◆2nd Oral Argument April 20, 2021

1. Situation of the trial on the day

The second oral argument in the case with Tokio Ito as the plaintiff was held at the Tokyo District Court on April 20, 2021. Members of the Mental Health Research Institute gathered at 10 o'clock in the lobby of the district court. This time, it was held in courtroom 103, which can accommodate 50 people in the audience seats, and there was no lottery for audience seats. There were 32 people in attendance, as the state of emergency was about to be declared in Tokyo due to the spread of the new coronavirus infection.

The trial was an administrative one, confirming the preliminary documents submitted by the defendant country and adjusting the next date. The defense team made a statement requesting an explanation from the government regarding the ``odds and dangers of medical protection hospitalization (hospitalization with consent),'' but to the untrained eye it was unclear what was going on, and the trial ended within about 5 minutes of the opening. it's over.

After the court closed, the group walked through the government district of Kasumigaseki and headed to a rental conference room in Nishi-Shinbashi. The debriefing session was held with a total of 49 participants, with 29 members in the conference room and 20 members connecting online via Zoom.

2. Contents of the defendant country's preliminary documents

At the debriefing session, Attorney Hasegawa explained the preliminary document (1) submitted by the defendant country to the court. This document was a document indicating whether the defendant acknowledged or disapproved of the facts stated in the complaint submitted by the plaintiff.

Generally, in a trial, one of the following three stances must be made regarding each other's claims.

・“Accept” → The assertion is not disputed as fact.

・“I don’t know” → I don’t know the claim as a fact.

・“Denial” → The claim is different from the facts and is disputed.

In this document, the government acknowledged the existence of objective legal content, notices, and recommendations regarding the content of the plaintiff's complaint, but generally showed an attitude of "ignorance" or "denial." The lawsuit also shows a stance of contesting the fact that ``the plaintiff spent time in a psychiatric hospital against his will without receiving adequate discharge support,'' stating not only ``ignorance'' but also ``denial.'' Furthermore, the defendant country has requested that the plaintiff clarify the specific details of the omission alleged by the plaintiff and the legal basis for creating the obligation to act.

In other words, although the government is showing a stance of fighting the case fully, it is not actively asserting the legitimacy of its mental health policy at this point, and is instead asking the plaintiffs to prove their claims.

3. Q&A/opinion exchange

After receiving the report and explanation from the lawyer, and taking questions from participants in the venue and via Zoom connection, as well as the press, Mr. Hasegawa provided an explanation. Here, I will write down only the main points of the questions posed that day and the content of the exchange of opinions, from Furuya's notes.

・There are several types of hospitalization, but I would like to know the basis for the doctor's decision to admit the patient in the case of compulsory hospitalization, as I am not sure.

- Decisions on hospitalization for medical protection are said to be based on the ``need for medical care and protection,'' but the definition of ``protection'' is vague and there is no written document.

・As for whether the Psychiatric Review Board is functioning, it is largely a mere document review.

・When a request for discharge is made, the Psychiatric Medical Review Board comes to the hospital where the patient is admitted to investigate, but the current situation is that it almost never leads to discharge.

・How will items that the government claims are "unknown" be handled in the future?

- ``I don't know'' means I don't know, so I ask the plaintiff who sued to provide a detailed explanation.

・Will the plaintiff be able to argue that the situation of medically protected hospitalization should have been changed but was left unconstitutional due to inaction?

・What is the government's claim that it is ``ignorant'' that Mr. Ito was originally able to be discharged from the hospital, but ended up being hospitalized for a long time without receiving sufficient discharge support?

・The government was expected to claim that it did not know about Ms. Ito's background, but it has also shown a stance of contesting the matter by denying it.

- Even after looking at the medical records, does the government deny Mr. Ito's "social hospitalization"?

・It is unclear whether the government is considering the fact that he is in a state of social hospitalization as "unknown."

・In the defendant's seat are four people who are in charge of litigation at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare and the Ministry of Justice. Officials from the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare were also present in the audience.

