: The 1997 Japanese organ transplantation law is the fruit of a long debate on "brain death" and organ transplantation, which involved the general public and experts in the relevant fields. The aim of this paper is to trace the history of the implementation of the law and to critique the law in terms of its consistency and fairness. The paper argues that the legislation adopts a double standard regarding the role of the family. On the one hand, the legislation (...) overemphasizes the family's authority by granting the family a veto on the matter of organ transplantation, while, on the other hand, not allowing the family to make surrogate decisions. In addition, the role of the law in cases involving minor or incompetent patients is shown to be similarly misguided. The paper argues that accepting a decisive role for the family in current law is compatible with Japanese culture. (shrink)

In the present paper, we evaluate the grounds on which therapeutic approaches are determined in elderly demented patients as a typical group of patients who are conscious but lack the ability to make competent judgments. It is argued that none of the factors that the patient as an individual being has at present and that are complete in that individual - the age of the patient, dementia, personhood, and the ability to feel pain - is likely to be a genuine (...) reason for care-providers including health care workers and patient’s family to discontinue the treatment for severely demented patients. It is also claimed that reasons for discontinuation of the treatment for severely demented patients arise from the relationship between the patient and the care-providers, especially the patient’s family. The human relationships between the patient and the family may be maintained as long as the latter find some significance in the presence of the severely demented patient and recognize him/her as “one of them”. When the patient ceases to be “one of them” for the family and is excluded from “their company”, the reason for supporting the demented member of the family is lost. The benefit to the patient and the value of his/her presence lose the individuality or specificity and are subjected to interpretation by the family. Therefore, the reason for discontinuation of the treatment for a severely demented patient is termination of the relationship between the patient and his/her family. The significance of our conclusion is briefly discussed. (shrink)

Who should decide? In When Doctors Say No, philosopher and bioethicist Rubin examines this controversial issue.