» Articles » PMID: 16764732

Experts' Attitudes Towards Medical Futility: an Empirical Survey from Japan

Overview
Journal BMC Med Ethics
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Medical Ethics
Date 2006 Jun 13
PMID 16764732
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Unlabelled: BACKGROUND The current debate about medical futility is mostly driven by theoretical and personal perspectives and there is a lack of empirical data to document experts and public attitudes towards medical futility.

Methods: To examine the attitudes of the Japanese experts in the fields relevant to medical futility a questionnaire survey was conducted among the members of the Japan Association for Bioethics. A total number of 108 questionnaires returned filled in, giving a response rate of 50.9%. Among the respondents 62% were healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 37% were non-healthcare professionals (Non-HCPs).

Results: The majority of respondents (67.6 %) believed that a physician's refusal to provide or continue a treatment on the ground of futility judgment could never be morally justified but 22.2% approved such refusal with conditions. In the case of physiologically futile care, three-quarters believed that a physician should inform the patient/family of his futility judgment and it would be the patient who could decide what should be done next, based on his/her value judgment. However more than 10% said that a physician should ask about a patient's value and goals, but the final decision was left to the doctor not the patient. There was no statistically significant difference between HCPs and Non-HCPs (p = 0.676). Of respondents 67.6% believed that practical guidelines set up by the health authority would be helpful in futility judgment.

Conclusion: The results show that there is no support for the physicians' unilateral decision-making on futile care. This survey highlights medical futility as an emerging issue in Japanese healthcare and emphasizes on the need for public discussion and policy development.

Citing Articles

A systematic review defining non-beneficial and inappropriate end-of-life treatment in patients with non-cancer diagnoses: theoretical development for multi-stakeholder intervention design in acute care settings.

Lo J, Graves N, Chee J, Hildon Z BMC Palliat Care. 2022; 21(1):195.

PMID: 36352403 PMC: 9644578. DOI: 10.1186/s12904-022-01071-7.


Medical futility and its challenges: a review study.

Aghabarary M, Nayeri N J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2017; 9:11.

PMID: 28050241 PMC: 5203684.


A prospective determination of the incidence of perceived inappropriate care in critically ill patients.

Singal R, Sibbald R, Morgan B, Quinlan M, Parry N, Radford M Can Respir J. 2013; 21(3):165-70.

PMID: 24367791 PMC: 4128461. DOI: 10.1155/2014/429789.


Buddhism and medical futility.

Chan T, Hegney D J Bioeth Inq. 2012; 9(4):433-8.

PMID: 23188402 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-012-9392-9.


Can physicians' judgments of futility be accepted by patients? A comparative survey of Japanese physicians and laypeople.

Kadooka Y, Asai A, Bito S BMC Med Ethics. 2012; 13:7.

PMID: 22520744 PMC: 3461460. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-7.


References
1.
Tanida N . The view of religions toward euthanasia and extraordinary treatments in Japan. J Relig Health. 2002; 39(4):339-54. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010361019006. View

2.
Schneiderman L, Gilmer T, Teetzel H, Dugan D, Blustein J, Cranford R . Effect of ethics consultations on nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003; 290(9):1166-72. DOI: 10.1001/jama.290.9.1166. View

3.
Palda V, Bowman K, McLean R, Chapman M . "Futile" care: do we provide it? Why? A semistructured, Canada-wide survey of intensive care unit doctors and nurses. J Crit Care. 2005; 20(3):207-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2005.05.006. View

4.
Schneiderman L, Jecker N, Jonsen A . Medical futility: its meaning and ethical implications. Ann Intern Med. 1990; 112(12):949-54. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-112-12-949. View

5.
IKEGAMI N, Campbell J . Medical care in Japan. N Engl J Med. 1995; 333(19):1295-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199511093331922. View