No abstract

Background Regulations on forgoing life-sustaining treatment (LST) have developed in Asian countries including Japan, Korea and Taiwan. However, other countries are relatively unaware of these due to the language barrier. This article aims to describe and compare the relevant regulatory frameworks, using the (more familiar) situation in England as a point of reference. We undertook literature reviews to ascertain the legal and regulatory positions on forgoing LST in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England. Main text Findings from a literature review are first presented to describe the development of the regulatory frameworks surrounding the option of forgoing LST in each country. Based on the findings from the four countries, we suggest five ethically important points, reflection on which should help to inform the further development of regulatory frameworks concerning end-of-life care in these countries and beyond. There should be reflection on: (1) the definition of – and reasons for defining – the ‘terminal stage’ and associated criteria for making such judgements; Korea and Taiwan limit forgoing LST to patients in this stage, but there are risks associated with defining this too narrowly or broadly; (2) foregoing LST for patients who are not in this stage, as is allowed in Japan and England, because here too there are areas of controversy, including (in England) whether the law in this area does enough to respect the autonomy of (now) incapacitated patients; (3) whether ‘foregoing’ LST should encompass withholding and withdrawing treatment; this is also an ethically disputed area, particularly in the Asian countries we examine; (4) the family’s role in end-of-life decision-making, particularly as, compared with England, the three Asian countries traditionally place a greater emphasis on families and communities than on individuals; and (5) decision-making with and for those incapacitated patients who lack families, surrogate decision-makers or ADs. Conclusion Comparison of, and reflection on, the different legal positions that obtain in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and England should prove informative and we particularly invite reflection on five areas, in the hope the ensuing discussions will help to establish better end-of-life regulatory frameworks in these countries and elsewhere.

Common infrastructures and platforms are required for international collaborations in large-scale human genomic research and policy development, such as the Global Alliance for Genomics and Health and the ‘ELSI 2.0’ initiative. Such initiatives may require international harmonization of ethical and regulatory requirements. To enable this, however, a greater understanding of issues and practices that relate to the ethical, legal and social implications (ELSI) of genomic research will be needed for the different countries and global regions involved in such research. Here, we review the ELSI practices and regulations for genomic research in six East Asian countries (China, Indonesia, Japan, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan), highlighting the main similarities and differences between these countries, and more generally, in relation to Western countries. While there are significant differences in ELSI practices among these East Asian countries, there is a consistent emphasis on advancing genomic science and technology. In addition, considerable emphasis is placed on informed consent for participation in research, whether through the contribution of tissue samples or personal information. However, a higher level of engagement with interested stakeholders and the public will be needed in some countries.

Our article aims to provide a comprehensive portrayal of how seven Asian jurisdictions have sought to address the challenge of genetic discrimination (GD) by presenting an analysis of the relevant legislation, policies, and practices. Based on our findings, policy discussion and action on preventing or mitigating GD have been narrowly framed in terms of employment, insurance, disability, marriage, and family planning. Except for South Korea, none of the jurisdictions we examined has adopted specific legislation to prevent GD. However, for Asia to truly benefit from its recent scientific and technological progress in genomics, we highlight the need for these jurisdictions to engage more proactively with the challenges of GD through a coordinated regulatory and governance mechanism.

This study was designed to examine intensive care providers’ perceptions of medically futile treatment. Focus group interviews were conducted with 18 intensive care physicians in charge of critical care units at tertiary hospitals in Daegu, Gwangju, and Seoul, South Korea. Results are as follow. 1. More than half of the participants opposed the inclusion of persistent vegetative state (PVS) patients in the category of medically futile treatment. 2. And though the distinctions between ordinary and extraordinary treatment, and between the withholding and withdrawal of treatment, were not clinically meaningful in the intensive care units under study, they are nevertheless relevant because of individual religious beliefs and Korean cultural traditions. 3. Since the beliefs and traditions of family members often makes it difficult for a patient to fill out advance directives, we argue that a gradual approach would be useful in choosing advance directives, making those directives optional rather than mandatory. 4. Economic factors also play a crucial role in the decision-making process regarding futile treatment in Korea. These factors were neglected in earlier surveys. Finally, the participants insisted that the physician’s right to make clinical decisions about medically futile treatment should be legislatively guaranteed based on their convictions. Based on the results of this study, we suggest the follow: a) that detailed criteria for medically futile treatments be established; b) that a decision-making process be developed that is culturally, ethically, medically, and legally acceptable; and c) that ethical education be provided to intensive care physicians.