Danish patients' attitudes to scientific-ethical questions. An interview study focusing therapeutic trials.

One hundred and fourteen in- and out-patients from a department of internal medicine were interviewed, on the basis of a questionnaire with the following key questions: 1) Their attitudes to medical trials with man as the subject. 2) Their emphasis on informed consent. 3) Their attitudes to inclusion of patients not being able to give informed consent. 4) Their attitudes to tentative participation in 4 concrete projects. In all, 98% considered doctors' and patients' collaboration on new therapeutical methods both necessary and desirable. Eighty-eight per cent considered information of patients participating in trials a prerequisite. Eighty-six per cent accepted participation in scientific trials based on the guarantee of the doctors responsible. Of these 86%, 58% felt that a scientific-ethical committee's accept of the project implied an extra element of security. Seventy-five per cent replied that patients not being able to give informed consent themselves could be included in scientific trials. The majority, 77%, added that patients' relatives would then have to accept, 20% that such trials could be based on the participating doctors' responsibility, and only 2% that such a responsibility was to place on scientific-ethical committees. In the 4 concrete projects, answers followed a uniform trend: full information of patients was demanded by approximately 80%, and acceptance of participation resting with responsible doctors in more than 80%. Less than half of these 80% felt that evaluation by a scientific-ethical committee would add to patients' security.