Keywords
Ethical issues
Brain imaging
Brain imaging research
Research ethics
Abstract
This paper explores the ethical implications of incidental findings during brain imaging research and critically
examines aspects of autonomy and distributive justice in this context. Concepts of autonomy and distributive justice must be balanced with the cost effectiveness of disclosing and further investigating all incidental findings. This paper outlines arguments for and against disclosure and recommends the use of the EUSTICE framework in ethical decision making. This existing framework can aid researchers in developing an ethical protocol to disclose pathologies that carry a serious clinical significance whilst adhering to the values of distributive justice.
References
Graham M, Hallowell N, Savulescu J. A just standard: the ethical management of incidental findings in brain imaging research. J Law Med Ethics 2021;49(2):269–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1017/jme.2021.38
Stubbs JL, Taylor JJ, Siddiqi SH, et al. Heterogeneous neuroimaging findings across substance use disorders localize to a common brain network. Nature Mental Health 2023;1(10):772–81. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00128-7
Anand SS, Singh H, Dash A. Clinical applications of PET and PET-CT. Med J Armed Forces India. 2009 Oct;65(4):353–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-1237(09)80099-3
Morris Z, Whiteley WN, Longstreth WT, et al. Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and metaanalysis. BMJ 2009;339:b3016–6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b3016
Hurford R, Taveira I, Kuker W, Rothwell PM. Prevalence, predictors and prognosis of incidental intracranial aneurysms in patients with suspected TIA and minor stroke: a population-based study and systematic review. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2020;92(5):542–8. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2020-324418
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Coil embolisation of unruptured intracranial aneurysms: Interventional procedures guidance [IPG105]. 2005. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ipg105/chapter/1-Recommendations (accessed on 3 June 2024)
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Autonomy: normative. Available from: https://iep.utm.edu/normative-autonomy/#:~:text=The%20concept%20first%20came%20int (accessed 3 June 2024)
Arden J. Justice KT Desai Memorial Lecture 2017. Law of medicine and the individual: current issues. What does patient autonomy mean for the courts? 2017. Available from: https://www.judiciary.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2017/12/arden-lj-medicine-and-the-law-oct-2017. pdf (accessed 24 June 2024)
World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, Ethical Principles for Medical Research involving Human Subjects. 2013. Available from: https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct2013-JAMA.pdf (accessed on 12 May 2024)
Hoggard N, Darwent G, Capener D, Wilkinson ID, Griffiths PD. The high incidence and bioethics of findings on magnetic resonance brain imaging of normal volunteers for neuroscience research. J Med Ethics 2009;35(3):194–9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.025502
Syed RH, Meritt MW. Ancillary Care. Global Health Bioethics. Available from: https://globalhealthbioethics.tghn.org/topics/ancillary-care/#:~:text=What%20is%20ancillary%20care%3F (accessed 3 June 2024)
Illes J, Kirschen MP, Edwards E, et al. Practical approaches to incidental findings in brain imaging research. Neurology 2008;70(5):384–90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000280469.17461.94
Bhaskar SMM. An equity and justice-informed ethical framework to guide incidental findings in brain imaging research. Clin Pract 2023;13(1):116–24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract13010011
MacKay D. Standard of care, institutional obligations, and distributive justice. Bioethics 2013;29(4):262–73. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12060
Royal JM, Peterson BS. The risks and benefits of searching for incidental findings in MRI research scans. J Law Med Ethics. 2008;36(2):305–14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2008.00274.x