ABSTRACT
This chapter argues the issue of paediatric/adolescent doping is one that merits serious philosophical attention. It considers whether an adolescent who is legally competent to consent to medical pharmacologies such as contraceptive pills ought to be allowed to consent to doping products. The chapter discusses the vulnerability and exploitation issues of adolescent athletes that might underwrite a soft paternalistic response. It considers whether the notion of the well known legal test of 'Victoria Gillick competence' to contraception in the absence of parental consent, sets a precedent for the child or adolescent who wishes to dope to enhance their sporting performance. The chapter argues that soft paternalism is necessary to protect paediatric sports populations from exploitation before discussing the shortcomings of their capacity to consent autonomously. It concludes that the Gillick competence ought not, therefore, to be viewed as a precedent for paediatric or adolescent consent to doping and that the 'weak' or 'soft' paternalistic prevention of doping is justified.
