BACKGROUND This article presents results from a qualitative empirical investigation of how Danish oncology physicians and Danish molecular biologists experience the principle of respect for autonomy in their daily work. METHODS This study is based on 12 semi-structured interviews with three groups of respondents: a group of oncology physicians working in a clinic at a public hospital and two groups of molecular biologists conducting basic research, one group employed at a public university and the other in a private biopharmaceutical company. RESULTS We found that that molecular biologists consider the principle of respect for autonomy as a negative obligation, where the informed consent of patients or research subjects should be respected. Furthermore, molecular biologists believe that very sick patients are constraint by the circumstances to a certain choice. However, in contrast to molecular biologists, oncology physicians experience the principle of respect for autonomy as a positive obligation, where the physician in dialogue with the patient performs a medical prognosis based on the patient's wishes and ideas, mutual understanding and respect. Oncology physicians believe that they have a positive obligation to adjust to the level of the patient when providing information making sure that the patient understands. Oncology physicians experience situations where the principle of respect for autonomy does not apply because the patient is in a difficult situation. CONCLUSION In this study we explore the moral views and attitudes of oncology physicians and molecular biologists and compare these views with bioethical theories of the American bioethicists Tom L. Beauchamp & James F. Childress and the Danish philosophers Jakob Rendtorff & Peter Kemp. This study shows that essential parts of the two bioethical theories are reflected in the daily work of Danish oncology physicians and Danish molecular biologists. However, the study also explores dimensions where the theories can be developed further to be concordant with biomedical practice. The hope is that this study enhances the understanding of the principle of respect for autonomy and the way it is practiced.

中文翻译：

---

尊重自主的原则——与肿瘤内科医生和分子生物学家在日常工作中的经验相一致？

背景本文介绍了一项定性实证调查的结果，该调查研究丹麦肿瘤学医师和丹麦分子生物学家如何在日常工作中体验尊重自主权的原则。方法 本研究基于对三组受访者的 12 次半结构化访谈：一组在公立医院诊所工作的肿瘤医生和两组进行基础研究的分子生物学家，一组在公立大学工作，另一组在一家私人生物制药公司。结果我们发现，分子生物学家将尊重自主权的原则视为一种消极义务，应尊重患者或研究对象的知情同意。此外，分子生物学家认为，重病患者是受环境制约而做出一定选择的。然而，与分子生物学家不同，肿瘤医生将尊重自主原则视为一种积极义务，医生与患者对话，根据患者的意愿和想法，相互理解和尊重，做出医学预后。肿瘤医生认为，在提供信息以确保患者理解时，他们有积极的义务适应患者的水平。肿瘤医生会遇到尊重自主原则不适用的情况，因为患者处于困境。结论 在这项研究中，我们探讨了肿瘤医生和分子生物学家的道德观点和态度，并将这些观点与美国生物伦理学家 Tom L. Beauchamp 和 James F. Childress 以及丹麦哲学家 Jakob Rendtorff 和 Peter Kemp 的生物伦理理论进行了比较。这项研究表明，丹麦肿瘤学医生和丹麦分子生物学家的日常工作反映了这两种生物伦理学理论的重要组成部分。然而，该研究还探索了可以进一步发展理论以与生物医学实践相一致的维度。希望这项研究能增进对尊重自主原则及其实践方式的理解。Childress 和丹麦哲学家 Jakob Rendtorff 和 Peter Kemp。这项研究表明，丹麦肿瘤学医生和丹麦分子生物学家的日常工作反映了这两种生物伦理学理论的重要组成部分。然而，该研究还探索了可以进一步发展理论以与生物医学实践相一致的维度。希望这项研究能增进对尊重自主原则及其实践方式的理解。Childress 和丹麦哲学家 Jakob Rendtorff 和 Peter Kemp。这项研究表明，丹麦肿瘤学医生和丹麦分子生物学家的日常工作反映了这两种生物伦理学理论的重要组成部分。然而，该研究还探索了可以进一步发展理论以与生物医学实践相一致的维度。希望这项研究能增进对尊重自主原则及其实践方式的理解。