Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research

John P. Phillips, Caitlin Cole, John P. Gluck, Jody M. Shoemaker, Linda E. Petree, Deborah L. Helitzer, Ronald M. Schrader, Mark T. Holdsworth

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Scopus citations

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)332-350
Number of pages19
JournalEthics and Behavior
Volume25
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 4 2015

Keywords

  • Autonomy
  • Beneficence
  • Ethical principles
  • Ethics committee
  • IRB

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Psychology(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Phillips, J. P., Cole, C., Gluck, J. P., Shoemaker, J. M., Petree, L. E., Helitzer, D. L., Schrader, R. M., & Holdsworth, M. T. (2015). Stakeholder opinions and ethical perspectives support complete disclosure of incidental findings in mri research. Ethics and Behavior, 25(4), 332-350. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.938338