Journal
JOURNAL OF LAW MEDICINE & ETHICS
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 256-270Publisher
SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00268.x
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- NHGRI NIH HHS [R01 HG003178, R01 HG003178-01A1, R01 HG 003178] Funding Source: Medline
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Recent work on incidental findings, concentrating on the difficult problems posed by the ambiguous results often generated by high-tech medicine, has proceeded largely independently from recent work on medical researchers' ancillary-care obligations, the obligations that researchers have to deal with diseases or conditions besides the one(s) under study. This paper contends that the two topics are morally linked, and specifcally that a sound understanding of ancillary-care obligations will center them on incidental findings. The paper sets out and defends an understanding of ancillary-care obligations, which is based on the idea that when participants signed up for a study they may - independently of their beliefs and expectations and of those of the researchers - be taken to have partially entrusted certain aspects of their health into the researchers' hands. This partial-entrustment model of ancillary-care obligations, in turn, has substantive implications for how to deal ethically with incidental findings; for instance, it suggests that researchers have no moral obligation to hunt for incidental findings.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available