Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. The impact of reporting magnetic resonance imaging incidental findings in the Canadian alliance for healthy hearts and minds cohort.Rhian Touyz, Amy Subar, Ian Janssen, Bob Reid, Eldon Smith, Caroline Wong, Pierre Boyle, Jean Rouleau, F. Henriques, F. Marcotte, K. Bibeau, E. Larose, V. Thayalasuthan, A. Moody, F. Gao, S. Batool, C. Scott, S. E. Black, C. McCreary, E. Smith, M. Friedrich, K. Chan, J. Tu, H. Poiffaut, J. -C. Tardif, J. Hicks, D. Thompson, L. Parker, R. Miller, J. Lebel, H. Shah, D. Kelton, F. Ahmad, A. Dick, L. Reid, G. Paraga, S. Zafar, N. Konyer, R. de Souza, S. Anand, M. Noseworthy, G. Leung, A. Kripalani, R. Sekhon, A. Charlton, R. Frayne, V. de Jong, S. Lear, J. Leipsic, A. -S. Bourlaud, P. Poirier, E. Ramezani, K. Teo, D. Busseuil, S. Rangarajan, H. Whelan, J. Chu, N. Noisel, K. McDonald, N. Tusevljak, H. Truchon, D. Desai, Q. Ibrahim, K. Ramakrishnana, C. Ramasundarahettige, S. Bangdiwala, A. Casanova, L. Dyal, K. Schulze, M. Thomas, S. Nandakumar, B. -M. Knoppers, P. Broet, J. Vena, T. Dummer, P. Awadalla, Matthias G. Friedrich, Douglas S. Lee, Jean-Claude Tardif, Erika Kleiderman & Marcotte - 2021 - BMC Medical Ethics 22 (1):1-15.
    BackgroundIn the Canadian Alliance for Healthy Hearts and Minds (CAHHM) cohort, participants underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the brain, heart, and abdomen, that generated incidental findings (IFs). The approach to managing these unexpected results remain a complex issue. Our objectives were to describe the CAHHM policy for the management of IFs, to understand the impact of disclosing IFs to healthy research participants, and to reflect on the ethical obligations of researchers in future MRI studies.MethodsBetween 2013 and 2019, 8252 participants (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The Collateral Finding of What?Bjørn Hofmann - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (1):26-28.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Erratum to: Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know – that is not the question.Bjørn Hofmann - 2016 - BMC Medical Ethics 17 (1):1.
    BackgroundAlthough the “right not to know” is well established in international regulations, it has been heavily debated. Ubiquitous results from extended exome and genome analysis have challenged the right not to know. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Recommendations urge to inform about incidental findings that pretend to be accurate and actionable. However, ample clinical cases raise the question whether these criteria are met. Many incidental findings are of uncertain significance. The eager to feedback information appears to enter the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Genetic testing for breast cancer risk, from BRCA1/2 to a seven gene panel: an ethical analysis.Erik Gustavsson, Giovanni Galvis & Niklas Juth - 2020 - BMC Medical Ethics 21 (1):1-8.
    Background Genetic testing is moving from targeted investigations of monogenetic diseases to broader testing that may provide more information. For example, recent health economic studies of genetic testing for an increased risk of breast cancer suggest that it is associated with higher cost-effectiveness to screen for pathogenic variants in a seven gene panel rather than the usual two gene test for variants in BRCA1 and BRCA2. However, irrespective of the extent to which the screening of the panel is cost-effective, there (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • The right not to know and the obligation to know.Ben Davies - 2020 - Journal of Medical Ethics 46 (5):300-303.
    There is significant controversy over whether patients have a ‘right not to know’ information relevant to their health. Some arguments for limiting such a right appeal to potential burdens on others that a patient’s avoidable ignorance might generate. This paper develops this argument by extending it to cases where refusal of relevant information may generate greater demands on a publicly funded healthcare system. In such cases, patients may have an ‘obligation to know’. However, we cannot infer from the fact that (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations