Education board member calls for more prenatal screening to reduce ‘burden’ of disabled children

by

Staff Writer

A newly appointed Ibaraki education board member has sparked online outrage after suggesting the prefecture back more prenatal screening to reduce the “burden” on parents of having a disabled child.

Speaking at an education policy meeting Wednesday, Chieko Hasegawa, the 71-year-old vice president of Tokyo-based Gallery Nichido, said that the prefecture should set up a system to enable pregnant women to find out whether their unborn babies have any disabilities.

“We need to drastically change our way of thinking. It’s best if technology can help us know whether our kids are disabled beforehand,” she said, according to a media report confirmed by the board to The Japan Times.

“Once they’re born, it’s a huge burden.”

She then expressed what many took as her hopes that Ibaraki will undertake a policy to “reduce” the number of such children.

Hasegawa’s remark came as she recounted her recent experience inspecting special schools in the prefecture that catered to the needs of children with disabilities.

She told The Japan Times on Thursday that during the trip she learned of a recent spike in enrollments of such children and a severe shortage of facilities to accommodate them.

At the Wednesday meeting, she said the vast number of teachers needed to work at these schools would translate into “massive budgets.”

However, on Thursday she said her remark was misunderstood.

“I was merely pointing out (that) running more screening tests during the early stage of pregnancy will give mothers more choices,” she said.

“What should be reduced is not the number of disabled children, but parents who feel burdened” by the decision to have the child, she continued.

Her comment, however, sparked widespread online ire, with some going so far as to say it amounted to an open endorsement of eugenics.

Author and sports journalist Hirotada Ototake, who was born without arms and legs, tweeted Thursday: “Hey Ms. Hasegawa. So do you mean I shouldn’t have been born?”

, , , ,

  • Firas Kraïem

    This make too much sense for some people to process, hence the nonsensical self-righteous outrage from people who for the most part do not have disabilities themselves.

    • Paul Johnny Lynn

      It would’ve made sense to the Nazis if they’d had the technology.

      • Ignatius

        They had the technology to do that, and they applied it. They killed jews, gays, comunists, people in asylums, disabled… And made sterile to a lot of of people in those groups.

      • Paul Johnny Lynn

        The Nazis didn’t have the technology to determine if an unborn child was deformed, only once they were born and it was clear.

      • Ignatius

        I think I am made a mistake. I thought you wer talking about eugenetics in general, not just about unborn babies. I wonder why I did that… My bad.

        Anyway.

        It’s true the nazis had not the technology to see if an unborn baby had disabilities or anything wrong (you don’t need to be deformed to have a disability), so you are right there. But they made sure no one inside forementioned groups could have babies. And that’s eugenetics too…

        They tried to prevent what they considered a burden for their society.

      • Paul Johnny Lynn

        Indeed, though the correct word is eugenics, not eugenetics.

      • Paul Johnny Lynn

        Indeed, though the correct word is eugenics, not eugenetics.

      • Ignatius

        I amended it in all my posts. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • Paul Johnny Lynn

        Indeed, though the correct word is eugenics, not eugenetics.

      • Paul Johnny Lynn

        Indeed, though the correct word is eugenics, not eugenetics.

      • Ignatius

        They had the technology to do that, and they applied it. They killed jews, gays, comunists, people in asylums, disabled… And made sterile to a lot of of people in those groups.

      • Ignatius

        They had the technology to do that, and they applied it. They killed jews, gays, comunists, people in asylums, disabled… And made sterile to a lot of of people in those groups.

      • Ignatius

        They had the technology to do that, and they applied it. They killed jews, gays, comunists, people in asylums, disabled… And made sterile to a lot of of people in those groups.

    • Paul Johnny Lynn

      It would’ve made sense to the Nazis if they’d had the technology.

    • Buck

      I get the feeling a lot of these commenters are hypocrites. I assume most are all pro abortion, women’s right to choose,
      but suddenly against it when it comes to things like this. Either you support a women’s reproductive rights or you don`t. Imagine a single mother contemplating going through with pregnancy, deciding the costs and if she can manage. The more information available to her to make her decision the better.

      • R0ninX3ph

        I totally agree that it would be hypocritical to suggest that aborting a child because of a financial burden on a family if the child has a disability is bad, but supporting abortion otherwise.

        But that isn’t the implication by Hasegawa, her suggestion is about not letting any children be born with disabilities so they aren’t a burden… on society.

        It isn’t about the financial burden on a family, but the “burden” of society having to deal with children with special needs and schooling.

      • Buck

        If Hasegawa is arguing that all women
        should be forced to have an abortion for all disabled children, then I agree with you. However, implying it is a burden on society,　is not problematic. The family is the basic building block of society, with the choice of having an abortion or not falling into the women’s hands. Women should be given the opportunity to determine before hand with more information made easily available. But if in fact Hasegawa is suggesting forced abortions,
        I totally disagree with that opinion.

      • R0ninX3ph

        I agree that the choice should be entirely in the mothers hands, and as you say, if testing is just to give the mother the most information possible to make an informed decision, then great.

        However, as she was talking about special needs education I have to imagine it wasn’t what she was suggesting.

  • Ignatius

    Well I should be thankful for being a spaniard one-eyed man. In my country some people may give me weird glances or looks. But I’m fortunately not considered as a “burden”.
    I do think parents should be given the choice.

    But this lady said something really close to eugenetics in her first comment.

    If I were to be japanese, should had I to apologize for living my life to Chieko Hasegawa?

    • midnightbrewer

      What she said was that expecting parents should be made aware ahead of time and given a choice and options. Not all disabilities are created equal.

      • Ignatius

        That’s what she said when she had to reword it. But the first thing she said implied that to have a kid with this kinds of problems is bad for the country.

  • Joel Tucci

    Maybe Japan should actually, oh I don’t know, PAY for prenatal care. Currently it’s not covered under most insurance(including national insurance) because being pregnant isn’t a “sickness”. And they wonder why people aren’t having kids.

    • Ignatius

      That do help to understand the situation, sir.

  • CLJF

    Like so many, she has to verbally tip-toe around the fact that she is talking about killing, terminating life by refusing to utter these words, masking them under “choice”. It may be a choice, but it is a choice to kill. Close to eugenics? No, that’s exactly what’s she’s advocating, and then where to we stop? If someone has bad eyesight? Has crooked teeth? Scary.

    • 151E

      Not that you are necessarily one, but I find many of the “pro-life” crowd strangely quiet when it comes to helping the poor or homeless, whose lives they value so dearly (and vocally), but seemingly only until birth.

      • CLJF

        In my experience, pro-life people are very interested and active in providing practical assistance on the ground to poor communities in general. They may not be so vocal about it, they just go out and get it done.

  • Toolonggone

    This BOE member’s backward thinking reminds us that medical and reproduction technology can become a weapon for the practice of discrimination based on genetic determinism. Obviously, she doesn’t really understand the chief objective of pre-natal care in the first place–which is to prevent the risk of birth-defect. It makes my spine chilling if I would see some med staff holding this kind of attitude.