Conscience in health care and the definitions of death

The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens

BACKGROUND

According to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.

METHODS

Ten vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment.

RESULTS

In a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%).

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.

Ethical Healthcare Attitudes of Japanese Citizens and Physicians: Patient-Centered or Family-Centered?

BACKGROUND

In current Western medical ethics, patient-centered medicine is considered the norm. However, the cultural background of collectivism in East Asia often leads to family-centered decision-making. In Japan, prior studies have reported that family-centered decision-making is more likely to be preferred in situations of disease notification and end-of-life decision-making. Nonetheless, there has been a recent shift from collectivism to individualism due to changes in the social structure. Various personal factors have also been reported to influence moral decision-making. Therefore, this study examined whether the current trend in attitudes of healthcare decision-making in Japan is family-centered or patient-centered among the general public and physicians. In addition, the personal factors that influence this tendency were examined.

METHODS

Three vignettes on disease notification and two vignettes on decision-making during end-of-life care were created, and 457 members of the public and 284 physicians were asked about their attitudes (behavioral intentions) regarding these vignettes.

RESULTS

Approximately, 95% of physicians were patient-centered in explaining the patient's severe medical condition. However, approximately 80% of physicians emphasized the wishes of the family over patient wishes when making life-sustaining decisions. Nearly half the general public emphasized the patient's wishes in the explanation of a severe medical condition and in life-sustaining decisions. In both the public and physician groups, personal factors, particularly the presence or absence of a disease under treatment and prior caregiving experience, influenced ethical attitudes toward medical treatment decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

In relatively low-conflict situations, such as the announcement of a patient's medical condition, physicians tended to be patient-centered, while they tended to be family-centered in situations of strong conflict in withholding life-sustaining treatment. The fact that personal factors influenced the family-centered response in situations of strong conflict highlights the importance of not only acquiring knowledge of medical ethics but also learning to fairly apply this knowledge in practice.

Public Understandings of the Definition and Determination of Death: A Scoping Review

Background.

Advances in medicine and technology that have made it possible to support, repair, or replace failing organs challenge commonly held notions of life and death. The objective of this review is to develop a comprehensive description of the current understandings of the public regarding the meaning/definition and determination of death.

Methods.

This scoping review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Online databases were used to identify articles published from 2003 to 2021. Two reviewers (S.S. and K.Z.) screened the articles using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data for specific content variables, and performed descriptive examination. Complementary searches of reference lists complemented the final study selection. A search strategy using vocabulary of the respective databases was created, and criteria for the inclusion and exclusion of the articles were established.

Results.

Seven thousand four hundred twenty-eight references were identified. Sixty were retained for analysis, with 4 additional references added from complementary searches. A data extraction instrument was developed to iteratively chart the results. A qualitative approach was conducted to thematically analyze the data. Themes included public understanding/attitudes toward death and determination of death (neurological determination and cardiocirculatory determination of death), death and organ donation, public trust and legal variability, and media impacts.

Conclusions.

This review provides a current and comprehensive overview of the literature related to the general public’s understanding and attitudes toward death and death determination and serves to highlight the gaps in this topic.

Statement in Support of Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act and in Opposition to a Proposed Revision

Discrepancies between the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the adult and pediatric diagnostic guidelines for brain death (BD) (the "Guidelines") have motivated proposals to revise the UDDA. A revision proposed by Lewis, Bonnie and Pope (the RUDDA), has received particular attention, the three novelties of which would be: (1) to specify the Guidelines as the legally recognized "medical standard," (2) to exclude hypothalamic function from the category of "brain function," and (3) to authorize physicians to conduct an apnea test without consent and even over a proxy's objection. One hundred seven experts in medicine, bioethics, philosophy, and law, spanning a wide variety of perspectives, have come together in agreement that while the UDDA needs revision, the RUDDA is not the way to do it. Specifically, (1) the Guidelines have a non-negligible risk of false-positive error, (2) hypothalamic function is more relevant to the organism as a whole than any brainstem reflex, and (3) the apnea test carries a risk of precipitating BD in a non-BD patient, provides no benefit to the patient, does not reliably accomplish its intended purpose, and is not even absolutely necessary for diagnosing BD according to the internal logic of the Guidelines; it should at the very least require informed consent, as do many procedures that are much more beneficial and less risky. Finally, objections to a neurologic criterion of death are not based only on religious belief or ignorance. People have a right to not have a concept of death that experts vigorously debate imposed upon them against their judgment and conscience; any revision of the UDDA should therefore contain an opt-out clause for those who accept only a circulatory-respiratory criterion.

On the idea of person and the Japanese notion of ningen and its relation to organ transplantation

It is not possible to talk about bioethics without recognizing the plurality inherent in it. In this sense, the notion of person is important due to its multiplicity of possible interpretations depending on its cultural context. This fact is highlighted in the case of organ transplantation in Japan. While there are many critiques against this procedure from scholars in various fields, those that deal with the problem of brain death are especially problematic. This is because the definition of person that is invoked in such debates does not seem to coincide with how the notion of person has been understood in the Japanese tradition. Hence, investigating the Japanese concept of ningen could be helpful in not only partially clarifying some of the attitudes that exist in Japan towards the notion of brain death, but also to illustrate the need to recognize the plurality of views in modern bioethics.