End-of-life ethics
Who may forgo life-sustaining treatment?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
East Asian statutes on withdrawing LST differ sharply from England: Japan still lacked a forgoing-LST law after a decade of debate; Korea and Taiwan legislated withdrawal; England treats family differently in the comparative analysis.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Autonomy at the end of life is exercised with, and through, other people and legal systems.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and England regulate forgoing life-sustaining treatment differently, including the role given to family; relational-autonomy authors argue end-of-life choices are better understood in relationships and clinical context than as isolated choices.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Relational-autonomy authors keep patient autonomy central, while comparative and Japanese LVAD analyses show legal systems where family is the decision site or where refusing treatment lacks clear legal protection.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Open questions
Tensions this paper is part of
From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.
Relational-autonomy authors keep patient autonomy central, while comparative and Japanese LVAD analyses show legal systems where family is the decision site or where refusing treatment lacks clear legal protection.
History
When this study was placed
Dated entries from the concept change log — when this paper was added or removed as support, challenge, or qualifier on a claim.
Placed as supporting evidence on End-of-life ethics
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and England regulate forgoing life-sustaining treatment differently, including the role given to family; relational-autonomy authors argue end-of-life choices are better understood in relationships and clinical context than as isolated choices.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Comparative legal analysis of forgoing LST statutes in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England
- N
- N=4 · Four jurisdictions compared
- Population
- End-of-life LST withdrawal/ACP regulations in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England
- Outcome
- Sharp differences in family vs patient roles and statutory coverage of forgoing LST
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Inspect source passages
Who may forgo life-sustaining treatment?
These passages occur verbatim in the stored paper text. They support the points listed below; they do not verify every statement in the explanation.
Japan?
Japan has yet to pass a law on forgoing LST, even though the public discussion on the issue has been ongoing for over a decade. In 2007, Japan’s Ministry o
Forgoing named?
forgoing LST, even though the public discussion on the issue has been ongoing for over a decade. In 2007, Japan’s Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (h
Key findings
Comparative analysis showed the family’s (or loved ones’) role in England differs. Taiwan’s ACP regulation is new relative to the 2000 hospice act. Japan had still not submitted a draft AD bill as of 2019 in the paper’s telling.
Methodology
The authors compare Japan’s missing LST statute and draft advance-directive bill, Korea’s act permitting withdrawal at end of life, Taiwan’s 2000 Hospice Palliative Care Act and later ACP regulation, and England as an English-speaking comparator, focusing on family versus patient.
Limitations
This is comparative regulation, not a clinical trial of withdrawal. Dates are as of the article, not a 2026 update.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.