2001
DOI: 10.1080/09687590120070114
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Eugenic Transition of 1996 in Japan: From law to personal choice

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
1
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(Shakespeare, 1998 p. 669) He goes onto say that: … strong eugenics may be an emergent property of the genetic/obstetric complex: an outcome which was neither explicitly intended, nor is causally related to any one element of the process, but is a consequence of the combined actions involved. (ibid, p. 669) Shakespeare's analysis may be augmented by that of Morita (2001). Morita argues that in Japan, an amendment to the Eugenic Protection Law in 1996 initiated a change whereupon eugenical decisions were shifted from the domain of state sanction to the domain of personal choice of prospective parents, but with no anticipated change in terms of screening practices and eugenic outcomes.…”
Section: Forms Of Eugenicsmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(Shakespeare, 1998 p. 669) He goes onto say that: … strong eugenics may be an emergent property of the genetic/obstetric complex: an outcome which was neither explicitly intended, nor is causally related to any one element of the process, but is a consequence of the combined actions involved. (ibid, p. 669) Shakespeare's analysis may be augmented by that of Morita (2001). Morita argues that in Japan, an amendment to the Eugenic Protection Law in 1996 initiated a change whereupon eugenical decisions were shifted from the domain of state sanction to the domain of personal choice of prospective parents, but with no anticipated change in terms of screening practices and eugenic outcomes.…”
Section: Forms Of Eugenicsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…We should not make a Rylean category 556 S. J. Hampton mistake and be beguiled into thinking that state policy does not decompose into individual decisions. Morita (2001) shows us that positive, negative, weak or strong, we end up with a situation whereupon a decision is made -be it by an individual or by committee -to control who gets born. Similarly, because we do not have an overt form of strong negative eugenics wherein certain persons are actively prevented from having children as a matter of state policy, we should not lose sight of the fact that the state sanctions the prevention of the birth of certain sorts of person.…”
Section: Forms Of Eugenicsmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…specifically made under the influence of the German Sterilization Law of 1933, as the Japanese considered Germans to be dominant in the field (Morita, 2001;Kato, 2009). The initiation of the bill can also be attributed to the pro-German atmosphere following Japan's military pact with Germany in 1937 (Matsubara, 1998).…”
Section: Upstream Engagement and Regulatory Guidancementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This bill, which aimed to sterilize persons with "hereditary diseases," was introduced as the National Eugenic Bill and passed as the National Eugenic Law (NEL) in 1940 (Matsubara, 1998;Morita, 2001). The law articulated the legal procedure for eugenic sterilization surgery for people with mental and physical "hereditary diseases" to prevent them from reproducing (Kato, 2009).…”
Section: Upstream Engagement and Regulatory Guidancementioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation