Eugenics Laws In Japan: How And Why It Came To Be Essay

Francis Galton’s eugenics certainly has an enormous impact on the common mindset. Eugenics literally means â€Å"coming into being well† and also referred to as the â€Å"science of being well-born†. A concept initially introduced by Plato in order to produce only superior governing classes as stated in his Republic, this idea is confronted with issues regarding ethics and human rights policies. Eugenics in the real sense is concerned only with so much of genetics as concerns man (Castle, 1930), and social control plays a significant part of its implementation. The application of the ideology of natural selection to the human populace through medicine adversely affected the human race as a whole – basically referring to its effect on the different cultures, ethnicities and mores all over the world (Barondess, 1998). Eugenicists believe that it is necessary for each man to acknowledge his place in the real physical world, in terms of biological composition and relevance to society (Glad, 2006). In pursuit therefore of producing a brighter future for the next generation, man should know how to suppress his interests in order to prioritize the other. If human progress is to be taken as precedence, principles concerning natural selection must be compromised. Two agencies can be identified as the primary determinants of human progress: the first, sociological; the other, biological (Castle, 1930). Man can be unquestionably improved sociologically or culturally, because the environment where he finds himself in is tangible and thus, manipulable. However, the biological aspect is quite complex – it involves the improvement of the germplasm itself. If the human race is as manageable like animals in a farm, the idea of eugenics would be very viable, and the only limitation onto producing outstanding offspring is the availability of the parents with the sought after genes. Although germplasm is considered tangible, it does not singly constitute the human as a whole – therefore the complexities of employing methods of enforcing eugenics. Germany was the first to become controversial in terms of the application of eugenics methods. Within a year of enactment, it was reported that the Nazi sterilization program sterilized thousands – and implemented a system of â€Å"hereditary health courts† – which act on appeals conveyed by public health officials requesting that people identified to possess a long list of disorders be subjected to obligatory sterilization; and with Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor in 1933, active euthanasia was introduced, resulting to a more grave and radicalized condition of eugenics (Barondess, 1998) . Parallel to the eugenics methods exercised in Germany, Japan was able to implement its own eugenics studies and measures, primarily aimed on controlling population growth, reduce birth defect rate, and maintain purity among the Japanese race. Programs focusing in the breeding only of the intelligent and the superior were implemented. Eugenics laws implemented in Japan however are not as extensive as the implementation by the Nazis, who were considered to have largely broadened the goals of eugenics. The National Eugenic Law of Japan was approved in 1940, which includes edicts requiring sterilization of the mentally incompetent, legalization of abortion as in cases of rape, or if the birth is assumed to be life-threatening to the mother, and if the parents are considered to be possessing â€Å"undesirable† traits (Sheingate and Yamagishi, 2006). The Japanese are known to take pride in their heritage and culture, thus justifying the drive of coming up with â€Å"pure† and â€Å"superior† offspring. Aside from these cultural motivations, statistics showed that the number of abnormal offspring produced soared to high levels, specifically in the years 1926 to 1938. It was immediately a year after when the National Eugenics Law was made official – as a response to the alarming increase of â€Å"inferior† individuals in the society. The original draft of the law was initiated a few years before the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in 1937, and noticing the need to enforce laws in order to regulate population increase, the law was promulgated in 1940 and put into effect on 1941 (Hirosima, 1981). The initial draft composed by the Imperial Diet did not include rules realizing abortion and sterilization; however as the constraint on birth control strengthened, the law adapted policies targeted on population increase and therefore entwined with population increase policies becoming identified with such. Proponents of the eugenics laws remained firm in their stand for its implementation, though at first the legislative body did not recognize their efforts and endeavors. It was in 1939 where Representative Yagi Itsuro, initially a local family physician, mentioned of encountering people living in fear of producing offspring considered undesirable, and as a result felt the need to propose for laws authorizing medical doctors to perform sterilizing operations. Upon authorization of the eugenics laws during World War II, sterilization became compulsory for certain genetically transmitted diseases, mental illness or retardation; and a variety of contagious diseases (e. g. tuberculosis, venereal diseases, and leprosy) which were assumed to be heritable through Lamarckian