Survey of the general public's attitudes toward advance directives in Japan: How to respect patients' preferences

BACKGROUND: Japanese people have become increasingly interested in the expression and enhancement of their individual autonomy in medical decisions made regarding medical treatment at and toward the end of life. However, while many Western countries have implemented legislation that deals with patient autonomy in the case of terminal illness, no such legislation exists in Japan. The rationale for this research is based on the need to investigate patient's preferences regarding treatment at the end of life in order to re-evaluate advance directives policy and practice. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey with 418 members of the general middle-aged and senior adults (aged between 40 and 65) in Tokyo, Japan. Respondents were asked about their attitudes toward advance directives, and preferences toward treatment options. RESULTS: Over 60% of respondents agreed that it is better to express their wishes regarding advance directives (treatment preferences in writing, appointment of proxy for care decision making, appointment of legal administrator of property, stating preferences regarding disposal of one's property and funeral arrangements) but less than 10% of them had already done so. About 60% of respondents in this study preferred to indicate treatment preferences in broad rather than concrete terms. Over 80% would like to decide treatment preferences in consultation with others (22.2% with their proxy, 11.0% with the doctor, and 47.8% with both their proxy and the doctor). CONCLUSION: This study revealed that many Japanese people indicate an interest in undertaking advance directives. This study found that there is a range of preferences regarding how advance directives are undertaken, thus it is important to recognize that any processes put into place should allow flexibility in order to best respect patients' wishes and autonomy

Resuscitation Research: Future Directions and Ethical Issues

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation research is a vital area of research that has made significant contributions to medical care over the last several decades. Abundant information currently exists in the medical literature, as a result of research in the areas of cardiac arrest and outcomes, physiology of cardiac arrest, pharmacologic treatments, mechanical interventions, and societal and ethical issues. Despite numerous clinical trials demonstrating physiologic benefit of various interventions, few interventions have had as much impact on outcomes of cardiac arrest as have improvements in out-of-hospital response times and rapid availability of medical treatment. Although abundant information exists regarding physiologic aspects of resuscitation, relatively little information exists about ethical, psychological, and social aspects of resuscitation. In addition to attempts to improve outcomes of cardiac arrest, researchers should also strive to improve the experiences of patients and families involved. These realities provide future strategies and directions for the best use of resuscitation research resources; although physiologic and pharmacologic research will always have significant roles in the improvement of medical care, the rapid delivery of out-of-hospital care and ethical issues will be indispensable areas of research focus in the future

Comparing Utilization of Life-Sustaining Treatments with Patient and Public Preferences

OBJECTIVE: The movement for advance planning of end-of-life care was motivated in part by the assumption that medical intervention for terminally ill patients varies from what these patients would prefer. We examined the validity of this assumption by comparing actual life-sustaining treatment practices for patients in critical illness scenarios and surveyed patients' advance care preferences. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We selected at random and reviewed 7,400 inpatient medical records from a single urban teaching hospital during the period just prior to the Patient Self-Determination Act. Records of 198 patients with conditions that matched advance directive scenarios were examined, and practices to withhold or withdraw seven life-sustaining treatments were documented. Practices were compared with surveyed preferences of 102 members of the general public and 495 outpatients who were followed by the same physicians as the 198 patients. Concordance of practices and preferences for the 19 surveyed outpatients who eventually fell into one of the scenarios was also evaluated. One hundred sixty-seven inpatient cases met review criteria for the scenario coma with a small chance of recovery. Hospital patients received medical interventions that were not consistently greater or less than the preferences of the surveyed outpatients or members of the general public. Resuscitation, the most frequently withheld treatment (94% of cases), was withheld more often than surveyed preferences to decline it (56% of outpatients, p < .001). Four treatments—mechanical breathing, artificial nutrition, major surgery, and hemodialysis—were utilized comparably to surveyed outpatients' preferences (range p=.704 –.055). Antibiotics and artificial hydration were withheld (9% and 6%, respectively) less often than surveyed outpatient's prior preferences to decline them (48% and 52%, respectively, p < .001 for each). Conversely, treatments given to the 19 surveyed patients who subsequently developed one of the illness scenarios were often incongruent with the patients' prior preferences. Again, in some cases more interventions were provided (26 of 63 declined treatments were given), and in some cases less (10 of 21 desired treatments were withheld). CONCLUSIONS: This study does not support the assumption that, collectively, patients' advance care preferences are less interventionist than actual practices for patients in corresponding scenarios. Nevertheless, these results do support the assumption that life-sustaining treatment decisions do not conform well to individual patients' specific preferences. Progress in end-of-life care should focus on shared decision making at the patient-proxy-physician level rather than on overall life-sustaining treatments utilization