Incidental findings in forensics: are we sure that it is a question easy to deal with?
- PDF / 156,996 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 68 Downloads / 231 Views
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Incidental findings in forensics: are we sure that it is a question easy to deal with? Luciana Caenazzo 1
&
Pamela Tozzo 1
&
Kris Dierickx 2
Received: 13 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 September 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020
Today, in forensic settings, we can consider as incidental findings (IFs) all the information that is neither related to the cause of death nor to the dynamic of the event or the scope of the forensic investigation. In forensics, incidental findings can occur in different situations, for example, in case of molecular autopsy, analysis of crime scene stanis and human cadaver/ remains identification How to handle this information raises ethical considerations for the forensic practitioner who will have to consider many of the same questions, already discussed for clinical practice and research, on how, many, and which information to obtain, what to report, and whether ignoring some information is prudent. Moreover, there will be a number of ethical and legislative considerations in introducing new technologies in forensic genetics and pathology [1]. To think that the traditional principles of medical ethics applied to the clinic or to research also apply to the forensic field can induce forensic practitioners to consider an ethical reflection tailored to the forensic field not very relevant nor innovative. On the other hand, there might be some unexplored grey areas of ethical reflection where it is difficult to understand, in concrete cases, what the ethical balance to be struck is. Even if IFs are technically the same thing, both in clinical practice and in forensics, that is, a piece of information discovered casually during a medical assessment/treatment with another purpose, the setting in which they emerge is completely different.
* Pamela Tozzo [email protected] 1
Department of Molecular Medicine, Laboratory of Forensic Genetics, University of Padova, Via Falloppio 50, 35121 Padova, Italy
2
Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Medicine, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 35, Box 7001, 3000 Leuven, Belgium
The first difference concerns the involvement of the interested person. In the clinical setting, the patient usually undergoes a medical evaluation or a laboratory test, which may reveal unexpected information. Therefore, he/she is somehow prepared to receive information concerning his/her health. In the case of a deceased person subjected to a medico-legal autopsy, it is not possible to reconstruct his/her wishes as the event was obviously not planned by the person. The second difference concerns the type of professionals involved. In the case of IF in the clinical setting, geneticists, oncologists, specialists in imaging, or general practitioners are usually involved. They are well aware that their medical practice makes them sensitive to taking family histories and inquiring about the patient’s relatives. In contrast, forensic experts have to define their duties in a more limited way on the grounds of their expert m
Data Loading...
