Erratum
Following publication of the original article in BMC Medical Ethics [1], it was brought to my attention that the following sentences are incorrect:
“Moreover, genetics professionals appear to think that to know is better than not to know [25] even when the information is actionable [26].” This sentence should read: Moreover, genetics professionals appear to think that to know is better than not to know [25] even when the information is not actionable [26].
“Let me therefore now turn to arguments for a right to know before summarizing the arguments in Table 1.”
This sentence should read: Let me therefore now turn to arguments for a right not to know before summarizing the arguments in Table 1.
I apologise for the inconvenience this may have caused.
Reference
Hofmann B. Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know – that is not the question. BMC Med Ethics. 2016;17:13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1186/s12910-016-0096-2.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
About this article
Cite this article
Hofmann, B. Erratum to: Incidental findings of uncertain significance: To know or not to know – that is not the question. BMC Med Ethics 17, 35 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0119-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0119-z