Irfan Bilal, Wiseman Elijah, Boyd J Wesley, Reader Jonathan, Rahman-Filipiak Annalise
Center for Bioethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
J Alzheimers Dis. 2025 Jul;106(2):540-546. doi: 10.1177/13872877251343319. Epub 2025 Jul 1.
Graham et al.'s article offers a thoughtful account of why disclosing modifiable dementia risk factors to cognitively unimpaired research participants may be ethically defensible. In this Ethics Response, we seek to engage constructively with their arguments, affirming value in a person-centered approach, while also expanding on how cultural, communal, and religious contexts can further illuminate the ethics of returning individual research results. Drawing on emerging ethical issues and examples from diverse settings, this response highlights how stigmatization, religious worldviews, family care traditions, and broader socioeconomic factors may influence the perceived meaning and impact of dementia risk communication.
格雷厄姆等人的文章深入探讨了为何向认知未受损的研究参与者披露可改变的痴呆症风险因素在伦理上可能是合理的。在这篇伦理回应文章中，我们试图与他们的观点进行建设性互动，肯定以个人为中心的方法的价值，同时进一步阐述文化、社区和宗教背景如何能更清晰地阐明反馈个人研究结果的伦理问题。借鉴新出现的伦理问题以及来自不同背景的实例，本回应强调了污名化、宗教世界观、家庭护理传统以及更广泛的社会经济因素可能如何影响痴呆症风险信息传达的感知意义和影响。
