The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics
-
Research technologies can now produce so much information that there is significant potential for incidental findings (IFs). These are findings generated in research that are beyond the aims of the study. ⋯ We advocate a defined set of researcher duties based on law and ethics and recommend a pathway to be followed in handling IFs in research. This article traces the underlying ethical and legal theories supporting researcher duties to manage IFs, including duties to develop a plan for management in the research protocol, to discuss the possibility of and management plan for IFs in the informed consent process, and to address, evaluate, and ultimately offer to disclose IFs of potential clinical or reproductive significance to research participants when they arise.
-
Empirical studies and ethical-legal analyses have demonstrated that incidental findings in the brain, most commonly vascular in origin, must be addressed in the current era of imaging research. The challenges, however, are substantial. ⋯ Risks, including a blurring of boundaries between research and clinical practice, must be weighed against the possible benefit to subjects and a moral duty to inform. Identification and examination of these challenges have been met by scientific interest and a robust, interdisciplinary response resulting in the pragmatic recommendations discussed here.
-
Presumed consent alone will not solve the organ shortage, but it will create an ethical and legal context that supports organ donation, respects individuals who object to organ donation, relieves families from the burden of decision making, and can save lives.
-
This article provides an overview of why health insurance matters, a profile of the uninsured, and a discussion of the roles and limits of private and public health insurance as sources of coverage. It concludes with reflections on the current health insurance environment and prospects for reform.
-
This article examines the evidence for the empirical argument that there is a slippery slope between the legalization of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. The main source of evidence in relation to this argument comes from the Netherlands. ⋯ Moreover, it is only effective if it is used comparatively-to show that the slope is more slippery in jurisdictions which have legalized voluntary euthanasia than it is in jurisdictions which have not done so. Both of these elements are examined comparatively.