Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPugh, Jonathan D
dc.contributor.authorPugh, Christopher J. A.
dc.contributor.authorSavulescu, Julian
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-05T09:31:14Z
dc.date.available2017-05-05T09:31:14Z
dc.date.issued2017-03-29
dc.identifier.citationPugh, J., Pugh, C. and Savulescu, J. (2017) 'Exercise prescription and the doctor’s duty of non-maleficence', British Journal of Sports Medicine. 51 (21), pp.1555-1556en_US
dc.identifier.issn0306-3674
dc.identifier.issn1473-0480 (ESSN)
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10369/8438
dc.descriptionThis article was published in British Journal of Sports Medicine online first on 29 March 2017, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097388en_US
dc.description.abstractAn abundance of data unequivocally demonstrates that exercise can be an effective tool in the fight against obesity and its associated comorbidities. Indeed, physical activity can be more effective than widely used pharmaceutical interventions. While metformin reduces the incidence of diabetes by 31% (as compared with a placebo) in both men and women across different racial and ethnic groups, lifestyle intervention (including exercise) reduces the incidence by 58%. In this context, it is notable that a group of prominent medics and exercise scientists recently sent a well-publicised letter to the General Medical Council (GMC) and Medical Schools Council calling for the introduction of evidence-based lifestyle education into all medical curricula. The letter warns that there is a lack of understanding of the impact that exercise and nutrition can have on physical health among doctors. In the absence of an educational overhaul, the signatories warn that the government is likely to fail to reach its goal of preventing tens of thousands of premature deaths from heart disease and cancer by 2020. While we agree with the need to address this apparent lack of understanding, the ethical justification of doing so is not limited to this broadly beneficence-based justification. There is also a justification grounded in the duty of non-maleficence, that is, the duty to avoid unreasonable harm to patients.
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBMJ Publishing Groupen_US
dc.relation.ispartofseriesBritish Journal of Sports Medicine;
dc.subjectEthicsen_US
dc.subjectExerciseen_US
dc.subjectMedical ethicsen_US
dc.subjectPhysical fitnessen_US
dc.subjectRisk factoren_US
dc.titleExercise prescription and the doctor’s duty of non-maleficenceen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2016-097388
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-03-10
rioxxterms.funderCardiff Metropolitan Universityen_US
rioxxterms.identifier.projectCardiff Metropolian (Internal)en_US
rioxxterms.versionAMen_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://www.rioxx.net/licenses/all-rights-reserveden_US
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2017-04-05
rioxxterms.funder.project37baf166-7129-4cd4-b6a1-507454d1372een_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following collection(s)

Show simple item record