・I think this trial will be quite long.

・The progress of the trial will depend on how much concrete arguments and evidence the defense team can present.

・At the next date, the plaintiff will present concrete claims and evidence to the defendant, who is demanding more specific clarification.

・Is it true that the country is taking an ``all-out fighting stance''?

・This time, we have presented in writing the content of the explanation given at the previous date. An attitude of fighting based on ``ignorance'' and ``denial.''

・We will continue to seek an explanation for the violation of the constitution.

・Many people are hospitalized for long periods of time because their families are unable to support them after they are discharged from the hospital.

・In the first place, there are major problems with the system for medically protected hospitalization. The structure in which families defending their rights consent to forced hospitalization creates a conflict of interest with patients. Medical protection hospitalization will be one of the main issues in this trial.

・Are inpatients properly informed that they can apply for discharge to the Psychiatric Medical Examination Board?

・It is not even known that such a system for requesting discharge from hospital exists. This should originally be communicated to patients, but it is unclear whether this is actually done.

・There is a possibility that the issue in this trial is whether the government is thoroughly providing guidance and supervision to ensure that patients are aware of their obligation to do so.

・Although the Psychiatric Review Board exists as a system, it hardly functions to protect the rights of patients.

・How is the necessity of hospitalization determined?

- Lawyers should be cautious about the necessity of hospitalization, but what is the current situation? Medical workers tend to be involved in a protective manner, taking into account the situation in the patient's area.

・According to the current law, ``two or more'' of the five members of the review committee must be designated mental health physicians, but as before the revision, in some local governments the majority of physicians are three, which is used in a protective manner. There is a reality.

・It is also necessary to consider specific figures such as the status of the examination committee.

・It is difficult to file a complaint alone if there is no one to follow up on your request for discharge.

- Mechanisms for lawyers and others to be involved in the defense of rights are insufficient.

・There are many long-term hospitalized patients who are reluctant to leave the hospital even if they want to because they are causing trouble for everyone, and swallow their words.

- In France, the judiciary is always involved when a patient is hospitalized, with a judge meeting directly with the patient to determine whether hospitalization is appropriate. The same applies to hospitalization.

・In many Western countries, the judiciary is involved in making decisions when a patient is hospitalized against his or her will.

・The "protection" part in the case of medical protection hospitalization is easily expanded and used as a requirement for hospitalization in Japan.

・After seeing the coverage of this trial, a patient who had been hospitalized at Futaba Hospital came forward to testify about Mr. Ito's condition at the time and the reality of his life at Futaba Hospital.

4. in conclusion

The defendant country has shown a stance of ``ignorance'' or ``denial'' of the content of the lawsuit, fully contesting the lawsuit. The preliminary document presented by the government is extremely businesslike and concise, and does not provide any details as to the reason for the "unknown" or "denial."

The next court date has been set for June 29th (Tuesday) at 11am. It will be the same as this time, Courtroom 103 of the Tokyo District Court. Up to 50 people can be seated in the auditorium, but the doors will be opened a few minutes before the court starts on a first-come, first-served basis. There will be no lottery for tickets.

In response to the defendant country's explanations of "unknown" and "denial," the plaintiff's legal team will develop a counterargument based on the content of the complaint. The actual trial is about to begin. The situation with the new coronavirus at that time is unclear, but if you can make the time, please join us. We would like to meet at the lobby of the Tokyo District Court at least 30 minutes before the meeting.

The one-coin campaign at the debriefing venue was 7,146 yen. Thank you for your cooperation. Securing a venue in the city center is expensive. Thank you for your continued support.

Quote source

Ryuta Furuya, “Defendant country's attitude to fight full-throttle with ignorance/denial - report on second oral argument”, Shinkokubai Tsushin, No. 15; 1-3, published May 2021

◆ 1st oral argument March 1 , 2021 _

We would like to report on the first oral argument held on Monday, March 1, 2021.

