Abstract

The Wendland case where the patient did not suffer from coma but was not competent is a typical example of the difficulty inherent in decision-making regarding life-sustaining treatment. In Japan, no clear policy has yet been set forth as to the grounds on which life-support should be continued or withdrawn in complicated circumstances like this. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional survey on bioethics educators at all Japanese medical and nur3) universities and examined ethical judgments regarding life-sustaining treatment in a similar situation to that of the Wendland case. The results showed that 9% of the respondents were in favour of withdrawal, 49% in favour of continuation, and 38% did not answer either way, providing diverse reasons. Younger respondents tended to support the withdrawal of life-support. We also discuss the implications of Japanese bioethics educators’ views and a need for guidelines to promote patient autonomy and her or his best interests