ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In Japan, public dialogue on allocation of life-saving medical resources remains taboo, and discussion largely has been avoided. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do Japanese health care workers and the general public agree with principles of ventilator allocation developed internationally? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A four-point Likert scale questionnaire was used to assess the extent of agreement or disagreement with internationally developed triage principles for rationing mechanical ventilators during pandemics. Questionnaires were distributed in person or online, and generalized linear models were used to analyze quantitative data. Free-text descriptions were analyzed qualitatively, both deductively and inductively, to compare respondent opinions with those described in previous US studies. RESULTS: Of 3,191 surveys distributed, 1,520 were returned. Allocation of resources to maximize survival from current illness ("save the most lives") was the most popular triage principle, with 95.8% of respondents in agreement. Allocation to ensure a minimum duration of benefit, as determined by predicted prognosis after illness ("ensure minimum duration of benefit"), and allocation to persons who have experienced fewer life stages ("life cycle") obtained agreement of 82.2% and 80.1%, respectively. Withdrawal and reallocation of mechanical ventilators to more appropriate patients was supported by 64.4% of respondents. Only 28.4% of respondents supported the principle of first-come, first-served access to ventilators. INTERPRETATION: Most respondents supported allocation principles developed internationally and disagreed with the idea of first-come, first-served allocation during resource shortages. The Japanese public seems largely to be prepared to discuss the ethical dilemmas and possible solutions regarding fair and transparent allocation of critical care resources as a necessary step in confronting present and future pandemics and disasters.