From 1948 to 1996, Japan’s eugenics protection law was responsible for several inhumane treatment of its citizens.
A woman from Miyagi Prefecture in her 60s is currently suing the nation asking for compensation to what was done to her when she was younger. When she requested for the responsible hospitals to provide her medical records, the hospitals claim that those records have been disposed of and cannot be recovered.
At 15, the woman was admitted to a school for the intellectually disabled, and following graduation, she was handed over to a guardian for the intellectually disabled who would be responsible for teaching her the basics of life. Little did she know, that was the beginning of her troubles. Her guardian scolded her saying that she shouldn’t eat too much food because it would make her even more stupid. She was never given ample food since.
At 16, she was labeled “mentally retarded” after failing to perform in an IQ test held in Miyagi and was immediately brought to a clinic in the city. Not knowing what was happening, she was given a jab and before she knew it, she woke up in bed. Upon reaching home, she found out that she had been sterilized after overhearing her parents’ conversation.
However, she couldn’t give up her dreams of having her own children, and when she was in her 20s, she adopted a child.
While intellectually disabled persons in Japan are given a medical care book, she never had one. And when she confronted her father on why she had to be sterilized, her father helplessly replied that he was forced by welfare officers and the guardians to sign on the agreement to her sterilization.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. During the period before the law was abolished, 859 people (men and women) were forcibly sterilized without their consent in Miyagi Prefecture alone. Among them, 52% were minors, the youngest girl of which was 9 years old, and youngest boy being 10.
In response to Mainichi Shimbun’s interview, Miyagi officials provided the newspaper with a portion of the remaining records. According to the records, 80% of those were made to undergo the surgeries due to “genetic mental retardation,” including those with schizophrenia and epilepsy. The remaining 20% were made to do it due to hearing and physical disabilities.
When interviewed, Horiguchi Sadao (84) who was responsible for many of the surgeries agreed to reveal his real name and commented, “while it is insane in today’s context, the law of the olden times gave him no choice.”
The Eugenics Protection Law was modeled after Nazi Germany to prevent inferior offsprings from being produced. The law allowed sterilization operations to be performed on disabled persons without their consent. Doctors were consulted on the necessity for the operations and government officials will decide whether or not to proceed with it. Those who were marked for such operations were detained, anesthetized, and/or deceived into the operation. And in the case where said person gets married, the spouse will have to be informed of their partner’s sterilization.
Below is an extracted list of such surgeries performed in each prefecture across Japan during the period the law was in place.
 |
1) Hokkaido 2) Miyagi 3) Okayama 4) Oita 5) Osaka 6) Shizuoka 7) Tokyo 8) Yamagata 9) Kanagawa 10) Saitama … 45) Nara 46) Tottori 47) Okinawa |
2593 1406 845 663 610 530 483 445 420 405 … 20 11 2 |
It’s hard to imagine such a cruel law actually existed in postwar Japan and I was actually born during a time when it still existed. But it’s a consolation that it no longer exists now.
Wow. I’ve never know such things exist
Surprisingly from Japan nonetheless. But being allies during WW2, maybe it’s not that hard to imagine Germany’s influence on Japan.
Actually I think it’s easy to stand on moral high grounds and say its against human rights and it’s cruel.
But to a certain extent, I do think that the decision shld lie with the guardians (parents/ caregivers) and certainly not the government, esp in the case of severe handicap.
The patient (child or adult), esp without the ability to make sound decisions , would b unable to take care of a child if she becomes pregnant.
The ability to give birth to a child is quite different from the ability to take care of a child.
I think you make a fair point. At the same time, I feel the reason you gave is more worth a debate than the one behind the law in the first place. If the worry is that the adult will be unable to care for the child, perhaps the parents/guardians have the onus to take it up for discussion. But if the reason is to prevent “inferior offsprings” then it is just discrimination. For the woman in the article, if she was granted adoption of a child, I believe she is fully capable of caring for her own, since adoption goes through more stringent checks than getting pregnant.
Wa i think i saw this in the straits times somewhere too! I enjoy reading and pondering over such controversial topics haha! Not saying that i agree with this policy but i see that this problem is slightly similar to the topic on why LGBT is supported but incest (consensual ones) are not, because of genetics.
Also with their aging population, it is increasingly taxing if they continue to produce “special needs” causing rare cases like the guy in Japan who killed those poor ppl in the special needs centre 🙁
I’m not sure I see what you mean with regard to LGBT, but you did bring up an interesting point on inbreeding. If we remove morality from the equation, it seems to be just down to an issue of recessive genes (i.e. producing “inferior offspring” with higher chances of mental and/or physical disabilities). The question on morality is another topic of debate itself, because who decided inbreeding is immoral; likewise, who decided LGBT relationships are immoral; and why? Perhaps this is what you meant by it being similar to LGBT?
In a sense yes! And i brought up the topic incest because i think it is a popular argument used against the community which supports LGBT (e.g if you support LGBT, incest should be fine too etc) http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2010/12/incest_is_cancer.html
This article shows some interesting arguments and cases on incest + LGBT. Currently i guess the reason why ppl are open to support LGBT and not incest (putting aside morality issues), is because of the genetic problems which would be transferred to the next generation (yes inbreeding problems), which i feel is quite similar to this eugenics protection law? Another popular argument would be, would you abort a disabled baby?)
Regarding the abortion of a disabled child, I personally think if the law allows it, then it’s up to the parents. Other people’s opinions don’t matter. I don’t think it’s right or wrong. I just think no third-party should have a say in the decision.
The article is interesting as it makes valid points. But there comes another issue on incest which I saw some many many years ago: A man has a child with his wife but they got divorced when the daughter was just a little baby. The man left the town and never kept in contact with them. Some 20-over years later, the man meets a woman who is much younger than he is. They fall in love, started dating and had sex. One fine day, when the man was to meet the girl’s family, he realised that her mother is his ex-wife; meaning the girl whom he has been dating and having sex with is his own daughter (sounds like Korean soap opera eh?). They were able to develop such feelings for each other because they saw each other as just another man and another woman instead of father and daughter. Going by the arguments of the article, let’s say the couple get a vasectomy and/or a ligation, genetics no longer falls into the equation since they won’t have offsprings of their own. And to take this further, since they were originally apart for such a long time, nobody’s family is destroyed by their relationship. To the ex-wife, if they do get married, the man just becomes her son-in-law, which wouldn’t be too different than if the girl were to date another man about the same age. This doesn’t mess up the “family unit” because there is no “family unit” between the three of them. Does this then make it acceptable to the author?
holy cow, that is really an interesting situation, and extremely bad luck for the man haha X_X
curiously though, what happened to the them in the end, did they manage to get together or did the law penalise them?
I can’t remember what happened though since it was very long ago when I saw that on TV.