リベラリズム : 理念の展開とその限界(司会者の立場から,シンポジウム 日本の医療とリベラリズム-患者の位置づけから共通基準の形成まで-)

抄録

Studies on liberalism in medicine, as theoretical foundations for patients' self-decision-making, have not been fully explored. This is because liberalism itself consists of historical and ambiguious areas where less attention has been directed to its intent and debates. Renewing the definition of liberalism is among the most important duties that we must now (achieve?) pursue. "Withholding of life sustaining-treatment" as a role of the physician has been actively debated in the United States, but in Japan we have not discussed in detail about the role of the physician over the relationship with patients and families. The meaning of "futile" as a concept for terminally ill patients encounters many difficulties such as informed consent and patients' self-control. But the emphasis on finding a common ground between patients and physicians wishes remains unanswered in Japan. Concerning rejection of blood transfusions by Jehovah's Witnesses, the situation about patients' self-decision making in Japan has been at stake, since the religious and precautious problems have surrounded the concerns. But in February 1998 the Tokyo High-Court of Justice held that blood transfusions without consent are illegal and implied that we are going to get the mutual understanding of real self-decisionmaking. Recognizing the increased interest in liberalism, recent developments in health care policy have drawn sharp distinctions between medical treatmen for patients who are competent to make decisions and those who are not. While traditional liberalism favors competent patients, medical liberalism includes areas to which incompetent patients, such as embryos and patients in vegetative states belong, In these cases, liberalism itself can not be principally realized. A discussion about liberalism in medicine raises questions not easily answerd without consideration of one's own values and the values of society.