著者

横藤田 誠

出版者

広島大学法学会

雑誌

広島法学 (ISSN:03865010)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.42, no.1, pp.87-121, 2018-07

---

Not all governmental acts that infringe the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are declared unconstitutional. In particular, in the case of disadvantaged people such as the mentally disabled people, regardless of whether their human rights are clearly infringed, there are many cases that are not considered serious problems legally or socially. Why was human rights not guaranteed to people with mental disorders? This article is intended to obtain an answer to this question by overviewing the historical developments of human rights protection for the mentally disabled in the United States and in Japan.Disadvantaged people have weaknesses in society in the sense that they need close involvement with others and the society to fulfill their lives. Also, although not all disadvantaged people, some children, elderly people, and disabled people have weaknesses as subjects in the sense that their decision-making abilities are not sufficient. People with mental disorders seem to be strongly equipped with these two weaknesses. No one says that people with mental disabilities do not enjoy human rights, but there is no doubt that human rights have been suppressed for many years in psychiatric care.Over the past several decades, the two models were intensely confronted with respect to psychiatric care: the "medical model" that puts the greatest value to health and the "human rights model" that emphasizes autonomy and equality. The United States has led the human rights model. On the other hand, Japan is firmly rooted in the medical model based on the culture that emphasizes community rather than individuals.In the United States, the compulsory hospitalization system which passed through trial and error from the colonial era had finally begun to be critically considered from the constitutional point of view on the courts and legislatures in the late 1960s.Many state laws provided "imminent danger to self and others" of the substantive requirements of hospitalization and procedures similar to criminal proceedings. The tendency of such state laws was the minimum necessary condition to harmonize the compulsory hospitalization system and the constitution. But society that witnessed former hospitalized patients who were homeless in large cities lost confidence in the correctness of legal reform and began to explore new ways. In some states, there has been a movement to make the substantive requirement relax again.Regarding the substantive requirements and the hospitalization procedures as well, it seems that the conclusion is influenced by the difference in the basic way of thinking with regard to the compulsory hospitalization system as follows, whether to emphasize liberty of mentally disabled people or whether to value welfare (health) of them.

著者

横藤田 誠

出版者

公益社団法人日本放射線技術学会

雑誌

日本放射線技術學會雜誌 (ISSN:03694305)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, no.8, pp.1045-1049, 2004-08-20

被引用文献数

1

---

人が社会生活を営むうえで,道徳(倫理)・宗教・慣習・法などいろいろな約束事(社会規範)が存在する.そのなかで,法だけが権力によって遵守を強制されるという特質を持っている.近年,医療に対する法規制が質量ともに拡張する傾向がみられるが,法の介入は主として患者の権利を守るためになされており,それによって患者の権利状況が改善されたという事実を否定することはできない.しかし,法は悪しき医療を抑制することはできても,より良き医療を保証するものではない.医療者は,ヒポクラテスの誓いにみられるように,自ら律するために誓いを定め,それに近づく医療者となるように努めてきた.医療者が高い倫理性を持ち,患者や社会からの信頼感を高めることができれば,結果として,法規制の必要性を縮減するであろう.

著者

横藤田 誠

出版者

日本精神神経学会

雑誌

精神神經學雜誌 = Psychiatria et neurologia Japonica (ISSN:00332658)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.107, no.7, pp.681-687, 2005-07-25