Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: Analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Research ethics and the measures deployed to ensure ethical oversight of research (e.g., informed consent forms, ethics review) are vested with extremely important ethical and practical goals. Accordingly, these measures need to function effectively in real-world research and to follow high level standards.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined approved consent forms for Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) studies approved by Canadian research ethics boards (REBs).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found evidence of variability in consent forms in matters of physical and psychological risk reporting. Approaches used to tackle the emerging issue of incidental findings exposed extensive variability between and within research sites.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The causes of variability in approved consent forms and studies need to be better understood. However, mounting evidence of administrative and practical hurdles within current ethics governance systems combined with potential sub-optimal provision of information to and protection of research subjects support other calls for more scrutiny of research ethics practices and applicable revisions.</p

Legalised non-consensual sterilisation - eugenics put into practice before 1945, and the aftermath. Part 1: USA, Japan, Canada and Mexico.

In the late 19th century, eugenics, a pseudo-scientific doctrine based on an erroneous interpretation of the laws of heredity, swept across the industrialised world. Academics and other influential figures who promoted it convinced political stakeholders to enact laws authorising the sterilisation of people seen as ‘social misfits’. The earliest sterilisation Act was enforced in Indiana, in 1907; most States in the USA followed suit and so did several countries, with dissimilar political regimes. The end of the Second World War saw the suspension of Nazi legislation in Germany, including that regulating coerced sterilisation. The year 1945 should have been the endpoint of these inhuman practices but, in the early post-war period, the existing sterilisation Acts were suspended solely in Germany and Austria. Only much later did certain countries concerned – not Japan so far - officially acknowledge the human rights violations committed, issue apologies, and develop reparation schemes for the victims’ benefit