This page includes who's who, literature, theme-related links, newspaper articles, and citation concerning Minamata disease.
If you have any information concerning Minamata disease that is not listed in this page, please e-mail us webmaster@arsvi.com.
In chapter two of this book on "death with dignity" I suggest that there must be something wrong if the reasonable claim that the "destruction of nature" is to be criticized and the "protection of the environment" is to be affirmed leads to the condoning of "natural death" or the rejection of people living with diseases or disabilities. I then attempt to find out where exactly the mistake in this reasoning is to be found.
In writing what follows I had in mind the way that people (including photographers, filmmakers and researchers) who visited or lived in Minamata came to the aid of people suffering from Minamata disease. They did not or could not see the existence of these victims as tragic even as they sought to make clear the tragic nature of their illness. I wanted to give this some thought. (Tateiwa)
"2 The spread and transformation
As has been written several times before, the social understanding and demands for reform which arose together with Minamata and incidents which occurred in various other places can be seen to have been usurped and weakened over time(19).
People who faced these situations directly did indeed say things like "nature is being plundered" and "technology is harming humanity". They also said that the independence of individuals was being lost. If so, what is happening now can be thought of as an extension of these trends. In other words, those who affirm death oppose too much reliance being placed on technology and say that what is being demanded is a more human, natural death determined not by experts but by the individual in question. If so is this not the same thing? And while this was once something asserted by a small number of people it now appears to have spread and become a view shared by many. Was this a case of something obvious which had not been seen as being obvious coming to be recognized for what it is?
What occurred seems in fact to have been something slightly different. While its expansion was indeed a good thing, as this view spread thinner and thinner it seems to have transformed into something a bit different. If this phrasing does not seem accurate we can also think of what occurred as a certain part of this viewpoint remaining while other aspects are pushed aside as it expands. What is different? (20)
..........
... [thirdly] regarding the sense that problems are being glossed over. I write about this at length in a modified and expanded version of "To say/not say that human life is special" ([2008c]) - included in my next book "Sole Life" - but assertions of "post anthropocentrism" depend on things which are very anthropocentric. And the humanity being centered upon is excellent, ideal human beings. While we may protect and respect each other, here differences between us are indeed established. These efforts are in fact dependent on these differences. When it comes to a love of nature and the protection of animals we draw a distinction between ourselves and people who do not live according to these principles or do not seem to take them into consideration. Regarding our separating ourselves from living like animals and assertions of this kind, this is fundamentally no different from drawing a distinction between ourselves and other human beings who do not or cannot separate themselves from that way of living. (22)
This kind of distancing can also arise in attempts at prevention(23). When damage has been done in the past and actions to address this damage, beginning with an accusation of harm, are carried out, the result can be a reduction, in part, of extremely awful behavior/incidents. When this is the case what is carried out can be thought of as a kind of preventative measure intended to stop bad things from happening. This is a good thing, because of course there is no need for us to actually experience things which are unpleasant. We should try to eliminate suffering before it actually occurs. This is exactly right.
Here another way of putting this is that we should try to ensure certain situations do not arise. Since this is "prevention" it is of course natural and obvious. It is a good way of thinking and a good way of acting. But we are not dealing directly with the person in question. "That sort of condition" or "that sort of person" is imagined and symbolized. If this symbol is particularly bleak or pitiful the effort to prevent the situation in question may become stronger and the effectiveness of this prevention thereby increased. And when something is seen as needing to be prevented this symbol may become quite dark or negative.
3 Encountering the people in question nonetheless.
There are, however, those who do actually interact directly with the people in question. These people do not think that the receiving of damage itself is something which should be affirmed, but for them it is impossible to reject or deny the existence of people in the resulting condition. It may be said at the start that this results only from thinking of the disease/disability as separate from the person who suffers from it. And many people do say this. I too can agree. But this is not all there is to be considered. I have doubts about whether we should accept the negative view of these conditions in its entirety and without modification. And while we do not want to see suffering, we see the person in question living their life and at times assist them.
