Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:37:25.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Grey Matter – The Problems of Incidental Findings in Neuroimaging Research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 June 2021

Nicholas Murphy  and
Charles Weijer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

NeuroimagingStandard of CareIncidental FindingsDisclosureBioethics
Type
Independent Articles: Commentary
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 49 , Issue 2: Race and Ethnicity in 21st Century Health Care , Summer 2021 , pp. 282 - 284
Copyright
© 2021 The Author(s)

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Wolf, S.M., Lawrenz, F.P., Nelson, C.A., Kahn, J.P., Cho, M.K., Clayton, E.W., Fletcher, J.G., et al., “Managing Incidental Findings in Human Subjects Research: Analysis and Recommendations,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 36, no. 2 (2008): 219-248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medical Research Council, Framework on the Feedback of Health-Related Findings in Research, The Wellcome Trust and Medical Research Council, 2014.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, C., Bell, E., Palmour, N., Pike, B., Doyon, J., and Racine, E., “Perspectives of Canadian Researchers on Ethics Review of Neuroimaging Research,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5, no. 1 (2010): 49-66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, L.M., Wardlaw, J.M., and Sudlow, C.L.M, “Incidental Findings: Current Ethical Debates and Future Challenges in Advanced Neuroimaging,” in Neurothetics: Anticipating the Future, ed. Illes, J. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017): 54-69.Google Scholar
Graham, M., Hallowell, N., and Savulescu, J., “A Just Standard: The Ethical Management of Incidental Findings in Brain Imaging Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 49, no. 2 (2021): 269-281.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
See Wolf et al., supra note 1; Medical Research Council, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Mackay, D., “Standard of Care, Institutional Obligations, and Distributive Justice,” Bioethics 29, no. 4 (2015): 262-273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Miller, P.B. and Weijer, C., “The Trust-Based Obligations of the State and Physician–Researchers to Patient-Subjects ,” Journal of Medical Ethics 32, no. 9 (2006): 542–547.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
See Miller, P.B. and Weijer, C., “Fiduciary Obligation in Clinical Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 34, no. 2 (2006): 424-440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
For example, some researchers may be moved by empirical evidence demonstrating that most research participants want to be informed of incidental findings, regardless of medical relevance. See, e.g., Phillips, J.P., Cole, C., Gluck, J.P., Shoemaker, J.M., Petree, L.E., Helitzer, D.L., Schrader, R.M., and Holdsworth, M.T., “Stakeholder Opinions and Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure of Incidental Findings in MRI Research,” Ethics & Behavior 25, no. 4 (2015): 332-350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, supra note 5.Google Scholar