A historical analysis of the policy on intractable diseases in Japan and its peculiarity
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemAutor
Mikami, KoichiEditorial
Universidad de Granada
Materia
Intractable Diseases Rare diseases Patient Support Groups SMON Japan
Fecha
2022-12-31Referencia bibliográfica
Mikami, K. (2022). A historical analysis of the policy on intractable diseases in Japan and its peculiarity. Dynamis, 42(2), 397–421. [https://doi.org/10.30827/dynamis.v42i2.27715]
Patrocinador
Supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) No. 18K00252Resumen
This article examines the history of the policy concerning a class of diseases called
intractable diseases in Japan with a particular focus on the roles of patient support groups in
firstly legitimizing the grouping of such diseases and then shaping the nature of the support
that the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare provided to the patients and their families
affected by them. The Ministry started its policy on intractable diseases in 1972, predating the
enactment of the 1983 Orphan Drug Act in the United States, which is known to be one of the
most important events for the international rare diseases community. This policy decision was
triggered by the emergence of subacute myelo-optic neuropathy (SMON) as a social problem in
the country in the late 1960s. The Ministry first made its support available to patients with this
particular disease and, as a result of a series of actions from patient support groups and their
medical and political supporters, the same support was made available to those considered to
be in similarly difficult circumstances. The way in which the support was arranged, however,
turned out to be structurally divisive, inviting the patient groups to negotiate with the national
and local governments separately depending on subject matters, and for about three decades
since the start of the policy, they struggled to present their unified voice in the country. The
governmental support for intractable diseases was finally revised in the mid-2000s, but as
this article demonstrates, that became possible only after the patient groups came to realize
the need of presenting a unified voice in their effort to improve the lives of those affected.