Of course, to say that direct contact with the person in question engenders affirmation is an optimistic view and looks at only one dimension of the realities involved. There may be instances where direct contact at first creates rejection or - especially in the case of those providing care - leads to rejection over a long period of time as the burdens involved begin to take their toll. It may be a slightly unkind way of putting it, but most of those who "provide marginal assistance", being at a moderate distance and having a sense of separation from the person in question, do not have to take on burdens which are too heavy for them to bear and as a result can easily offer affirmation. This half-measure approach can be said to be a good thing if thinking that everything must be done thoroughly leads to tragic outcomes and is not desirable. A lack of responsibility is at times unavoidable and in some cases not a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it is very important(24). And there are also those who, while at times receiving assistance from these sorts of less invested caregivers, stay with the person in question and look after them until one of them dies.
On the other hand, when misery and hardship are discussed in general terms, when they are imagined as something we are afraid might occur, there are instances in which their rejection encompasses the rejection of the existence of the person in question. Conversely, or when it becomes too heavy a burden for oneself or too heavy a burden for a person involved, these two ways of dealing with the issue are [sometimes] sequential. It is not that there are two kinds of people. And of course there are cases where direct encounters and interaction strengthen loathing. An individual may sometimes recoil from the appearance/shape of the person in question. It remains a fact, however, that among those who directly encounter people in these sorts of conditions there are some who make an effort to support their continued existence.
These people decry the fact that a person is not able to live their life and is left to suffer. They in no way think that the conditions in question are good. They first take action because of suffering. But what is done after that start, what they cannot help but do, is live together with the person in question. Even if they do not live with the person in question, through some sort of assistance or other kind of relationship they interact with them directly. They become a companion in that person's process of dying or process of living. When this happens changes occur. While condemning whatever causes the people in question to suffer or makes their lives difficult, at the same time they affirm the existence of these people themselves. Their criticism/declaration does not contain a rejection of such people being alive. Here the straightforward use of this misery has come to be thought of as mistaken. (25)
This is not a contradiction. Those who cause death or suffering or hardship deserve to be denounced. These people should be pursued. But, first, if in order to do this the unhappiness they have caused must be brought out and used, this too can be thought of as a further affront against the people who have suffered. As a result it can be concluded that this should not be done. The condition the people in question are in is not being affirmed as something good. But this does not amount to an affirmation of death. Since the existence of the people in question is affirmed, those who cause their deaths are to be condemned." (Tateiwa [2008:172-177])
"note 25 Take for example the photographs of Eugene Smith(collected in Smith and Smith [1975]; photographs by both Eugene and Aileen Smith are also included in Kuwabara（桑原） et al. [2007:59-76]). Harada (原田 正純) refers to Ishimure Michiko (石牟礼 道子) , Kuwabara Shisei (桑原史成) and Ui Jun (宇井 純) in the following passage.
"Among those who provided assistance and played an important role in the history of the Minamata incident there were some individuals who were strongly influenced by certain well known writings and photographs. These works could even be said to have offered a revelation of the future of this country following the post-war economic miracle. Patients, citizens and students all took action, scholars and lawyers became involved, and the first Minamata disease trial began. During this time Eugene Smith's photographs spread the realities of the Minamata incident throughout the world and played a large role in what occurred" (Harada [1985:307-308]).
These photographs were later "sealed".
"The Minamata incident, which marked the beginning of pollution and environmental issues in Japan and has occupied an important place in the history of post-war Japanese journalism, was made known throughout the world by a single photograph of a girl with fetal Minamata disease taken by Eugene Smith. The photograph of a mother bathing with a wide-eyed girl in her arms was very powerful. The girl died. At the request of her mother this photograph has been sealed away by the former wife of the photographer who now lives in Kyoto and can no longer be seen by human eyes. Harada Masazumi, a doctor who discovered Minamata disease and endeavored to treat it, includes his own bitter thoughts in saying the following:
"We made accusations about the tragedies of pollution by emphasizing the state of fetal patients. But at some point did this not perhaps come to be seen as decrying that such pitiable human beings had been born and asserting that people with severe disabilities were miserable and pathetic? Was the small number of fetal patients in the later outbreak of Niigata Minamata disease not in fact the result of a large number of fetuses being aborted? The mother of the child whose photograph was sealed said that her daughter was very dear to her and she had done enough work already" (Okamoto [2007]).
