Returning Incidental Findings in Low‐Resource Settings
A Case of Rescue
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20337199 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Douglas Mackay (0000-0002-6465-237X, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 48 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Pages | 28-30 |
| Publication date | 2018-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Hastings Center Report (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0093-0334 • E-ISSN: 1552-146X |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1002/hast.852 |
| PMID | 29806889 |
| OpenAlex | W2806753123 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 3 |
In a carefully argued article, Haley K. Sullivan and Benjamin E. Berkman address the important question of whether investigators have a duty to report incidental findings to research participants in low‐resource settings. They suggest that the duty to rescue offers the most plausible justification for the duty to return incidental findings, and they explore the implications of this duty for the context of research in low‐resource settings. While I think they make valuable headway on an important problem, in this commentary, I identify a significant difference between the paradigmatic rescue case and the return of incidental findings in low‐resource settings. This difference, I suggest, implies that their framework may be too narrow in scope. If investigators (and their sponsors) really wish to fulfill their duty to rescue, they must consider factors that are left out of Sullivan and Berkman's framework
Context (archaeology) · Duty · Headway · Political science · Resource (disambiguation) · Scope (computer science) · Biomedical Ethics and Regulation · Computer Science · Ethics in Clinical Research · Health and Medical Research Impacts · History · Law · Psychology
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2024 (1) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 1 |