■
Tateiwa, Shinya(
立岩 真也) 2016
On Private Property, English Version, Kyoto Books
◆Saishu, Satoru（
最首 悟） 1980
"I affirm the desire to have a child who is healthy both in mind and body as something natural. Is there not also room, however, to accept the unnaturalness of thinking otherwise as something which is part of human nature? " (Saishu 1980,1984:80, cited in
Tateiwa 1997:373)
◆Saishu, Satoru（
最首 悟）[1980>1984:75]
"Do the anti-pollution movement and the disabled movement have some kind of common root? ... To put it bluntly without worrying about how my words might be misunderstood, the anti-pollution movement has as one of its assumptions an image of humanity healthy in both mind and body. The anti-pollution movement is grounded in the idea that being completely able-bodied is not only desirable but furthermore the way people ought to be. The disabled movement, on the other hand, is a movement which asserts that disabled people are human."(Saishu [1980→1984:75], cited in
Tateiwa 1997:438 )
◆Morimura, Susumu（
森村 進） 1987
in
[1997] chapter 9 note 22
"Those who oppose fetal screening...assert that allowing selective abortion will lead to less attention being given to those who avoid or slip through the screening net and are born with a congenital disability. Logically speaking, however, the determination that a method of preventing the birth of children with severe disabilities is a good thing is independent of the respect and consideration given to those who are in fact born with disabilities." (Morimura [1987:117]). Yonemoto [1989b] asserts that in America these two issues are in fact treated as being independent of each other." (
Tateiwa 1997:439)
◆Tsutsumi, Aiko（
堤 愛子）[1989:34-35]
"In "Onnatachi no hangenpatsu (women's opposition to nuclear power)" I wrote abstractly about fears surrounding nuclear power and radioactivity being things which could "destroy the balance of the ecosystem", but recently I have started to think of them as things which "threaten my own health"./As soon as I write this I can already hear people saying "so you do think it's better not to be disabled after all"/But are "disability" and "health" really opposing concepts?" (Tsutsumi [1989:34-35], cited in
Tateiwa 1997:438）
"See also Tsutsumi [1988] and her remarks at the Bioethics Research Society symposium "Seimeirinri kenkyukai seishokugijutsu kenkyuchimu" ("Bioethics Research Society Reproductive Technology Research Team") [1992]). Similar assertions are made in Yoshikawa [1988]. He states that he opposes nuclear power not because it may lead to the birth of disabled children but because it may end people's lives. While calling for the investigation of the causes of congenital abnormalities, at the same time (to be precise a short time later) he also focused on the efforts of the "Sentensei shishishougaiji chichihaha no kai" ("Association of mothers and fathers of children with congenital disabilities of the limbs") to find a way for people to live with disabilities (see "sentensei shishishougaiji chichihaha no kai" ed. [1982a] [1982b] and Nobe [1982] [1989a] [1989b] [1993]). "(
Tateiwa 1997:438）
* Senda[1989]
◆
Okahara, Masayuki（
岡原 正幸） &
Tateiwa, Shin'ya（
立岩 真也）[1990:162→1995:162]
(cited in Tateiwa
[1997] chapter 9 note 19（p.438)
"The fundamental problem arises when disabilities are singled out, rejected, bound up with the people who have them, and these people are then rejected in their entirety. In response to this problem one approach is to accept the rejectable nature of disabilities and then try to fix them or look for another part [of the individual to affirm], but as I have already stated this method of dealing with the issue is flawed. Here we cannot help but say that what is being rejected should on the contrary be affirmed. This leads to a split in how to approach this issue, but the real problem here is what leads us to have to make this choice in the first place, and it is the rendering inert of this underlying cause which is most important. To affirm disabilities, to affirm other aspects of people with disabilities, to affirm some parts, to affirm the whole: these affirmations themselves are not the issue. There is no need to accept the rejectability of certain attributes to begin with." (Okahara and Tateiwa [1990:162→1995:162], cited in Tateiwa
[1997]:437-438)
"Sakai [1996:211ff] points out that when those who are discriminated against decry this discrimination they tend to become caught up in the categories established by those who are doing the discriminating. At the same time, however, in order to reject this rejectability, in order to "exorcise this demon", processes like "self affirmation" and "learning to love oneself" (and the techniques needed to facilitate them) may indeed be necessary. People like Yuho Asaka (Asaka [1993] etc.) can therefore be seen as priestesses attempting to carry out this kind of exorcism. "(Tateiwa
[1997]:438)
* Tateiwa 1990
...
