Cross-sectional survey of surrogate decision-making in Japanese medical practice.

BACKGROUND: Instances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process. RESULTS: Of the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates' considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.

Grounds for surrogate decision-making in Japanese clinical practice: a qualitative survey.

BACKGROUND: In the coming years, surrogate decision-making is expected to become highly prevalent in Japanese clinical practice. Further, there has been a recent increase in activities promoting advance care planning, which potentially affects the manner in which judgements are made by surrogate decision-makers. This study aims to clarify the grounds on which surrogate decision-makers in Japan base their judgements. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine the judgement grounds in surrogate decision-making for critical life-sustaining treatment choices in acute care hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 228 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria, and 15 were selected for interviews. We qualitatively analysed the content of 14 interview transcripts, excluding one that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted 4 core categories, 17 categories, 35 subcategories, and 55 codes regarding judgement grounds in surrogate decision-making. The four core categories were as follows: patient preference-oriented factor (Type 1), patient interest-oriented factor (Type 2), family preference-oriented factor (Type 3), and balanced patient/family preference-oriented factor (Type 4). The Type 4 core category represented attempts to balance the preferences of the patient with those of the surrogate decision-maker. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate decision-makers based their decisions on important aspects related to a patient's life, and they considered not only the patient's preferences and best interests but also their own preferences. As the need for surrogate decisions will increase in the future, decision-makers will need to consider judgement grounds from a more diverse perspective.

Changing our perspective: Is there a government obligation to promote autonomy through the provision of public prenatal screening?

In many countries, prenatal testing for certain fetal abnormalities is offered via publicly funded screening programs. The concept of reproductive autonomy is regarded as providing a justificatory basis for many such programs. The purpose of this study is to re-examine the normative basis of public prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities by changing our perspective from that of autonomy to obligation. After clarifying the understanding of autonomy adopted in the justification for public prenatal screening programs, we identify two problems concerning this justification: first, the extent to which the government is obliged to meet this demand is not evident; and, second, it is not clear whether the provision of public screening is the most appropriate way to promote autonomy. Next, to tackle these problems, we focus on Onora O'Neill's argument of rights and obligations. Drawing on this argument, we show that, in addressing the problems above, it is important to change our normative perspective from rights or autonomy to obligation. Our argument will show that since the government does not have an incontrovertibly fundamental obligation to promote autonomy, this obligation needs to be constrained in terms of compatibility with other fundamental obligations. In addition, even if a government is obliged to promote autonomy to some degree, there could be more appropriate means to achieve it than providing public prenatal screening; therefore, it is not necessary for government obligations to extend to the provision of public prenatal screening.

The controversy on HPV vaccination in Japan: Criticism of the ethical validity of the arguments for the suspension of the proactive recommendation.

The Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine was integrated into Japan's national immunization program (NIP) in April 2013. However, numerous instances of serious adverse reactions were widely reported in the media, resulting in the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (MHLW) suspending the official recommendation of the HPV vaccine on June 14, 2013. Investigating the reported incidents, the Vaccine Adverse Reactions Review Committee (VARRC)-an MHLW advisory committee-found no high-quality evidence supporting a causal relationship between the reported events and the HPV vaccination. However, rather than lifting the suspension, they have opted to maintain a "pseudo informed consent" confirming the perceptions of Japanese citizens regarding the vaccine. Accordingly, there appears to be a fundamental difference in the approach to vaccine policymaking between Japan (MHLW/VARRC) and other countries and the World Health Organization, which base policy decisions on the effectiveness and safety of the vaccine. Consequently, the arguments for the suspension of the HPV vaccine recommendation are not ethically appropriate. Relevant bodies must make a clear decision regarding the HPV vaccine and its status in the NIP: the proactive recommendation must either be reinstated or the HPV vaccine legal framework altered to rely entirely on voluntary individual decisions.

The Ethics of the Reuse of Disposable Medical Supplies.

The use of single-use items (SUDs) is now ubiquitous in medical practice. Because of the high costs of these items, the practice of reusing them after sterilisation is also widespread especially in resource-poor economies. However, the ethics of reusing disposable items remain unclear. There are several analogous conditions, which could shed light on the ethics of reuse of disposables. These include the use of restored kidney transplantation and the use of generic drugs etc. The ethical issues include the question of patient safety and the possibility of infection. It is also important to understand the role (or otherwise) of informed consent before reuse of disposables. The widespread practice of reuse may bring down high healthcare costs and also reduce the huge amount of hospital waste that is generated. The reuse of disposables can be justified on various grounds including the safety and the cost effectiveness of this practice.

What deserves our respect? Reexamination of respect for autonomy in the context of the management of chronic conditions.

