BMC Medical Ethics 19 (1):1-8 (2018)

Abstract
Background Destination therapy is the permanent implantation of a left ventricular assist device 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.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1186/s12910-018-0251-z
Options
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

“Doctor, Will You Turn Off My LVAD?”.Jeremy R. Simon & Ruth L. Fischbach - 2008 - Hastings Center Report 38 (1):14-15.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Left Ventricular Assist Devices: An Ethical Analysis.Katrina A. Bramstedt - 1999 - Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1):89-96.
The Ethics of Implantable Devices.E. B. Wu - 2007 - Journal of Medical Ethics 33 (9):532-533.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2019-03-04

Total views
19 ( #587,487 of 2,533,601 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #389,998 of 2,533,601 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes