Since Japan adopted the concept of informed consent from the West, its inappropriate acquisition from patients in the Japanese clinical setting has continued, due in part to cultural aspects. Here, we discuss the current status of and contemporary issues surrounding informed consent in Japan, and how these are influenced by Japanese culture.

In the present super-aging society, issues concerning what treatment should be given for incapacitated patients have become more important than ever before. This paper discusses whether or not an incapacitated patient’s refusal of treatment should be respected. The authors present a complete hypothetical scenario involving a 75-year-old moderately demented man suffering from malignant lymphoma. Of primary importance are the respect for patient dignity and the protection of human rights. Acts such as coercion, disregard, restriction, and surveillance can be unethical in (...) many situations. The effectiveness of chemotherapy for malignant lymphoma and its adverse outcomes could offset each other, leaving no net benefits for the patient. The patient is vulnerable and this very vulnerability requires the utmost protection and care. However, protection must be sensitive and comprehensive and the protection of his life at the expense of many other valuable factors is not justifiable. Coercing unwanted treatment would be intrusion, not protection, because of the physical and psychological suffering. When the refusal is explicit, consistent, and stable enough, it should to be viewed as true and current desire. Due to moderate dementia, the patient has lost his rational capacity, but his emotional capacity remains. If the remaining portion of his personality is rooted in his feelings, these feelings should be respected as much as possible. Those involved in the care of the patients who refuse treatment should not force them to undergo it simply on the grounds that it may be an established standard in their own country. What must be asked first is whether or not forced treatment would promote the patient’s subjective well-being. Additionally, treatment decisions should not be distorted due to the selfishness or discriminatory feelings of those involved in his care. In situations in which patients lack decisionmaking capacities, overriding the patients’ refusals of treatment should be regarded as an exception, rather than a standard course of action. Even in patients who are incapacitated, treatment refusal could stem from the feelings of the individual. Their subjective wellbeing would not be improved through close observation, restraint, denial, and coercion, the purpose of which they does not understand. (shrink)

In recent years, a number of news stories were reported worldwide involving brain-dead pregnant women. Debates over providing life support to braindead pregnant women and delivery of their children have been around for some decades. Maintaining a woman’s life solely for fetal viability has become a major controversial social issue. Opposing opinions exist where one side supports the woman and her child should be left to die in dignity and the other side claims to protect the unborn child’s right to (...) live. Each group has strong beliefs. This paper addresses main aspects when considering the continuation of somatic support to the brain-dead pregnant woman for the purpose of fetus delivery including; human death, dignity of the woman, rights of the fetus, proportionality of acts, and the woman’s donor status, and independence of mother and fetus. Then, the authors present several diverse opinions and positions concerning the legitimacy of life support for brain-dead women based on them and critically evaluate them. We show that each and every claim can be ethically refuted. This paper also approaches to those claims from three different points of views, which are that of the brain-dead woman, her fetus and her family. We believe that the brain-dead woman’s wish and dignity, the child’s predicted wellbeing after birth, and the family’s beliefs and welfare should all be counted equally when making the final decision. In conclusion, we argue that the decision can be ethically justified only when the interests of all parties are appropriately taken into consideration and protected. (shrink)