Asian Bioethics Review 14 (2):133-150 (2022)

In Japan, where a prominent gap exists in what is considered a patient’s best interest between the medical and patient sides, appropriate decision-making can be difficult to achieve. In Japanese clinical settings, decision-making is considered an act of choice-making from multiple potential options. With many ethical dilemmas still remaining, establishing an appropriate decision-making process is an urgent task in modern Japanese healthcare. This paper examines ethical issues related to shared decision-making in clinical settings in modern Japan from the psychocultural-social perspective and discusses the ideal decision-making process in present Japan. Specifically, we discuss how five psychocultural-social tendencies – “surmise,” “self-restraint,” “air,” “peer pressure,” and “community ”—which have often been referred to as characteristics of present-day Japanese people, may affect the ideal practice of SDM in Japanese clinical settings. We conclude that health care professionals must be aware of the possible adverse effects of the above Japanese psychocultural-social tendencies on the implementation of SDM and attempt to promote autonomous decision-making, thereby allowing patients to make treatment choices that sufficiently reflect their individual and personal views of life, experiences, goals, preferences, and values.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s41649-021-00201-2
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 72,577
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Ethical Conflicts in Patient-Centred Care.Sven Ove Hansson & Barbro Fröding - forthcoming - Sage Publications: Clinical Ethics.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Shared Decision-Making, Gender and New Technologies.Kristin Zeiler - 2007 - Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 10 (3):279-287.
Shared Decision-Making and the Lower Literate Patient.David I. Shalowitz & Michael S. Wolf - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (4):759-764.
Shared Decision-Making and the Lower Literate Patient.David I. Shalowitz & Michael S. Wolf - 2004 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 32 (4):759-764.
Shared Decision-Making and Patient Autonomy.Lars Sandman & Christian Munthe - 2009 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 30 (4):289-310.
Does Shared Decision Making Respect a Patient's Relational Autonomy?Jonathan Lewis - 2019 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 25 (6):1063-1069.
Prudent Evidence‐Fettered Shared Decision Making.Elizabeth Libby Bogdan-Lovis & Margaret Holmes-Rovner - 2010 - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2):376-381.


Added to PP index

Total views
1 ( #1,558,356 of 2,533,579 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #390,861 of 2,533,579 )

How can I increase my downloads?


Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

My notes