◆Kato, Shuichi（
加藤 秀一） 1991
"Are "disabilities" and "people with disabilities" really inseparable? Is this not merely a union imposed by a particular set of circumstances? Is it not possible to maintain a criticism of the rejection of "people with disabilities" independent of any affirmation or rejection of "disabilities"? ... The women's liberation movement has expanded its intellectual/theoretical range as it progressed from a first stage in which its proponents rejected being "women" and aspired to be "like men" to a second stage in which they ascribed positive value to the sign "woman" (the black liberation movement went through a similar process) before reaching a third stage in which they attempted to break down the existence of the dichotomous "man/woman" categorization itself. ... to the women's liberation movement which has gone through this progression, the rejection or affirmation of "being a woman" does not itself amount to a rejection or affirmation of the "self". Of course, it is unpleasant for anyone to have others disparage their attributes. This is true even of trivial attributes. But a necessity to view this as a rejection of the irreplaceable "self" of the individual in question only arises when the meaning of the existence of the "self" as a whole has been staked on the attribute in question. And there is no need for anyone to end up in this kind of situation." (Kato [1991a], cf. Kato [1991c], cited in
Tateiwa [1997:438].)
◆Singer, Peter（
ピーター・シンガー）[1993]
"If disabled people who must use wheelchairs to get around were suddenly offered a miracle drug that would, with no side effects, give them full use of their legs, how many of them would refuse to take it on the grounds that life with a disability is in no way inferior to life without a disability? In seeking medical assistance to overcome and eliminate disability, when it is available, disabled people themselves show that the preference for a life without disability is no mere prejudice."(Singer［1993:54］)
"To be able to walk, to see, to hear, to be relatively free from pain and discomfort, communicate effectively--all these are, under virtually any social condition, genuine benefits. To say this is not to deny that people lacking these abilities may triumph over their disabilities and have lives of astonishing richness and diversity. Nevertheless, we show no prejudice against disabled people if we prefer, whether for ourselves or for our children, not to be faced with hurdles so great that to surmount them is in itself a triumph."(Singer［1993:54］)
◆
Tsuchiya, Takashi（
土屋 貴志） 1994
"Takashi Tsuchiya states as follows. ① "Muscular dystrophy causes physical suffering and various inconveniences in daily life and also causes anxiety about the future. As a result, it is possible to think that it would be better for this condition to go from being thought of as a "disability" which cannot at present be cured to being seen as a "disease" which might some day be curable. ...but at present muscular dystrophy cannot be cured." ② "Since those who have been born with muscular dystrophy cannot be cured, efforts to "eliminate muscular dystrophy" have gradually taken the form of "prevention" of the disease by ensuring that people with it are not brought into existence in the first place rather than an attempt to eliminate the incidental attribute of muscular dystrophy from those who have been born with it. ...this has involved things like prenatal testing...fertilized egg testing, ...selecting the gender of children to be born, ...and "eugenic operations"". ③"To the extent that genetic screening is used to "prevent people with muscular dystrophy from existing" it is both based on a negative view of people with muscular dystrophy and something which serves to further reinforce this perspective, and from an ethical point of view is not a desirable form of treatment." ④ "However, the fact that this genetic screening treatment is not desirable from an ethical point of view does not mean that it must be prohibited. ...there are cases where actions which are not desirable from an ethical point of view must nonetheless not be prohibited by society...." (Shirai, Maruyama, Tsuchiya and Ozawa [1994:201-202], cf. Tsuchiya [1994b]). It can be pointed out that the step from ③ to ④ is not clearly justified, but here the main question is whether or not ③ itself is correct. "（
Tateiwa [1997:438]）
◆Miya, Akio（
宮 昭夫）[1996:2-3]
""Is my desire for my child to be born healthy and without any physical defects indeed a kind of discrimination?"
"It might be"
"But as a human being isn't it a really natural desire to have?"
"That's true, but being a natural emotion doesn't necessarily mean that it is right or that it isn't a case of discrimination. Wanting to live more comfortably than other people and eat better food, for example, and wanting to push other people out of the way and win competitions can also be said to be natural desires."
"Isn't that a bit different though? Whatever condition my chid was born in I was prepared to live together with him or her and take care of his or her needs. Even so, however, when my child was born I was still hoping he or she would be healthy. I'm being honest here. Does this mean I am pushing aside or harming others?
"Don't you think that a disabled person would be unhappy to hear that you were hoping your child would be born without a disability? Wouldn't they feel that they themselves were being rejected, or at least not affirmed?
"I myself am disabled but I don't feel that way"." (Miya 1986:2-3)
* Tateiwa 1999
...