The Judicial Review about the Legitimacy of Norms of Compulsory Administration According to the Act of Medical Observation in Japan
The treated in this case was insane and feebleminded and must be sent to compulsory admission according to Act of Medical Observation. The plaintiff complained that there was no legitimacy to the purpose, regulations and the elements of treatments in this disputed norm which was against the Act 14, 22 section 1 and 31 in Constitution. The supreme court confirmed that Act of Medical Observation was aimed to make sure that anyone who was insane and could injure others could have continuous and proper medical treatments. It would be legitimate with this kind of purpose. It would be necessary and reasonable that the court makes decisions about admission, appointments or non-treatments to improve the mental disorders, and to avoid any possibility of injuries. Furthermore, there have been many rights as norms in the procedure of judgment in Act of Medical Observation, such as the right to express opinions, the right to submit materials, the right to read records and evidence, the right to appeal, the right to apply discharge from hospital and the right to terminate medical treatments, etc. The guarantee of the procedure would be sufficient consequently.