ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
A nationwide survey of Japanese public perceptions of the necessity of antemortem informed consent for Rapid Autopsy Programs (RAP): comparison with other methods of postmortem human tissue utilization.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid Autopsy Programs (RAP) are essential research infrastructures for precision medicine, providing high-quality biospecimens. While international standards emphasize the importance of antemortem informed consent, Japan's ethical and legal frameworks for RAP remain underdeveloped. Currently, Japan lacks a consistent approach to postmortem tissue utilization, with requirements for individual consent varying significantly between pathological autopsies, systematic dissection, and organ transplantation. This study aims to clarify Japanese public perceptions regarding the necessity of antemortem consent for RAP in comparison with these established methods to inform the development of future ethical guidelines.
methodsA nationwide internet survey was conducted in January 2025, involving 3,102 participants representative of the Japanese population's sex, age, and regional distribution. Participants viewed an educational video explaining four methods of postmortem tissue utilization: pathological autopsy, RAP, systematic dissection, and organ transplantation. To prevent bias, actual names and current legal statuses were not disclosed. Respondents rated the necessity of antemortem individual consent for each method using a six-point Likert scale. Statistical analyses were performed to identify differences between methods and demographic influences.
resultsThe survey revealed a strong public preference for antemortem consent across all methods. Specifically, over 70% of respondents agreed that antemortem consent is necessary for pathological autopsies, and over 85% expressed the same view for RAP, systematic dissection, and organ transplantation. The results showed a marked discrepancy between Japan's current legal system-which often relies on family consent-and public ethical awareness emphasizing individual will. While 90% valued antemortem consent for respecting individual wishes, over 50% acknowledged the difficulty of refusing a physician's request and emphasized the importance of family intentions. Women and older adults placed significantly greater importance on antemortem consent for RAP.
conclusionsThe Japanese public maintains high expectations for individual antemortem consent that exceed current legal requirements for some procedures. However, the findings also highlight the role of "relational autonomy," where family involvement and the clinical-research power dynamic influence decision-making. Developing an ethical framework for RAP in Japan requires not only prioritizing individual autonomy but also implementing "supported decision-making" and a clear separation between clinical and research teams to ensure social trust and cultural compatibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.