“Under Japan's National Eugenics Law of 1940, sterilization decisions were often made by medical professionals and government officials rather than by the individuals themselves.”

The report states that under the law, a physician could apply for sterilization. It also explains that the procedure required review by the prefectural Eugenic Protection Committee and, once approved, sterilization could be carried out by a designated physician. This shows the decision process was handled by medical and administrative authorities rather than by the person concerned.

This parliamentary history document says that the old Eugenic Protection Law was created from the wartime National Eugenics Law. It is relevant because it documents the legal framework in which sterilization decisions were made through institutional procedures, not by individual consent alone.

In response to these opinions, the government enacted the “National Eugenic Act” (1940). The National Eugenic Act is, in brief, the Sterilization Act. Social Darwinism was behind the enactment of this law. A radical logic claims that the birth of humans with recessive factors should be fundamentally blocked prior to the stage of fertilization to prevent elements harmful to society.

The article explains that, under the National Eugenics Law, a doctor, director of a care facility, or prison warden could apply to the Hereditary Health Court for a sterilization order, and that the court’s decision had binding force. It also notes that Japan later adopted a similar framework in the National Eugenics Law and the Eugenic Protection Law, where sterilization could be carried out without the person’s will.

Leading up to World War II, the Japanese government used eugenic ideas to promote legal sterilization and elimination of those who were judged to be inferior. In 1940, the Imperial Japanese Parliament enacted a National Eugenic Act in the cabinet of Prime Minister Konoe, targeting persons with intellectual and genetic disabilities. According to Yoko Matsubara, 454 people were sterilized in the five years from 1940 to 1945 (Matsubara, 1998).

The paper describes the legislative intent as including population policy and notes that the law aimed to regulate sterilization and abortion through official procedures. It is relevant background showing sterilization was embedded in state policy and administered through public institutions.

In 1940, Japan followed the example of Nazi Germany by passing its own National Eugenic Law. The law permitted forced sterilizations “in the public interest” in the case of people with hereditary mental disabilities and other genetic conditions. But the importance traditionally given to the family in Japan meant that there was widespread resistance to the idea of sterilization, which would cut off the family line. And with the wartime government actively encouraging couples to have more children, the National Eugenic Law was never implemented in more than a haphazard, half-hearted fashion.

In 1940, during the war, the National Eugenical Act was enacted in Japan, which allowed sterilization of “those with a predisposition to a malignant genetic disorder” and restricted abortion for “those with a healthy disposition.” Nonetheless, forced sterilization was not performed because the war could not be won without increasing the population first. This law existed until 1948, and the Eugenic Protection Act was newly enacted primarily in response to the population problem after the war.

The National Eugenic Law of 1940, modeled in part on German legislation, empowered doctors and local eugenics councils to order sterilizations of people deemed to have hereditary mental illnesses. While some operations were nominally voluntary, many were effectively compulsory and carried out without genuine consent from the people involved. Decision-making rested with medical and administrative authorities, not with the individuals themselves.

Japan’s eugenics policy began with the National Eugenic Law of 1940, which allowed compulsory sterilization of people with certain hereditary conditions. Doctors applied to local authorities to perform the procedures, and the decisions were made by eugenics review boards composed of medical experts and officials. The people targeted had little say in the outcome, especially in cases labeled as hereditary mental illness.

The article states that the wartime National Eugenics Law had already begun Japan’s eugenic policy and that, under the old Eugenic Protection Law, doctors could apply to the prefectural Eugenic Protection Review Board and sterilization could proceed after approval. It also says the person’s consent was not required in those cases.

• Hisomu Nagai (University of Tokyo) and others established “the Eugenic Marriage Popularization Society” (aimed to strengthen the blood of the Yamato Race) → Submission of “National Eugenic Protection Bill” → enactment of the National Eugenic Act in 1940. … Summary of the Eugenic Protection Act 1. In the interests of the prevention of specified diseases and maternal protection, in case of a certified disease, a medical practitioner can perform eugenic surgery with the consent of the mother herself and her spouse. 2. If the prefectural eugenic protection board or central eugenic protection board deemed it appropriate to…

Background knowledge: the 1940 National Eugenics Law allowed sterilization for people with hereditary conditions through an official application-and-review process involving physicians and administrative bodies. In practice, later wartime and postwar eugenics laws more clearly expanded coercive sterilization, but the 1940 framework itself was not based on the individual's autonomous decision alone.

The Eugenic Protection Law, which replaced the National Eugenic Law in 1948, provided for both voluntary and involuntary eugenic operations. Under this law, physicians could apply to prefectural eugenic protection councils for permission to perform sterilization on persons with certain mental or hereditary conditions, and the councils had authority to approve the operation even without the subject’s consent.