Thank you to everyone who rushed to the Tokyo District Court on the day of the hearing and gathered before 9 a.m. After a brief meeting in the lobby of the district court, they went outside, took a commemorative photo in front of the court, and then marched down the sidewalk with banners in hand. Members of the press also rushed to the scene, filming the event with numerous cameras and videos.

I had hoped that 20 to 30 people would come to the trial, but by the time the audience seats were drawn 20 minutes before the trial, over 50 people had come. Thank you to everyone who won the lottery and gave away their tickets. Thanks to you, I was able to witness the start of the historic trial, although it was a small courtroom No. 611.

[Status of trial]

The first trial itself ended with the same formal exchanges that take place in a normal trial. In response to the complaint filed by the plaintiff, the defendant state had already submitted a written response stating that it would fight for the dismissal of the claim, but it was a short answer stating that ``the reasons will be disclosed later.'' . In court, a representative for the defendant country pointed out that ``the basis of the obligation to act is unclear from the complaint,'' but during an exchange with the presiding judge, the defendant country first clarified its counterargument. After that, the plaintiff side decided to specifically allege the obligation to act, etc. Based on these exchanges, the next court date was set for April 20th, and the defendant country had until April 13th, one week before that date, to submit its rebuttal.

Afterwards, the presiding judge asked, ``Plaintiff, state your opinion,'' and Ms. Ito, the plaintiff, stood up and read out the document she had prepared. Ms. Ito seemed quite nervous, but she began by reading a poem she had written, and then talked about her thoughts while in the hospital, how not only herself but also her friends had committed suicide, and how she wanted to help those who were still in the hospital. , Ms. Ito expressed her stance and clear intentions in this trial. The well-spoken words of the opinion statement filled with thoughts touched the hearts of those listening, and they could not stop their eyes from heating up in the audience seats.

Afterwards, Mr. Hasegawa, the lawyer representing the defendant, stated his opinion that the plaintiff was not alone in his experience, that the reality of Japan's mental health care is that there are still tens of thousands of people in the same situation, and that the country is not treating basic human rights. He stated that he would hold the government accountable for neglecting the violations that have been committed, through the complaint of the plaintiff, who is one of the victims of this country's policies.

[Court report session]

After the court closed, members and supporters who had been waiting in the lobby moved to the adjacent Bar Association Building. We held a debriefing session in conference room 508, which was secured by Attorney Sato, and as expected, more than 50 people attended, and the room was full with some standing.

There were 20 people who accessed the Zoom broadcast of the debriefing session. Including those who left before the debriefing session and those who rushed to the debriefing session afterwards, approximately 80 people participated in the first oral argument and debriefing session. . We would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone for their heartfelt participation.

At the debriefing session, there was a little time until the preview time for the Zoom broadcast, so at the suggestion of vice president Mr. Sugiyama, we started with the participants introducing themselves in a few words, just like in the monthly meeting. One participant said, ``I want to be a plaintiff too,'' which drew applause.

Afterwards, for those who were unable to enter the courtroom, Mr. Ito read out his statement of opinion once again, and attorney Hasegawa also read out his statement of opinion on his behalf.

This was followed by a question and answer session from the participants. Below is only the gist of the question.

・This is the first lawsuit, but are there any plans for a second or third? Which one?

・Is it because it was a psychiatric hospital in Fukushima Prefecture? Are there disparities between prefectures?

・It seems that the homepage has stopped being updated, but don't you think there is a need to disseminate more information on the internet?

・How are court costs covered?

・As mentioned in the opening question of the defendant country, on what basis is it seeking an explanation regarding the legislative inaction or the administrative obligation to act?

・Will witnesses be brought forward in future trials, although it will depend on the type of issue at issue?

・Mr. Ito, the plaintiff, how did you feel after standing in court again?

・How do you view the fact that there are 2nd and 3rd plaintiff candidates?

・Why not raise a one-coin donation here?

・Isn't the fact that the Psychiatric Review Board is not functioning being a bottleneck?

