Although euthanasia has been a pressing ethical and public issue, empirical data are lacking in Japan. We aimed to explore Japanese nurses’ attitudes to patients’ requests for euthanasia and to estimate the proportion of nurses who have taken active steps to hasten death. A postal survey was conducted between October and December 1999 among all nurse members of the Japanese Association of Palliative Medicine, using a self-administered questionnaire based on the one used in a previous survey with Australian nurses in (...) 1991. The response rate was 68%. A total of 53% of the respondents had been asked by patients to hasten their death, but none had taken active steps to bring about death. Only 23% regarded voluntary active euthanasia as something ethically right and 14% would practice it if it were legal. A comparison with empirical data from the previous Australian study suggests a significantly more conservative attitude among Japanese nurses. (shrink)

Objective—To demonstrate Japanese doctors' and nurses' attitudes towards and practices of voluntary euthanasia (VE) and to compare their attitudes and practices in this regard. Design—Postal survey, conducted between October and December 1999, using a self-administered questionnaire.Participants—All doctor members and nurse members of the Japanese Association of Palliative Medicine.Main outcome measure—Doctors' and nurses' attitude towards and practices of VE.Results—We received 366 completed questionnaires from 642 doctors surveyed (response rate, 58%) and 145 from 217 nurses surveyed (68%). A total of 54% (95% (...) confidence interval (CI): 49-59) of the responding doctors and 53% (CI: 45-61) of the responding nurses had been asked by patients to hasten death, of whom 5% (CI: 2-8) of the former and none of the latter had taken active steps to bring about death. Although 88% (CI: 83-92) of the doctors and 85% (CI: 77-93) of the nurses answered that a patient's request to hasten death can sometimes be rational, only 33% (CI: 28-38) and 23% (CI: 16-30) respectively regarded VE as ethically right and 22% (CI: 18-36) and 15% (CI: 8-20) respectively would practise VE if it were legal. Logistic regression model analysis showed that the respondents' profession was not a statistically independent factor predicting his or her response to any question regarding attitudes towards VE. Conclusions—A minority of responding doctors and nurses thought VE was ethically or legally acceptable. There seems no significant difference in attitudes towards VE between the doctors and nurses. However, only doctors had practised VE. (shrink)

Disputes over brain death and euthanasia are used to illuminate the question whether there really is a Japanese way of thinking in bioethics. In Japanese thought, a person does not exist as an individual but as a member of the family, community or society. I describe these features of Japanese society as ‘mutual dependency’. In this society, an act is ‘good’ and ‘right’ when it is commonly done, and it is ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ when nobody else does it. Thus, outsiders (...) to this ring of mutual dependency encounter ostracism. One feature of this society is a lack of open discussion which leads to the existence of multiple standards. This Japanese morality even prevails over written laws. In Japan, there is a public stance that euthanasia does not exist. On the other hand, there are certain decisions which have permitted euthanasia. Similarly, organ transplants were performed from brain dead donors, while that procedure was not accepted officially by the medical profession. In this situation, there is a danger that human rights will be neglected. So far bioethical approaches have not helped to work out these problems. This may be because Japanese think that bioethics is subordinate to morality. The current dispute over brain death involves a struggle for the establishment of a rational society in Japan. Overcoming mutual dependency and ostracism is essential to resolve this struggle and to lead Japan into a society of mutual respect where all individuals, families and communities are esteemed. (shrink)

Disputes over brain death and euthanasia are used to illuminate the question whether there really is a Japanese way of thinking in bioethics. In Japanese thought, a person does not exist as an individual but as a member of the family, community or society. I describe these features of Japanese society as ‘mutual dependency’. In this society, an act is ‘good’ and ‘right’ when it is commonly done, and it is ‘bad’ and ‘wrong’ when nobody else does it. Thus, outsiders (...) to this ring of mutual dependency encounter ostracism. One feature of this society is a lack of open discussion which leads to the existence of multiple standards. This Japanese morality even prevails over written laws. In Japan, there is a public stance that euthanasia does not exist. On the other hand, there are certain decisions which have permitted euthanasia. Similarly, organ transplants were performed from brain dead donors, while that procedure was not accepted officially by the medical profession. In this situation, there is a danger that human rights will be neglected. So far bioethical approaches have not helped to work out these problems. This may be because Japanese think that bioethics is subordinate to morality. The current dispute over brain death involves a struggle for the establishment of a rational society in Japan. Overcoming mutual dependency and ostracism is essential to resolve this struggle and to lead Japan into a society of mutual respect where all individuals, families and communities are esteemed. (shrink)