The global increase in patients with chronic conditions has led to increased interest in ethical issues regarding such conditions. A basic biomedical principle-respect for autonomy-is being reexamined more critically in its clinical implications. New accounts of this basic principle are being proposed. While new accounts of respect for autonomy do underpin the design of many public programs and policies worldwide, addressing both chronic disease management and health promotion, the risk of applying such new accounts to clinical setting remain understudied. However, the application of new accounts of respect for autonomy to clinical settings could support disrespectful attitudes toward or undue interference with patients with chronic conditions. Reconsidering autonomy and respect using Kantian accounts, this paper proposes respect for persons as an alternative basic bioethical principle to respect for autonomy. Unlike the principle of respect for persons in the Belmont Report, our principle involves respecting any patient's decisions, behaviors, emotions, or life-style regardless of his or her "autonomous" capabilities. Thus, attitudes toward patients should be no different irrespective of the assessment of their decisional or executive capabilities.

Matters to address prior to introducing new life support technology in Japan: three serious ethical concerns related to the use of left ventricular assist devices as destination therapy and suggested policies to deal with them.

BACKGROUND: Destination therapy (DT) is the permanent implantation of a left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in patients with end-stage, severe heart failure who are ineligible for heart transplantation. DT improves both the quality of life and prognosis of patients with end-stage heart failure. However, there are also downsides to DT such as life-threatening complications and the potential for the patient to live beyond their desired length of life following such major complications. Because of deeply ingrained cultural and religious beliefs regarding death and the sanctity of life, Japanese society may not be ready to make changes needed to enable patients to have LVADs deactivated under certain circumstances to avoid needless suffering. MAIN TEXT: Western ethical views that permit LVAD deactivation based mainly on respect for autonomy and dignity have not been accepted thus far in Japan and are unlikely to be accepted, given the current Japanese culture and traditional values. Some healthcare professionals might regard patients as ineligible for DT unless they have prepared advance directives. If this were to happen, the right to prepare an advance directive would instead become an obligation to do so. Furthermore, patient selection for DT poses another ethical issue. Given the predominant sanctity of life principle and lack of cost-consciousness regarding medical expenses, medically appropriate exclusion criteria would be ignored and DT could be applied to various patients, including very old patients, the demented, or even patients in persistent vegetative states, through on-site judgment. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for Japan to establish and enact a basic act for patient rights. The act should include: respect for a patient's right to self-determination; the right to refuse unwanted treatment; the right to prepare legally binding advance directives; the right to decline to prepare such directives; and access to nationally insured healthcare. It should enable those concerned with patient care involving DT to seek ethical advice from ethics committees. Furthermore, it should state that healthcare professionals involved in the discontinuation of life support in a proper manner are immune to any legal action and that they have the right to conscientiously object to LVAD deactivation.

Misuse of emergent healthcare in contemporary Japan.

BACKGROUND: Medical care is obviously an important public service to ensure the health of a nation; however, medical resources are not always used appropriately. 'Convenience-store consultations' and inappropriate ambulance transportation represent instances of such improper use by contemporary Japanese citizens in recent years. This article illustrates two examples of misuse and discusses potential countermeasures by considering factors contributing to these behaviours. MAIN BODY: From both public and medical perspectives, these patient behaviours are problematic, causing potential harm to others, negative consequences to such patients themselves, exhaustion of healthcare staff, and breakdown of emergency medical services. Although citizens need to recognize the public nature and scarcity of medical care, the more immediate need may be to identify and to remove personal and social causes inducing such misuse. In addition, healthcare professionals should become more trustworthy. To combat these issues, one-sided penalties such as accusations or sanctions for patients who misuse the system cannot be justified in principle. If measures taken to prevent misuse are ineffective, imposing surcharges or restricting consultations may be considered official policy, but these are not acceptable for several reasons. CONCLUSION: For now, we conclude that we must rely on the spontaneous motivation of patients who engage in 'convenience-store consultations' and ambulance transportation instead of taking a taxi.

Conflicting messages concerning current strategies against research misconduct in Japan: a call for ethical spontaneity.

The Japanese government has asserted that the purpose of scientific activities is to search for the truth about the world and contribute to public interest of the humanities and claimed that research misconduct should occur under no circumstances ever. The revealing of each new case of research misconduct leads to the establishment of investigation committees and research guidelines, as well as punishments for the transgressors. However, we wonder if Japanese researchers are receiving different messages that might undermine the purpose of the former messages. First, Japan's policies on science and technology have been created to comprise an integration of merit-based evaluations, principles of competition and a concentrated and unbalanced distribution of research funding, leading to decreases in ordinary research funding for the researchers and an increase in fierce research competition. Second, Japanese government and society as a whole continue to send the researchers messages such as 'Only results matter', 'Be No. 1 as a top priority' and 'All we need now is scientific progress'. Third, cultural peculiarities may explain some of the actions relevant to research misconducts currently noted in Japan. We argue that it is essential to re-examine and improve the governmental policies and evaluation methods for research achievements need to be more multifaceted. In order to have the researchers act according to ethics, it is essential for them to reaffirm their objectives for working in the fields of science and medicine and the importance of balancing their personal profit with the greater cause for entering into this field.