Suchergebnisse

This volume explores the concept of Japanese reproductive rights and liberties in light of recent developments in disability studies. Masae Kato asks important questions about what constitutes personhood and how, in the twenty-first century, we come to understand eugenic abortion and other bioethical arguments. Tracing the origin and influence of the concept of a "right," the author places the term in local social and historical contexts in order to determine that it still carries overtones of Anglo-American philosophy, rather than universal truth. Digging deeply into Japanese debates on selective abortion, 'Women's right?' discusses how this charged term can be both de-Westernized and de-masculinized, especially in its appropriations by the Japanese women's movement and disability scholars.

Abstract
Japan is among the few countries that have passed laws concerning eugenics. Consequently, the practice of selective abortion (abortion of an abnormal foetus) has been publicly debated for the past 35 years. Nevertheless, data show that knowledge in Japan about prenatal diagnosis is anything but common. In my fieldwork (April- June 2006) only 38% of interviewees (13/34) knew or had heard of 'amniocentesis' and 6% knew nothing about it at all. There are many explanations for why people are unaware of prenatal diagnosis. The most crucial factor is that medical doctors do not talk to their patients about it. My interviews with 11 medical doctors revealed that they do not talk about it because they want to respect the principle of patient selfdetermination. In this paper I aim first to introduce and analyse, in the context of Japanese eugenic history and the contemporary notion of the patient-doctor relationship, medical doctors' explanations for not talking to their patients about amniocentesis. Second, I address whether the principle of 'non-intervention' equates to 'self-determination'. Lastly, I suggest possible improvements to the practice of 'self-determination' in Japan.

Samenvatting

A very large grey area exists between translational stem cell research and applications that comply with the ideals of randomised control trials and good laboratory and clinical practice and what is often referred to as snake-oil trade. We identify a discrepancy between international research and ethics regulation and the ways in which regulatory instruments in the stem cell field are developed in practice. We examine this discrepancy using the notion of 'national home-keeping', referring to the way governments articulate international standards and regulation with conflicting demands on local players at home. Identifying particular dimensions of regulatory tools – authority, permissions, space and acceleration – as crucial to national home-keeping in Asia, Europe and the USA, we show how local regulation works to enable development of the field, notwithstanding international (i.e. principally 'western') regulation. Triangulating regulation with empirical data and archival research between 2012 and 2015 has helped us to shed light on how countries and organisations adapt and resist internationally dominant regulation through the manipulation of regulatory tools (contingent upon country size, the state's ability to accumulate resources, healthcare demands, established traditions of scientific governance, and economic and scientific ambitions).