End-of-life ethics
What must Japan fix before offering permanent heart pumps?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
The authors argue that a permanent heart pump should not be rolled out in Japan until doctors can legally switch it off at a patient's request and patients are helped, not forced, to plan for the end of life.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Qualitative / archival — Normative ethical analysis drawing on published guidelines, Japanese law and survey reports; no new data.
- N
- No participants; the authors state they used only published literature.
- Population
- Patients with end-stage heart failure who are ineligible for transplant and might receive a left ventricular assist device as destination therapy in Japan.
- Outcome
- Thesis that Japan must legalise and protect withdrawal of the device, support voluntary advance directives and justify selection criteria before wide adoption.
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
They argue that because Japanese law gives no clear protection to doctors who withdraw life support, deactivation may be practically impossible even when patient, family and doctors agree, risking prolonged and miserable deaths. They warn that demanding advance directives as a condition of treatment would turn a right into an obligation, yet few Japanese people prepare them. They also argue that a strong sanctity-of-life culture and low cost-consciousness would erode selection criteria, while an age cut-off at 65 is hard to justify because the device is not scarce. They call for a basic patient-rights act guaranteeing the right to refuse treatment, legally binding advance directives, immunity for proper withdrawal and conscientious objection.
Methodology
The authors review Western and Japanese guidelines on destination therapy, a heart pump implanted permanently in patients who cannot get a transplant. They identify three ethical problem areas in the Japanese setting: switching the device off, advance directives, and choosing which patients receive it. They then propose policy responses and answer objections based on Japanese cultural attitudes.
Limitations
This is an argument, not a study: predictions about how doctors and families will behave are the authors' expectations, supported by a few surveys and anecdotes rather than data collected on destination therapy itself. The analysis is specific to Japanese law and culture, so its conclusions do not transfer directly elsewhere. The authors themselves concede that changing deep-rooted attitudes through explanation alone may be idealistic, and they do not settle whether age-based rationing is discrimination.
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.
Whether a device can be switched off depends on law as much as on ethics.
Destination-therapy LVADs prolong life for transplant-ineligible heart failure patients but reshape dying, consent and caregiver burden; in Japan, where the law gives doctors no clear protection for withdrawing life support, the authors argue deactivation may be practically impossible and call for a patient-rights act, binding advance directives and immunity for proper withdrawal.
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.
- Supports · Is end-of-life autonomy only an isolated choice?
- Supports · Who may forgo life-sustaining treatment?
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
Destination-therapy LVADs prolong life for transplant-ineligible heart failure patients but reshape dying, consent and caregiver burden; in Japan, where the law gives doctors no clear protection for withdrawing life support, the authors argue deactivation may be practically impossible and call for a patient-rights act, binding advance directives and immunity for proper withdrawal.
Placed as supporting evidence on End-of-life ethics
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.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.