Stakeholder Opinions and Ethical Perspectives Support Complete Disclosure of Incidental Findings in MRI Research |
| |
| Authors: | John P. Phillips Caitlin Cole John P. Gluck Jody M. Shoemaker Linda E. Petree Deborah L. Helitzer |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico;2. The Mind Research Networkjphillips@mrn.org;4. The Mind Research Network;5. Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University;6. Department of Psychology, The University of New Mexico;7. Department of Family Practice, University of New Mexico Health Science Center |
| |
| 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. |
| |
| Keywords: | ethical principles ethics committee beneficence IRB autonomy |
|
|
