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.
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.
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.
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.
Japan, Korea, Taiwan and England regulate forgoing life-sustaining treatment differently, including how family is treated.
Evidence for the claim as stated.
Relational-autonomy authors keep autonomy central; comparative statute work shows jurisdictions that still lack a forgoing-LST law or treat family as the decision site.
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 autonomy central; comparative statute work shows jurisdictions that still lack a forgoing-LST law or treat family as the decision site.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.