The Right to Know: A Revised Standard for Reporting Incidental Findings

Hastings Center Report 48 (2):22-32 (2018)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

The “best-medical-interests” standard for reporting findings does not go far enough. Research subjects have a right to know about any comprehensible piece of information about them that is generated by research in which they are participating. An even broader standard may sometimes be appropriate: if subjects agree to accept information that they may not understand, then all information may be disclosed.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,310

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Research Malpractice and the Issue of Incidental Findings.Alan C. Milstein - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):356-360.
Incidental Findings in Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) Brain Research.Charles A. Nelson - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):315-319.
Incidental Findings in Genetics Research Using Archived DNA.Ellen Wright Clayton - 2008 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 36 (2):286-291.

Analytics

Added to PP
2018-03-29

Downloads
32 (#361,679)

6 months
1 (#415,900)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Julian Savulescu
Oxford University
G. Owen Schaefer
National University of Singapore