・Do judges never change?

After briefly answering each question, the lawyers who made up the defense team gave greetings and expressed their beliefs. We also received another introduction to the crowdfunding CALL4.

At the end, Deputy Representative Sugiyama and Representative Higashitani gave greetings, and the plaintiff, Mr. Ito, said, ``Thank you for coming from a far away place today.I would like to continue to fight for the people living in institutional care.'' However, I hope that you will support me.Thank you for your support,'' he said, closing the meeting.

The next court date is April 20th (Tuesday) at 11:00 a.m. However, the court has contacted lawyers and, based on the number of people wishing to attend, the courtroom has been changed to the larger courtroom No. 103. We would like to inform you that up to 50 people will be allowed in the court this time.

We would also like to inform you that we received a donation of 16,538 yen for the ``One Coin Campaign'' proposed by the participants at the debriefing session.

We know it will be a long road ahead, but we appreciate your continued support. We would also appreciate it if you would please spread the word to those who are interested in this trial to join us and support us.

Quote source

Ryuta Furuya, “Details of the 1st Oral Argument in the Shinkokokubai Litigation (First Filing),” Shinkokubai Tsushin, No. 14; 1-3, published March 2021

○Date and time: Wednesday, September 30, 2020, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

○Place: Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare Press Club

○ Sponsored by: Psychiatric National Compensation Litigation Study Group

○Speakers:

Plaintiff Tokio Ito

Attorney in charge: Keisuke Hasegawa

Attorney in charge Akiko Sato

Representative Yukimasa Higashitani

Vice Representative Eriko Sugiyama

Executive Director Ryuta Furuya (Proceeding)

○th

1) Opening speech by Representative Higashitani

2) Greetings from the plaintiff: Mr. Tokio Ito

3) Lawsuit report Attorney Hasegawa + Attorney Sato

4) Q&A with reporters

5) Explanation of future campaign policy Vice Representative Sugiyama

6) Closing

7) Individual interviews/Q&A

1. In place of the opening speech, Yukimasa Higashitani, representative of the Institute for Mental Health Research

I have worked in the field of mental health and welfare for 35 years, and I have seen many people suffering from extremely severe mental health care, as well as families suffering from severe discrimination and prejudice, as well as financial burdens. Too many people are suffering.

Alexievich, a writer who won the Nobel Prize in Literature, wrote, ``War has no female face,'' and I have felt the same way in the world of mental health and welfare in Japan. "Japanese mental health care does not have a human face."

20% of the world's psychiatric beds are located in Japan. There are far too many patients hospitalized for extremely long periods of time, which is unprecedented in the world. Although the government was aware of this situation, it has continued to ignore the situation without offering any solutions. There is also a special case for psychiatry, which allows the department to have far fewer staff members than other clinical departments. Most of the psychiatric beds in our country are in private hospitals, which are dominated by profit-making. There is an abnormal world in mental health care in this country, where inhumane practices such as locking up patients and depriving them of their lives for profit are commonplace.

I have watched the current state of mental health care in Japan with anger and sadness. For this reason, we established this study group in January 2013. The purpose, of course, is to file a lawsuit for compensation from the state, but for this purpose we have conducted research and collected materials, including the history of mental health care in Japan, comparisons with international standards, and understanding of the current situation.

I am carrying the earnest feelings of many people involved, their families, and those involved in mental health and welfare. There was some hesitation about the idea of inviting plaintiffs publicly and holding a trial, but many victims of mental health care in their lives responded to our call. All of you are the people who stood up for us, not for personal gain, but to prevent any more people from becoming victims of psychiatric treatment. Together with all of you, we hope that through the trials, the people will learn about the reality of mental health care in our country and that we can change it.