What should Japanese doctors do when asked by a patient for active voluntary euthanasia, when the family wants aggressive treatment to continue? In this paper, we present the results of a questionnaire survey of 366 Japanese doctors, who were asked how they would act in a hypothetical situation of this kind, and how they would justify their decision, 23% of respondents said they would act on the patient’s wishes, and provided reasons for their view; 54% said they would not practice (...) VE, either because they were opposed to VE as such, or because they believed that the wishes of the patient’s family should be respected.Analysis of these responses yielded the following results: Doctors willing to respect the patient’s wishes defended their decision by highlighting the significance of patient autonomy and the patient’s exclusive ownership of his or her life; doctors unwilling to act on the patient’s wishes fell into two broad categories — those who based their reasoning on the family’s objections, and those who provided other reasons for refusing VE. Respondents who said they would not comply with the patient’s wishes because of family objections provided the following kinds of rationale: doctors have serious responsibilities not only to the patient, but also to the patient’s family; the importance of the family-doctor relationship; fear of lawsuits for murder and related criminal offences; the need for agreement among all those affected by the decision, and the belief that the patient’s life is not his or her own, but the family’s. Respondents who gave non-family centred reasons for not complying with the patient’s wishes pointed to values such as the sanctity of life, or the importance of a natural deathIn the remainder of this paper, we discuss the implications of a family-centred approach to VE. (shrink)

Ethical views of the first-year to sixth-year medical students were studied during bioethics education via questionnaire in 2004. Questions included “would you treat a mentally ill man condemned to death to fit him for execution?”, “is a criminal law suit against a surgeon responsible for a patient's death reasonable?” and “should a surgeon responsible for a patient's death be prosecuted for manslaughter.” The number of students answered “yes, to treat a mentally ill man” tended to increase as they moved up (...) to the senior classes, although there was no statistical significance. A criminal law suit against the surgeon and the charge of manslaughter was responded with a wide variety among the classes, that is the second-year and fifth-year students showed less favorable attitudes to the law suit against the surgeon than the first-year, third-year and fourth-year students. There was no distinct relationship with age, gender or the past bioethics education. Thus, the attitudes of medical students agree on one, and differ on other ethical issues depending on their classes. Although the reason for the difference in ethical views among classes was not clear, these results suggested that ethics education was a sensitive subject for medical students hence the manner of ethics education by teachers was of critical importance. (shrink)

A questionnaire survey was conducted at the annual meeting of the Japanese Society for Hospice and Home Care to study attitudes toward euthanasia. Respondents were asked how they agreed with the doctor's decision regarding several forms of euthanasia in hypothetical clinical situations dealing with terminal and non-terminal patients. Their acceptance of euthanasia was correlated with respect to patient's autonomy. Results showed 54% and 62% of respondents agreed with voluntary and non-voluntary passive euthanasia at the terminal stage, respectively. Indirect euthanasia was (...) accepted by 71%. In voluntary active euthanasia, 21% agreed with the doctor's act. In non-voluntary active euthanasia, 13% and 37% agreed with the use of potassium chloride and sedative, respectively. In dealing with a quadriplegic patient, 18% and 37% agreed with voluntary active euthanasia with a sedative and voluntary passive euthanasia. Voluntary passive euthanasia in the terminal stage and voluntary active and passive euthanasia and mercy killing were more likely to be favoured by the respondents who respected patient's autonomy than those who did not. (shrink)

Religion may be an influential factor for care of terminally ill patients. Since there was no information of how Japanese religions thought of terminal care, a questionnaire survey was conducted among a total of 388 religious corporations, including 143 Shinto, 157 Buddhist, 58 Christian and 30 miscellaneous religious groups. Respondents were asked to answer questions based on their religious faith regarding a living will, and the introduction or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments at the terminal stage. Results showed that Japanese religions (...) accepted the concept of living will and "being natural" at terminal care. Many corporations were critical about introduction of life-sustaining measures to the terminally ill patient, though some Shinto corporations were favorable to such acts. The Catholic policy denying extraordinary treatment was approved of by about three fourths of Shinto and Buddhist corporations. The present survey indicated that Japanese religions hold esteem in medicine. They advocate "being natural," when medical treatment becomes futile. Thus, religionists' views may facilitate to deepen and to expand discussion on this important issue among the general public. (shrink)

Attitudes towards euthanasia and death-with-dignity of people who participated in the seminar on "life" were studied with questionnaires before and after a lecture regarding these issues. The results indicated that the number of the participants who accepted patient's autonomy increased after the lecture. However, the respondents who accepted the idea of patient's autonomy were less likely to accept euthanasia in general or wish for it in their own case. These data suggest that in this Japanese group, the acceptance of euthanasia (...) may stem from a form of mercy-killing as part of cultural and historical background, not from the autonomy principle. (shrink)