analysis (Roth, 2005). With eugenicists in the 1990s being unfamiliar with the concept of genetic engineering, it was hard to visualize active intervention in an individual’s germ line thus preventing them to pass on deleterious and unwanted genes. Thus, eugenics in those times generally has to deal with the issues of natural selection on a larger scale and not just on the genetic level. Along with it, it is forced to deal also with issues on ethics, cultural ethos and mores. As a result, the issue endlessly was forced to answer questions regarding the necessity and importance of manipulating natural selection. One primary subject which the eugenics concept particularly affected was the legal status of abortion in Japan. Eugenics discourse even went to the extent of shaping postwar debates on the specific inquiry concerning the instances abortion to be permitted. One of the reasons that eugenic activists pursued the argument of loosening abortion parameters was due to concern regarding the reversal of natural selection: due to personal preferences, the tendency for the amount of good human genes to be reduced is high, while bad genes on the other hand are increased. Their assumption is that highly educated people from upper and middle classes, who are considered to produce superior progeny, are the ones exposed to and thus frequently use birth control methods. On the other hand, couples from lower classes cannot afford the use of birth control methods and may even have no knowledge regarding those, thus producing a high number of progeny which may be of lesser quality. In the quest of stabilizing population size, abortion was considered criminal in the 1880s, even without the background of Christian ethics and Western thought. The development of capitalism and militarism in Japan fostered the need for an increase in manpower, thus childbirth was once encouraged (Fujiki et al. , 2001). Rules and parameters regarding abortion little by little were perceived. Compared to the succeeding years, it was at that time officially prohibited, yet tacitly permitted. The idea of eugenics being also recognized as a population growth policy resulted to several debates, and contradictions especially made in the context of Shintoism. In 1948, the Eugenics Protection Law was implemented, in pursuit to control the baby boom and population expansion brought about by the post-war conditions (Fujiki et al. , 2001). Abortion was legalized and permitted given several conditions, and it alleviated the tension of prioritizing maternal health at the same time not compromising the general goal of slowing down population growth (Hirosima, 1981). This was successful in promoting decline of fertility rates in Japan after the war. Still, the absence of knowledge on genetic engineering led disputes among the proponents and the legislative body regarding the eugenics laws. This led to the birth of the Maternal Protection Law, which focused more on the removal of the eugenic idea and therefore shifting the perspective from the elimination of inferior offspring to maternal fitness (Fujiki et al. , 2001). Women’s reproductive rights are now taken into major consideration rather than the genetic make-up of the offspring. Genetic discrimination was alleviated, and as the years progressed, the need to coexist regardless of whether inflicted with genetic diseases or disabilities was realized. Eugenics laws in Japan remained steady in its goal to improve the lives of the next generation, ensuring them progress through ways that are constantly improving through the years. Germany, in Hitler’s time has gone through the limits of what is called â€Å"good science†, and imposed â€Å"racial hygiene†, with goals very much contrary to the primary goals of Japan’s eugenic methods. Constant improvement of Japan’s eugenic laws transcended the expectations of the act of disregarding a man’s right to live despite his incapabilities and abnormalities, and even went to the extent of shifting the major focus of producing superior progeny onto the act of primary consideration for the mother’s health and well-being. Political manipulation of natural selection therefore became instrumental rather than detrimental, and enforcement of the Maternal Protection Law has almost completely erased the appearance of the eugenic thought as basis for controlling population growth. The underlying concern of these laws and the proponents that exerted effort to argue for it is to win the struggle for human rights – not just for the living, but for those living after. The assurance of passing over less of one’s flaws and more of the good qualities is at one point necessary in ensuring a bright future for the next generation. At least now, manipulation of natural selection does not necessarily involve manipulation of the human as a whole, and thus eliminate the possibilities of compromising the right to live a normal life with the act of ensuring the survival of the progeny. With the advent of genetic engineering, it is now feasible to produce children in vitro, and then execute embryo screening known as pre-implantation genetic diagnosis; afterwards selecting a healthy embryo for implantation (Glad, 2006). These advanced methods provide a brighter future for both parents and offspring, taking into consideration both the biological and sociological aspects of human progress, rather than compromising one over the other.