Cyborgsportpersons: Between Disabilityand Enhancement.

  25. Phillips, P. y Onwuekwe, Ch. (2007). Introductionto the challenge of access and benefit sharing. EnP. Phillips, y Ch. Onwuekwe (Eds.), Accessing andsharing the benefits of the genomics revolution (pp.3-17). Dordrecht: Springer.

  26. Räikkä, J. (2013). Preference Adaptation and HumanEnhancement: Reflections on Autonomy and Well-Being.En J. Räikkä, y J. Varelius (Eds.), Adaptive Preferencesand Self-Deception (149-166). Heidelberg: Springer.

  27. Sampiere, R. (2014). Metodología de la investigación.México: McGraw-Hill/ Interamericana Editores, S.A.

  28. Schermer, M. (2013). Preference Adaptation and HumanEnhancement: Reflections on Autonomy and Well-Being. En J. Räikkä, y J. Varelius (Eds.), Adaptationand Autonomy: Adaptive Preferences in Enhancing andEnding Life (pp. 117-136). Heidelberg: Springer.

  29. Schroeder, D. y Lucas, J. (2013). Benefit Sharing: FromBiodiversity to Human Genetics. En D. Schroeder, yJ. Lucas (Eds.), Benefit Sharing: From Biodiversity toHuman Genetics: Introduction (pp. 1-7). Lancashire,UK: Centre for Professional Ethics University ofCentral Lancashire Preston.

  30. Tzoumaka, E. (2016). “He Had a Meaning in myMind” Unpacking Celebrity Footballer Brands.The Four International Conference on ContemporaryMarketing Issues (ICCMI).

  31. Vakoch, D. (2013). Altruism in Cross-Cultural Perspective.New York: Springer.

  32. Ward, P. (2011). Goal Setting and Performance Feedback.En J. Luiselli, y D. Reed (Eds.), Behavioral SportPsychology Evidence-Based Approaches to PerformanceEnhancement (pp. 99-112). New York: Springer.

  33. Yate, A. (2016). La libertad, la autonomía y el consumode bienes cotidianos en los jóvenes bogotanos.Revista Colombiana de Bioética, 11(1), 7-22.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com