Cancer in Japan

Abstract

The following brief and imperfect statement is based chiefly upon the official statistics of which it is an exposition and slight expansion. the material available for such an enquiry in this country is somewhat limited, but in view of the importance attached to the subject, particularly that aspect of it relating to the increase of this dread disease, the writer has collected available information and has sought to give it intelligible form.

Returns of cancer have been embodied in the vital statistics of Japan, since 1899 without, however, differentiating the type of neoplism or seat of that disease. A periodical publication, entitled "Gan" (Cancer) edit ed by Dr. Yamagiwa, gives some interesting information regarding the frequency of localisation in hospital cases, but such figures are not necessarily miniatures of the wider ravages of cancer. They are, however, the only ones available with regard to localisation, and have the advantage of having; been compiled br competent authorities. The writer has also investigated the incidence of cancer in tho European community at Yokohama, particularly with regard to the question of house infection.

It goes without saying that some degree of error enters into all statistics dealing with human problems. In Japan, the error is probably somewhat greater than in other countries of similar standing, for there still exists a large body of medical practitioners who have not passed an examination. Those who have graduated from Universities, who have passed from medical schools or have otherwise attained the required standard numbered, according to the last returns (1905) 20,592, while those who were otherwise privileged to practice amounted to 15,046 persons, the ratio being about 57.8 to 42.2 percent.

As the various classes of practitioners in each Ken, or prefecture are enumerated, it occurred to the writer that some kind of criterion might thus be available to compare with the provincial cancer death record. He hes accordingly prepared charts showing the incidence of cancer to the percentage of efficiency in diagnosis, as indicated by the government returns. It is not impertinent, however, to remark that has met with, a few unpassed practitioners who were not appreciably less capable of making a correct diagnosis than some who had attained the prescribed standard. Yet the balance of probability in favour of a correct diagnosis must lie with those who have given some proof of their capability; on this account, if on no other, the charts furnish food for reflection.