The article doesn't really describe it being "abused," just perhaps too "easy" of an option for some who really could "just try harder". (By "easy" I mean prescribed or requested with the "sure why not" attitude without reviewing the side-effects which the author lays out pretty plainly.)
I don't find the sports analogy very compelling. We watch sports for the competition and the idea that the results are a combination of genetics+work. Hence taking PEDs is cheating in a sports context.
But if there's a medication that helps you live your life better (i.e. in a way that's more fulfilling to you) and if taking the medication doesn't impact anyone else negatively, why would you not want it taken as widely as possible?
The important thing is to let would-be medication-takers know with full honesty what the side-effects are - this is what the article focuses on most.
I don't find the sports analogy very compelling. We watch sports for the competition and the idea that the results are a combination of genetics+work. Hence taking PEDs is cheating in a sports context.
But if there's a medication that helps you live your life better (i.e. in a way that's more fulfilling to you) and if taking the medication doesn't impact anyone else negatively, why would you not want it taken as widely as possible?
The important thing is to let would-be medication-takers know with full honesty what the side-effects are - this is what the article focuses on most.