[P4–196]: WITHDRAWN

to the ‘right to know’ your risk ensures respect for an individual’s autonomy, while from a perspective of justice costs and limited availability of PET scanning are of importance. The balance of beneficence (i.e. life planning possibilities) and non-maleficence (i.e. psychological burden of positive risk disclosure) plays a role both from the population as well as the individual perspective. And while the applicability of the ethical arguments differs for biomarker use in a clinical or in a research setting, this distinction seems not well defined. Conclusions: Arguments in the literature for or against aiming at early AD diagnosis, can be clustered around important ethical principles. In order to answer whether aiming for Alzheimer biomarker testing outside of research is desirable, a clear distinction should be made between the research and clinical setting.