Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Ethics Behav. 2015 Jul 1;25(4):332-350. Epub 2014 Oct 20.

Stakeholder Opinions And Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure Of Incidental Findings In MRI Research.

Author information

1
Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico & The Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106.
2
The Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, ccole@mrn.org.
3
Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, jgluck@unm.edu.
4
The Mind Research Network, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106, jroberts@mrn.org.
5
The Mind Research Network, lpetree@mrn.org.
6
Department of Family Practice, University of New Mexico Health Science Center, helitzer@salud.unm.edu.
7
Clinical and Translational Science Center, University of New Mexico Health Science Center, RSchrader@salud.unm.edu.
8
College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico Health Science Center, MHoldsworth@salud.unm.edu.

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 is lacking. We conducted a systematic survey of perceptions and preferences of 396 investigators, research participants and IRB 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.

KEYWORDS:

imaging; incidental findings; paternalism; research ethics

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center