- 14 Mar 2002
- 21,050
- 18,904
A few weeks ago, we posted a heartbreaking NHK documentary that deals with the fate of hikikomori, or social recluses, left without care and welfare once their parents are hospitalised or pass away.
jref.com
I didn't know that there are companies specialising in forcibly extracting hikikomori from their homes to help them end their lives as recluses. In one such case, a company called Clear Answer forcibly removed a man in his 30s who had never/ worked after graduation from university and lived with his parents, confining himself to his room. Doctors later diagnosed him with acute and transient psychotic disorders, saying he needed hospitalisation for medical care and protection. He was kept in a hospital in Tokyo's Adachi Ward for 50 days. A court has now awarded him 3.08 million JPY (USD 22,070) in damages.
NHK Video: Hikikomori in an Aging Japan
This haunting video is part of NHK's On Demand series: it describes the fate of hikikomori who depend on their ageing parents and are left without support once their parents die or are moved into a care facility. The video looks at the cases of two recluses, who died at the age of 49 and 56 and...
I didn't know that there are companies specialising in forcibly extracting hikikomori from their homes to help them end their lives as recluses. In one such case, a company called Clear Answer forcibly removed a man in his 30s who had never/ worked after graduation from university and lived with his parents, confining himself to his room. Doctors later diagnosed him with acute and transient psychotic disorders, saying he needed hospitalisation for medical care and protection. He was kept in a hospital in Tokyo's Adachi Ward for 50 days. A court has now awarded him 3.08 million JPY (USD 22,070) in damages.
For three days during his hospitalization, the man was physically restrained and forced to wear diapers. The court declared his hospitalization was illegal based on the man's electronic medical records, which showed the doctor who saw him was not a "designated physician of mental health." Only doctors who are qualified as such are allowed to decide whether a patient needs "hospitalization for medical care and protection." The ruling also determined there was no evidence the man was suffering from mental disorders when he saw the doctors. Lawyers for the hospital operator argued in the trial that doctors determined the man was in a state of "morbid excitement" when he arrived. But the ruling discounted this argument on grounds there was nothing in man's medical records to show he was in such a state. "Even if he was in a state of excitement, it is not hard to believe that the man was surprised at being taken to a psychiatric hospital without any explanation," the ruling stated. In addition to declaring his hospitalization unlawful, the court deemed that restraining him physically was illegal.