Ethics of Treatment Decisions for Extremely Premature Newborns with Poor Prognoses: Comparison of Shared Decision Making in Norway and Japan

Abstract

Ethical debates about the life-prolonging treatment of extremely premature infants and infants with congenital abnormalities with poor prognoses have long been held. We will examine approaches in Norway and Japan as examples because Norway is a well-known welfare state. By comparing the traditional Norwegian approach, the newly proposed approach of postponed withholding (PPWH) and the Japanese approach, we will revisit shared decision making in neonatology in general, where patients (i.e., newborns) inevitably have no decision-making capacity. We argue that in shared decision making, the process is critical, and that it is important to clarify who will be the final decision-maker and whose benefits are most important. In addition, we argue that the issue of cost cannot be avoided in this current time of economic disparities in global health. Shared decision making should not be a mere formality. These are significant examples of new ethical debates to be discussed in the modern era in the neonatology field.