The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens.

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Yoshiyuki Takimoto, Tadanori Nabeshima
{"title":"The Gap in Attitudes Toward Withholding and Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment Between Japanese Physicians and Citizens.","authors":"Yoshiyuki Takimoto, Tadanori Nabeshima","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2024.2336907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAccording to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment.\n\n\nMETHODS\nTen vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment.\n\n\nRESULTS\nIn a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%).\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nA significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"148 5","pages":"1-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2024.2336907","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND According to some medical ethicists and professional guidelines, there is no ethical difference between withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. However, medical professionals do not always agree with this notion. Patients and their families may also not regard these decisions as equivalent. Perspectives on life-sustaining treatment potentially differ between cultures and countries. This study compares Japanese physicians' and citizens' attitudes toward hypothetical cases of withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment. METHODS Ten vignette cases were developed. A web-based questionnaire was administered to 457 citizens and 284 physicians to determine whether they supported withholding or withdrawing treatment. RESULTS In a case where a patient had an advance directive refusing ventilation, 77% of the physicians and 68% of the citizens chose to withhold treatment. In a case where there was an advance directive but the patient's family requested treatment, 55% of the physicians and 45% of the citizens chose to withhold the ventilator. When a family requested withdrawal of the ventilator but patient wishes were unknown, 19% of the physicians and 48% of the citizens chose to withdraw the ventilator. However, when the patient had also indicated their wishes in writing, 49% of the physicians and 66% of the citizens chose to withdraw treatment. More physicians were prepared to withdraw dialysis (84%) and artificial nutrition (81%) at a patient's request than mechanical ventilation (49%). CONCLUSIONS A significant proportion of Japanese physicians and citizens were reluctant to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment, even in cases where the patient had indicated their wishes in writing. They were more likely to withhold than withdraw treatment, and more likely to withdraw artificial nutrition than mechanical ventilation. Japanese physicians gave significant weight to family views about treatment but were less likely to agree to withdraw treatment than citizens, indicating a potential source of conflict in clinical settings.
日本医生与国民在拒绝和撤销维持生命治疗态度上的差距。
背景根据一些医学伦理学家和专业指南,暂停和撤销维持生命的治疗在伦理上没有区别。然而,医学专家并不总是同意这种观点。病人及其家属也可能不认为这些决定是等同的。不同文化和国家对维持生命治疗的看法可能有所不同。本研究比较了日本医生和公民对暂停和撤销维持生命治疗的假设案例的态度。结果在病人有拒绝通气的预先指示的情况下,77% 的医生和 68% 的市民选择了暂停治疗。在有预嘱但患者家属要求治疗的情况下,55% 的医生和 45% 的公民选择了暂停使用呼吸机。当家属要求撤除呼吸机但病人意愿不明时,19% 的医生和 48% 的公民选择撤除呼吸机。然而,当病人也以书面形式表达了自己的意愿时,49% 的医生和 66% 的市民选择了撤除治疗。与机械通气(49%)相比,更多的医生愿意应患者的要求撤销透析(84%)和人工营养(81%)。他们更倾向于暂停而非撤消治疗,更倾向于撤消人工营养而非机械通气。日本医生非常重视家属对治疗的意见,但与公民相比,他们不太可能同意撤销治疗,这表明在临床环境中存在潜在的冲突根源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信