This is a trial that we must win, but we do not know the outcome. However, regardless of the outcome, I hope that this court battle will serve as an opportunity to change the current situation of Japan's pathetic mental health care. Japan's psychiatric care, which had not changed despite recommendations for improvement and resolutions of condemnation from the United Nations, recommendations for improvement from the WHO, and recommendations from the ICJ (International Commission of Jurists), has changed, and people with mental disorders are now being treated in the local community. I hope to contribute to moving closer to a society where people can live in harmony.

2. Greetings from the Plaintiff (Summary) Plaintiff Tokio Ito

I have been hospitalized in a hospital in Fukushima for 39 years. The effort it took to get discharged from the hospital was no mean feat. I think it was a good thing that I was determined not to give up.

I have seen many patients suffering from institutional disease. I have seen patients (patients) who had been trying to get out of the hospital but couldn't bear it anymore and committed suicide. Some committed suicide by jumping onto the railroad tracks. There are still many patients with institutional disease. I felt sorry for them, and when I thought about what I could do, I decided to appeal to the government.

The reason why people stay in the hospital all the time is because they think that the hospital is good for long-term hospitalization, and they start to think that there is nothing they can do even after they are discharged. I also suffered from institutional illness at the hospital in Fukushima. I didn't have a driver's license, I couldn't have a social life, and I had given up, thinking there was nothing I could do.

The Great East Japan Earthquake occurred, the hospital was closed, the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant exploded, and the area was also a radioactive area, so I was transferred to another hospital. The last hospital I was transferred to was Ibaraki, where I was able to be discharged after a year and a half. There was no talk of him being discharged from the Fukushima hospital. I think I couldn't leave the hospital because the emphasis was on management.

My reason for filing a lawsuit is to eliminate people suffering from institutional disease. The reason I want to appeal to the government is because there are too many hospitals that are creating institutional disease, and I want them to eliminate institutional disease.

3． Keisuke Hasegawa, lawyer in charge of the complaint summary

Today, we filed a lawsuit with the Tokyo District Court demanding national compensation, alleging the illegality of our mental health policy. I would like to explain the outline as follows.

Summary of this trial

In this case, the plaintiff, who suffered from schizophrenia and was forced to stay in a psychiatric hospital for approximately 40 years, seeks damages from the state as the defendant.

This case is similar to the lawsuit against the unconstitutionality of the Leprosy Prevention Act (Hansen's disease) in the sense that the state seeks compensation for its isolation and detention policy, but the issue of mental health care is more complex. Regarding the Leprosy Prevention Act, the issues at issue in the court were both the illegality due to legislative inaction and the illegality of the policies of the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare, but this case is a trial that only questions the illegality of the policies of the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare or the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare. .

The specific details of the illegality of the policy being questioned in this trial are as follows.

First of all, Japan's mental health policy was as follows: (1) Based on the positioning of people with mental disorders as dangerous to society, consensual hospitalization (currently known as medical protection hospitalization) was stipulated, and the Mental Health Act was enacted. (2) So-called psychiatry, which entrusts people with mental disorders to private hospitals with the premise of long-term incarceration, makes it easier to establish private hospitals, and allows fewer doctors and nurses than general hospitals. (3) Although Western countries have specifically considered the transition from inpatient medical care to community medical care and community welfare and have changed their policies, Japan has changed its medical policy, at least in relation to the time of the plaintiff's hospitalization. (4) Despite the fact that it is compulsory hospitalization, the substantive requirements for consensual hospitalization under the Mental Health Act are extremely vague, and the examination procedures are insufficient. 5.Despite the prejudice on the part of the local community formed by the above structure, families have been positioned as those who have consented to forced hospitalization, and families have continued to be burdened with the dilemma of protecting their own human rights. It is assumed that the justification for long-term hospitalization is that the patient's family had no choice but to request continued hospitalization. Article 13 of the Constitution, Article 14 of the Constitution, Article 22, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution, and Article 25 of the Constitution state that due to the resulting long-term hospitalization, we were deprived of the right to live in the community that we take for granted. In addition, the patient's long-term hospitalization without guaranteeing the right to due process was a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution.

It was clear at the time of the Clark Recommendation on May 30, 1961 that such a state of violation of the Constitution was occurring and that there was a need to rectify it. In December 1991, when Japan adopted the ``Principles for the Protection of People with Mental Health Care and the Improvement of Mental Health Care,'' the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare or the Minister of Health, Labor and Welfare implemented a shift from a policy of isolation and detention to community medical care. Despite recognizing the need to take effective discharge measures for long-term hospitalized patients, it is illegal under the National Liability Act to ignore this (policy change, effective discharge measures should be taken). It is argued that the omission to act even though there was a duty to act is illegal.

4. Q&A with reporters (summary)

■Freelance

- During your 40 years in Fukushima, you must have wanted to be discharged from the hospital, but have you ever done any work outside the hospital?

(Mr. Ito) I worked outside the hospital for one year at a poultry farm, then at a factory for one and a half years, then at an equipment company for one and a half years, and then returned to the poultry farm for 10 years. Even though I worked, there was no talk of being discharged from the hospital, so I went back to work. Work in the hospital was in the kitchen for 13 and 14 years.

■Shinano Mainichi Newspaper

-What do you think your life would have been like if you had been discharged from the hospital sooner?

(Mr. Ito) If I could have been discharged from the hospital, I would have gotten a girlfriend and gotten married. There's nothing you can do at the hospital, and the relationship between men and women is noisy. After being discharged from the hospital, I am free to go to karaoke. Having children was a dream.

■Kyodo News

- Was it voluntary hospitalization for Ms. Ito, given that she was admitted with consent?

(Lawyer Hasegawa) According to the records, he was admitted for medical protection until April 2003, and then voluntarily admitted.

-Then, it becomes clear that it is difficult for Mr. Ito's family to be discharged even after voluntary admission, but did Mr. Ito's family request to be discharged but were unable to do so, or were they unable to request that he be discharged?

(Mr. Ito) His father had no intention of letting him leave the hospital. According to his father, the hospital vaguely told him that they would let him leave the hospital if it was okay for everyone to see, so his father couldn't get him to leave the hospital.

- Mr. Ito seems to be able to lead a social life, but it is difficult for the general public to understand that he was unable to leave the hospital for 40 years.

(Lawyer Hasegawa) Ms. Ito has been suffering from ``facility syndrome'' repeatedly, but she did not realize that she did not want to be discharged from the hospital or that she had switched to voluntary hospitalization.

(Attorney Sato) I recognize that this is a problem in mental health care that is difficult for the general public to understand. The psychiatry ward (closed ward) is a closed space, and the doors are locked, so you cannot go outside. A small society is formed there. If you do that, you will end up with "institutional disease." It is far removed from our daily lives. No matter how hard Ito tried, the country that created this closed society did nothing to open it up. This is where we are suing the government, and since there are still many people suffering from institutional illness, we are appealing to the government as to what it should do.

(Mr. Ito) People who are on the verge of becoming institutionalized think that they can't do anything for themselves even after being discharged from the hospital. I didn't have the financial means to pay for the hospitalization, so I thought so too. However, one day, my doctor told me that he would make sure that I received a disability pension, and then the Great East Japan Earthquake occurred and I received compensation money, so I decided to leave the hospital because I had more financial leeway.

(Lawyer Hasegawa) It is cruel to ask Mr. Ito to give this answer. What seems obvious to me is not obvious to Ms. Ito, so I would be happy if people would think of this trial as a way to ask that question once again.

■Nishinihon Shimbun

- Isn't the necessity of medical protection hospitalization a point of contention?

(Attorney Hasegawa) There is no doubt that Ms. Ito has been in the state she is in (remission) for decades, so is there a need for her to be hospitalized? I want to ask. I think this will be argued in court. The government may argue that hospitalization is unavoidable because the hospital administrator made that decision. I think we will come to call it ``social hospitalization.''

■Toyo Keizai Online

- What was the situation like when the hospital was switched to voluntary hospitalization in 2003?

(Mr. Ito) I think he worked at a poultry farm. I worked because I wanted to get out of the hospital.

(Lawyer Hasegawa) As far as I can read from Mr. Ito's records, I think that after his father passed away, Mr. Ito had been working hard for his father, so it was a time when his life stopped. It is expected that the desire to be discharged from the hospital may have waned.

-Why was there no activity at the hospital?

(Mr. Ito) Before the Great East Japan Earthquake, I was asked to go to a group home, but I had developed facility disease and had no desire to leave the hospital.

- Please tell us the similarities and differences between this lawsuit and the Hansen's disease and forced sterilization trials.

(Attorney Hasegawa) Regarding Hansen's disease, it was easy to understand that even though it was clear according to the world standard that it was medically curable, it was a result of legislative inaction left unchecked by the government. On the other hand, although it is exactly the same in terms of isolation and detention, it is not easy to standardize what will happen after mental illness is cured. Since it is not easy to do so, it may be difficult to say that it is clearly illegal. However, if we look at multiple factors, we can see that prior to Hansen's disease, advice was given regarding psychiatric care, including the Clark Recommendation. In fact, I think they should have moved in the direction of opening up sooner.

(Lawyer Sato) The major commonality is that the state has assisted in the categorization of people with disabilities and the discrimination and prejudice against that category. Or perhaps they have actively done so to justify their isolation and detention. They have created discrimination and prejudice, and they also have in common that the state has abandoned its obligation to protect the fundamental human rights of each individual, and that they are not fulfilling the fundamental requirements. This also means that discrimination and prejudice still remain deep-rooted.

■Asahi Shimbun

-If there is anything like this that you would like to see in Japan in the future, please let me know.

(Representative Higashitani) In Vancouver, Canada, there are almost no long-term hospitalizations, only short-term hospitalizations. There is outreach. Japan has group homes, but they are a stereotype. I think Japan should also take advantage of the system for living in the community and allow people to be hospitalized for a short period of time.

(Lawyer Hasegawa) In the West, there is a perception that long-term hospitalization is a violation of human rights and therefore unacceptable. We allocate a budget to the region for what the region lacks or needs. I think that setting a budget for coordination is a trend in Japan.

■Bengoshi.com

-I would like to know the age of the long-term hospitalization period.

(Mr. Ito) From the latter half of 16 years old, early 17 years old, up to 61 years old, including once discharged from the hospital. The longest of these was in Fukushima for 39 years, and he has never been discharged from the hospital.

-You mentioned earlier that a patient committed suicide, but have you ever thought about suicide, Mr. Ito?

(Mr. Ito) Yes. I once jumped when I was hospitalized in a hospital in Tokyo.

―I think 40 years is a very long time, but the length of hospitalization

I would like you to tell me.

(Mr. Ito) There are people who have longer lives. There was a person who had been hospitalized for 46 years.

(Representative Higashitani) Data from 630 surveys (mental health and welfare materials) is available.

(Secretary Director Furuya) Once discharged (transferred), the period will be reset. There are still no statistics that reveal the true situation of long-term hospitalization patients.

■Nishinihon Shimbun

―Most psychiatric hospitals in Japan are private hospitals due to management issues.

(Representative Higashitani) Countries that provide community medical care are publicly managed. Japan is privately run and this will not change, so we have no choice but to rely on the power of the judiciary.

-What do you think about the system that requires a guardian (medical protection hospitalization)?

(Attorney Hasegawa) If we look at the relationship between psychiatric care and families, the system in which family members become consenting parties and assume responsibility should be changed. Some people involved in health and welfare administration seem to wonder why it is necessary to talk about this as a ``human right'' when a family member wants to be hospitalized. Families fear that the public will wonder why they are hiding a mentally ill person, and that if they are not hospitalized, they will have no place in their community. And if the family says (if they agree), the hospital will admit them. I think this is the structure that creates long-term hospitalization. Whether it has anything to do with the court case is another matter, but this also has to change.

