Stakeholder Opinions and Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure of Incidental Findings in MRI Research

Ethics and Behavior 25 (4):332-350 (2015)

Abstract

How far does a researcher’s responsibility extend when an incidental finding is identified? Balancing pertinent ethical principles such as beneficence, respect for persons, and duty to rescue is not always straightforward, particularly in neuroimaging research where empirical data that might help guide decision making are lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants, and Institutional Review Board members at our institution. Using the partial entrustment model as described by Richardson, we argue that our data supports universal reading by a neuroradiologist of all research MRI scans for incidental findings and providing full disclosure to all participants.

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,805

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-05-30

Downloads
20 (#563,504)

6 months
2 (#257,900)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

View all 9 citations / Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA.Ellen Wright Clayton - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):286-291.
Incidental Findings in Pediatric Research.Benjamin S. Wilfond & Katherine J. Carpenter - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):332-340.
Familial Communication of Research Results: A Need to Know?Lee Black & Kelly A. McClellan - 2011 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 39 (4):605-613.
Genomic Research and Incidental Findings.Brian Van Ness - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):292-297.