2006 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
A Study of Comparative Law on the ole of Family at Decisions Concerning Medical Treatment
| Project/Area Number |
16530075
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Section | 一般 |
|---|
| Research Field |
New fields of law
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Hiroshima University (2006)
Hiroshima International University (2004-2005) |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
YOKOFUJITA Makoto Hiroshima University, Graduate School of Social Sciences, Professor (20212300)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
2004 – 2006
|
| Keywords | treatment decision / family / right to self-determination / psychiatric treatment / terminal care |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
In Japan, family members are apt to play an important role in treatment decisions. Japan has no definite legal rules on role of family in deciding treatment matters.
Purposes of this study is to analyze Japanese and American cases and law review articles concerning role of family members at treatment decisions in psychiatric treatment and terminal care, to inquire into constitutional doctrine of right to self-determination and that of family, and to take hold of reality of medical field on family members' role and medical profession's attitude by interviewing doctors and nurses. Points that I could clarify are as follows.
(1) In psychiatric treatment, patients are often in opposition to family members in treatment decisions. In Japan, notwithstanding, role of family is overestimated in the system of "Guardian (Hogosya)" For that reason, there is some truth in asserting that role of family should be denied in psychiatric treatment decisions. But the legal rules based on the actual circumstances of medical treatment are necessitated, because family members' support is very important in psychiatric treatment.
(2) In terminal care, especially in hospice or palliative care, patient and family are grasped in a body. But in forming legal rules, because both might have different intentions, we should refer to a United States Supreme Court opinion which held that a state could legitimately seek to safeguard the personal element of the choice between life and death of an incompetent individual since family members either were unavailable to serve as surrogate decisionmakers or would not act to protect a patient.
(3)The constitutional doctrine of right to self-determination and of family, which would be a crucial element that settles the extent self-determination could amount to and family members' decisions could be esteemed, have not grown ripe.
|
Research Products
(4 results)
