In April 1991, a general meeting of the Japanese Medical Conference was held in Kyoto and attracted 32,500 participants, the largest number ever. The theme of the meeting was “Medicine and Health Care in Transition,” and the program Included panel discussions on “How to Promote the Quality of Health Care” and “How Terminal Care Should Be Provided” and symposia on “Diagnosis of Brain Death and Its Problems,” “The Propriety of Organ Transplantation,” and “Brain Death and Organ Transplantation.” These titles reveal (...) not only how medical professionals in Japan perceive the present situatior healthcare but also the Issues that most concern them. (shrink)

The discussion of patients' rights in Japan began in 1968 when a surgeon was accused of violating a potential organ donor's right to life by arbitrarily employing brain-based criteria in the determination of his death. A proliferation of documents that articulate and endorse patients' rights occurred in the 1980s and early 1990s. The doctrine of informed consent, which has been a central aspect of the movement toward patients' rights, is increasingly recognized in Japan, although importance rarely has been attached to (...) the element of the patient's "appreciation" of the information disclosed by the physician, much less to the "voluntariness" of the patient's decision. Nevertheless, recent court decisions indicate progress both in the acceptance and the understanding of the doctrine in Japan. (shrink)

Crucial problems exist in understanding Japanese traditional customs with regard to autonomous decision making by patients in Japan. These problems are difficult to comprehend because they seem, by western standards, to defy logic. Questions that baffle those outside the Japanese tradition, include: Why do many Japanese patients hesitate to make medical treatment and care decisions for themselves without consulting family, close friends, or someone viewed as being in a superior position? Why do many Japanese physicians fail to disclose the truth (...) directly to the patient, instead customarily conveying information to family members, despite the doctors' awareness of their legal obligation to protect the patient's privacy? Why do many Japanese physicians continue to question whether patients should be told the truth at all? What perpetuates Japan's widespread, but often unnoticed, neglect of the individual's right to self-determination in healthcare decision making? (shrink)

In Moral Passages, Kathryn Pyne Addelson presents an original moral theory suited for contemporary life and its moral problems. Her basic principle is that knowledge and morality are generated in collective action, and she develops it through a critical examination of theories in philosophy, sociology and women's studies, most of which hide the collective nature and as a result hide the lives and knowledge of many people. At issue are the questions of what morality is, and how moral theories (whether (...) traditional or feminist) are implemented. Addelson takes up a large number of historical cases and contemporary social problems, including teen pregnancy, contraception and abortion, and gay rights. These cases allow her to see how the knowledge and lives of some people are declared deviant or immoral, while those of others appear to show the public consensus. One case she uses throughout the book is Margaret Sanger's early work on birth control with the anarcho-syndicalist movement--a revisionist history that reveals rather than hides the collective nature of morality and knowledge. Addelson shows how the usual individualist philosophies promote theories which hide the authority of the professionals who make them. A collectivist approach, she argues, must show the part professionals play in collective action. Her aim is to allow professional knowledge makers to be morally and intellectually responsible. Based on Addelson's twenty years of work in feminist philosophy and interactionist sociology as well as her long-standing involvement in women's community organization, Moral Passages investigates how morality and knowledge are collectively enacted in today's world. (shrink)

In the Japanese clinical setting, informed consent has not been well adopted although the idea is no longer novel and the bioethics movement is well known. There are several barriers to informed consent in Japan.It is possible that both patients and physicians do not know the idea or misunderstand it. Some may think that informed consent can be obtained from a patient who does not know his or her diagnosis or from family members of a competent patient. Because of no (...) history to develop informed consent, the ethical principle of patient self-determination can be lost in Japan. Paternalistic physicians and protective family members would counteract informed consent and try to make medical decisions to promote their patients' well being independent of their wishes and values. Dependent attitudes of some patients who never ask medical information and expect their physicians to consider all they need would make the idea of self-determination irrelevant in Japan. (shrink)