Five. Future activity policy - Request to journalists Eriko Sugiyama, vice representative of the Institute of Spiritual Health and Welfare

The voices of the people I've met so far, such as, ``I shouldn't have been born?'' and ``I want to live outside the hospital, just for one day,'' are echoing in my head like a running light.

This lawsuit was made possible because Mr. Ito had the great courage to become the plaintiff. Ito's desire is to somehow help the many people who are still in the hospital, whose hopes of being discharged have been dashed over and over again, who have become hopeless and institutionalized, to live as freely and freely as he does. This is a lawsuit filed by Mr. We at Kokubiken feel the same way, and we are positioning this lawsuit as the first one, and plan to file lawsuits in various locations one after another. Therefore, we would like to request that people who have experienced being forced into such unjust forced hospitalization as victims of this country's mental health administrative system become candidates as plaintiffs. Also, as a witness in the trial, I was given the chance to see inside the hospital, which is shrouded in darkness, and where the general public cannot get a glimpse into what they thought and how they lived there. We would love to hear your testimonies from your experience.

Furthermore, under the current medical protection hospitalization system, not only the patient but also their family members are victims who are forced to give consent. There you can see the family crying, saying, ``I feel so sorry for this child, how much I would like to replace him if I could replace him.'' How many family bonds have been destroyed by this system? As a matter of national policy, we would like to pursue the possibility of filing a national compensation lawsuit with the family as the plaintiff in the future.

From October 1st, we will be opening the following telephone number for inquiries. We plan to recruit plaintiff candidates, witnesses, and supporters (new members and supporters). We ask that everyone understand how we are looking for these kinds of people and help us spread the word.

Inquiry counter Tel: 03-6260-9827 (10:00-20:00, rotating staff)

The Mental Health Research Institute is a very small voluntary organization. In order to create ``psychiatric care that anyone in this country can receive with peace of mind,'' we cannot do it alone. I think it is necessary to arouse public opinion. For this reason, I would like to request the efforts of members of the media to widely report on this matter, including the progress of the trial. Our organization, Shinkokokuikeken, actively responds to requests for interviews from reporters. Thank you.

I hope that with your help we can arouse public opinion and win this lawsuit.

(14 reporters in attendance/12 members of the Mental Health Research Institute)

Quote source

Ryuta Furuya “First lawsuit filed – Press conference details” Seishinkokubai Tsushin, No. 10; 1-7, published October 2020

In the psychiatric state redress proceedings, the plaintiff Tokio Ito made a statement at the first trial on March 1, 2021.

After the trial on April 20th and June 29th, the next trial will be on September 27th at 16:00 in the 103rd court on the 1st floor of the Tokyo District Court . Please participate in the hearing. It is the best encouragement to the plaintiff.

At the trial on June 29, the lawyers thoroughly pursued omission liability in the country's psychiatric policy to date.

In response, the state called for a three-month preparation period to prepare for a counterargument.

The Mental Health and Welfare Lawyers and the Mental Health and Welfare Subcommittee are working to collect evidence of national defects and omissions in the implementation of mental health policy, and with the support of constitutional scholars, to clarify the unconstitutionality of the Mental Health and Welfare Law. We are proceeding with the legal theory composition of.

This trial has the potential to fundamentally change the country's psychiatric policy.

Thank you for your continued support.

Yukimasa Higashiya

The psychiatric state redress lawsuit was filed in the Tokyo District Court on September 30, 2020, and the first oral argument was held on March 1, 2021. Plaintiff Tokio Ito and lawyer Keisuke Hasegawa made statements.

The second oral argument was held on April 20th. The national side clarified its opinion and basically expressed its stance of confrontation with the plaintiff side.

From now on, the third trial is scheduled for June 29th.

We are planning to make a thorough rebuttal of the dissenting opinion of the country. It will be the peak of the first half of this trial, so we ask for your cooperation in hearing and cloud funding.