Incidental findings: a common law approach.
Federal regulations governing human subjects research do not address key questions raised by incidental neuroimaging findings, including the scope of a researcher's disclosure with respect to the possibility of incidental findings and the question whether a researcher has an affirmative legal cuty to seek, detect, and report incidental findings. The scope of researcher duties may, however, be mapped with reference to common law doctrine, including fiduciary, tort, contract, and bailment theories of liability.
Tovino
Stacey A
SA
Drake University Law School, Des Moines, Iowa, USA. Stacey.Tovino@Drake.edu
D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001921:Brain / Q000473:pathology; D003952:Diagnostic Imaging; D030881:Disclosure / Q000941:ethics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D033162:Incidental Findings; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics; D009488:Neurosciences / Q000941:ethics / Q000379:methods; D035842:Research Subjects / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035844:Researcher-Subject Relations / Q000941:ethics; D014481:United States