Book reviewed in this article: Principles of Biomedical Ethics. By Tom L. Beauchamp and James F. Childress.

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)

Informed consent, decision-making styles and the role of patient-physician relationships are imperative aspects of clinical medicine worldwide. We present the case of a 74-year-old woman afflicted with advanced liver cancer whose attending physician, per request of the family, did not inform her of her true diagnosis. In our analysis, we explore the differences in informed-consent styles between patients who hold an "independent" and "interdependent" construal of the self and then highlight the possible implications maintained by this position in the context (...) of international clinical ethics. Finally, we discuss the need to reassess informed-consent styles suitable to the needs of each patient regardless of whether he or she resides in the United States or in Japan. (shrink)

Self-determination is a central concept in the field of bioethics and the most critical decision among the myriad of decisions concerning medical care is the decision to choose to die; “self-determination of death.” The purpose of this paper is to clarify the basic positions on self-determination of death held by present Japanese people and we tentatively sorted these positions into 10 arguments. We discuss the problems and implications of these positions revealed within our present review and conclude that a society (...) needs to deny unnecessary intrusion and tolerance for different views might be a keyword in our oncoming society. (shrink)

Currently in Japan, it is extremely difficult to realize the basic wish of protecting personal dignity at the end of life. A patient’s right to refuse life-sustaining treatment has not been substantially warranted, and advance directives have not been legally enforceable. Unfortunately, it is not until the patient is moribund that all concerned parties start to deliberate on whether or not death with dignity should be pursued. Medical intervention is often perceived as a worthwhile goal to not only preserve life, (...) but also provide psychological benefit to the family, regardless of its effect on the patient. To feel they are doing something, family members tend to act against the imperative “Do not inflict on others what you would not wish done to you,” and permit extraordinary measures they would not want themselves. Another complication in Japanese culture is the necessity of unanimous decisions for end-of-life care. If there is conflict between a patient and his/her family on accepting medical intervention, the view of the latter is more likely to prevail due to different perceptions of human dignity. As a result, incapacitated patients in Japanese clinical settings often suffer through extraneous medical procedures, particularly during end-of-life care. Patient dignity is in danger from a national refusal to accept major bioethical principles such as having respect for patient autonomy, serving the best interests of the patient, doing no harm, and ensuring fairness at the end of life. We argue that more education about human dignity and legislation for death with dignity are necessary. Peace of mind for patients during end-of-life care will never be achieved in this society unless drastic changes take place in medical ethics and law. (shrink)