Published papers

Healthcare workers (HCWs) experienced significant stigma and psychological burden during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet empirical studies exploring Japanese HCWs’ experiences remain limited. This qualitative descriptive study examined stigma and psychological burden among HCWs who contracted COVID-19 or were identified as close contacts during the early pandemic period in Japan. Twenty-three paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) HCWs (9 infected and 14 close contacts) participated in semi-structured interviews conducted 6–12 months post-experience. Two categories emerged: (1) COVID-19-related stigma and collective blame in the Japanese context, manifested through blame, labelling, avoidance, and strong disclosure reluctance; (2) profound guilt and professional burden during COVID-19-related leave, including self-reproach, guilt about burdening colleagues and not contributing, transmission fear, and professional responsibility. Both infected and close contact groups experienced multifaceted stigma and guilt, with distinct patterns. Infected individuals faced indirect stigma and intense responsibility for disruption of healthcare provision, while close contacts encountered criticism for mandatory absences perceived as professional negligence and witnessed organisational shame. These manifestations reflected Japanese cultural values of collective responsibility and avoiding burden to others (meiwaku). Our findings illuminate how cultural contexts shape pandemic-related stigma, highlighting the need for culturally informed support strategies that address both universal healthcare challenges and culture-specific manifestations.

In many countries, prenatal testing for certain fetal abnormalities is offered via publicly funded screening programs. The concept of reproductive autonomy is regarded as providing a justificatory basis for many such programs. The purpose of this study is to re-examine the normative basis of public prenatal screening for fetal abnormalities by changing our perspective from that of autonomy to obligation. After clarifying the understanding of autonomy adopted in the justification for public prenatal screening programs, we identify two problems concerning this justification: first, the extent to which the government is obliged to meet this demand is not evident; and, second, it is not clear whether the provision of public screening is the most appropriate way to promote autonomy. Next, to tackle these problems, we focus on Onora O’Neill’s argument of rights and obligations. Drawing on this argument, we show that, in addressing the problems above, it is important to change our normative perspective from rights or autonomy to obligation. Our argument will show that since the government does not have an incontrovertibly fundamental obligation to promote autonomy, this obligation needs to be constrained in terms of compatibility with other fundamental obligations. In addition, even if a government is obliged to promote autonomy to some degree, there could be more appropriate means to achieve it than providing public prenatal screening; therefore, it is not necessary for government obligations to extend to the provision of public prenatal screening.

Background: Instances of surrogate decision-making are expected to increase with the rise in hospitalised older adults in Japan. Few large-scale studies have comprehensively examined the entire surrogate decision-making process. This study aimed to gather information to assess the current state of surrogate decision-making in Japan. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using online questionnaires. A total of 1000 surrogate decision-makers responded to the questionnaire. We examined the characteristics of surrogate decision-makers and patients, content of surrogate decision-making meeting regarding life-sustaining treatment between the doctors and surrogate decision-makers, extent of involvement of the various parties in the surrogate decision-making process, judgement grounds for surrogate decision-making, and frequency of involvement in the surrogate decision-making process. Results: Of the participants, 70.5% were male and 48.3% were eldest sons. Only 7.6% of the patients had left a written record of their preferences and 48.8% of the surrogates reported no knowledge of the patient having expressed their prior intentions regarding medical care in any form. Respondents indicated that their family meetings with healthcare professionals mostly included the information recommended by guidelines in a surrogate decision-making meeting in Japan. Most participants reported a good understanding of the meeting content. Although many participants based their decisions on multiple grounds, surrogates’ considerations may not adequately reflect respect for patient autonomy in Japan. Specifically, the eldest son considered his own preference more frequently than that of the other surrogate decision-makers. In 26.1% of the cases, either zero or one family meeting with healthcare professionals was held. In these cases, significantly fewer decisions involved the participation of healthcare professionals other than the doctor compared to cases with multiple meetings. Conclusions: Surrogate decisions in Japan are most commonly made by eldest sons and may not frequently consider the perspectives of other surrogates. The finding that patient preferences were rarely known suggests a role for increased advance care planning.

Background: In the coming years, surrogate decision-making is expected to become highly prevalent in Japanese clinical practice. Further, there has been a recent increase in activities promoting advance care planning, which potentially affects the manner in which judgements are made by surrogate decision-makers. This study aims to clarify the grounds on which surrogate decision-makers in Japan base their judgements. Methods: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to examine the judgement grounds in surrogate decision-making for critical life-sustaining treatment choices in acute care hospitals. Results: A total of 228 participants satisfied the inclusion criteria, and 15 were selected for interviews. We qualitatively analysed the content of 14 interview transcripts, excluding one that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Based on this analysis, we extracted 4 core categories, 17 categories, 35 subcategories, and 55 codes regarding judgement grounds in surrogate decision-making. The four core categories were as follows: patient preference-oriented factor (Type 1), patient interest-oriented factor (Type 2), family preference-oriented factor (Type 3), and balanced patient/family preference-oriented factor (Type 4). The Type 4 core category represented attempts to balance the preferences of the patient with those of the surrogate decision-maker. Conclusions: Surrogate decision-makers based their decisions on important aspects related to a patient’s life, and they considered not only the patient’s preferences and best interests but also their own preferences. As the need for surrogate decisions will increase in the future, decision-makers will need to consider judgement grounds from a more diverse perspective.

The Japanese government and medical professionals have negative attitudes toward the provision of prenatal testing and related information due to social concern regarding discrimination against persons with disabilities. However, with the rapid increase in the number of non-invasive prenatal tests, particularly at non-certificated medical facilities, in response to the growing demand from pregnant women, the Japanese government and medical professional associations have enacted radical changes marking an active commitment to the provision of information on these services. While a major justification for these policy changes is to ensure respect for reproductive autonomy and women’s self-determination, they may reinforce the concern regarding discrimination. This article investigated the argument that these new policies may reinforce discrimination and examined three objections to this argument. The results revealed that the recent policy changes, particularly for specific fetal traits, may imply a negative belief about people living with the same traits. Consequently, fundamental institutional changes are necessary.