The statement by Harada was quoted from notes taken at a speech he gave at the inaugural meeting of the "Anrakushi/songenshi houseika wo boshisuru kai (Association for the prevention of the legalization of euthenasia/death with dignity)" in June 2005. The notes were made by Okamoto Teruaki (岡本 晃明), a reporter for the Kyoto Shinbun (Mr. Okamoto was also a member of the team that won a Japan Newspaper Publishers & Editors Association Award for "Orenaikusa - Iryo to fukushi no hazama de ikiru (Unbroken reeds - living in the gap between medical care and welfare" (Kyoto Shinbun ed. [2007]) and writer of ALS-D [2008] introduced in "Seishihon"), and he later wrote an article with the headline " Kansai Minamata disease lawsuit - decision in favor of the plaintiff. "The roots of the problem are deep, and the sadness will not go away". Aileen Smith seals photograph depicting the tragedy taken by her late husband".
"Six years have passed since Eugene Smith's "Tomoko bathing with her mother", a photograph which came to symbolize the tragedy of Minamata disease, was taken out of public circulation by Aileen Smith.
In 1971 Mr. and Mrs. Smith took a photograph of Kamimura Tomoko (上村智子) (then fifteen) and her mother Yoshiko (良子)(now seventy). The photo resulted from both parties thinking "I want to show the damage done by this disease". The photograph was printed in magazines and photography collections both in Japan and abroad and even used in textbooks, becoming a symbol of the dangers of pollution. A mother holds her naked daughter in the bath. Her ribs protrude and her arms and legs are stiff. The mother gazes fondly at her wide-eyed, open-mouthed daughter. Tomoko was born with severe Minamata disease, and at her coming of age ceremony she is dressed in a gorgeous kimono and held by her father. She passed away in 1977, the year after this ceremony was held.
Aileen decided to take the photo out of public circulation in 1998 when she heard Tomoko's father Yoshio say "I want my daughter to be allowed to rest".
Yoshio says quietly "the photograph has been used in so many places. It felt like part of an advertisement or pamphlet. Her naked body was painful to see. I was glad [when the picture was taken out of circulation] and felt like she had come home at last. Tomoko was a our "treasured child" who took away the poison from our whole family".
Thirty-three years have passed since the photograph was taken. Aileen, who now lives in Kyoto, says "from now on the story of Minamata can be told through the fact that "there are pictures which cannot be looked at". The long years required to reach this turning point show the depth of the roots of the problems created by Minamata disease. Even after the ruling of the Supreme Court the sadness has not disappeared.""(Kyoto Shinbun October 16th 2004 evening edition).
In a different book Harada writes the following:
At Minamata high school a social studies teacher showed his class Eugene's photograph of Tomoko and explained that "when the environment is polluted children like this are born". Tomoko's younger sister was in the class at the time. Raising her hand she tearfully objected to the teacher's words, saying "that is my sister. Please don't talk that way about my sister". The teacher has admitted that this incident made him think deeply about education, reflect on his own approach and come to more seriously address disability, discrimination and human rights.
In an exaggerated piece of mass-media journalism, after returning from negotiations in Tokyo Tomoko's mother, while carrying her daughter in her arms, says very brightly "most Japanese people who see this child say that we really must be careful not to pollute the environment. I think they realize that scary things can happen if we do. If this means that Japan's environment becomes even a little bit cleaner, and high ranking people in companies, factories and governments become even a little bit more careful, then even a child like this contribute to making the world a better place. I'm glad we went to Tokyo. This child is indeed a treasure". There is no such thing as a "life which ought to live" or "a life which is not worthy of living".
The things these words of a mother cause us to think about, particularly the value of life and the foundation of medicine, welfare and education, are the real message from Minamata". (Harada [2007:350]).
Read normally this passage of Harada's may seem to contain some inconsistencies. So how are we to think about the issues raised? Should we add more words [to flesh out this account]? Continuing to think about these sorts of questions may be one thing we can do. " (Tateiwa [2008:227-230])
