2024日本専門医機構社員総会での日本医学会会長門脇孝氏発言問題を検討【1】

皆さま、こんにちは。
前回は、2024年6月28日に行われた日本専門医機構の社員総会で、日本医学会会長の門脇先生と、日本医師会長の松本先生が、「どうしてこの場でこんなことを言わないといけないの？」という内容を言及したことを記事にしました。（関連記事日本専門医機構2024/06/28社員総会にて日本医学会会長と日本医師会長が不穏な発言）
今回は、日本専門医機構2024/06/28社員総会における、門脇先生の発言について、法的な問題を検討してみたいと思います。

これらの問題については、シリーズで深堀していきたいと思いますので、どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。

日本専門医機構社員総会で行われた門脇孝日本医学会会長の問題発言をおさらい

日本医学会会長の門脇先生は、このように日本専門医機構の社員総会で言及しました。（一字一句の同一性を保証しません）

門脇孝氏の発言の問題点をピックアップ

今回の記事では、以下の部分についての問題点を考えてみたいと思います。

Pas op!
誰かを陥れようとする人物は、事実を確認せずに一つの事象を全く異なる次元の結論に結びつけようとすることがよくあります。

門脇氏の指摘する事実は、「渡辺理事長が社員総会で説明しようとした内容について、資料が配布されていなかった」というものです。
それがどうして、「理事会と事務局の連携不足が原因ではという懸念がある」という結論に結びついているのでしょうか？？？

この場合、「渡辺理事長が社員総会で説明しようとした内容について、資料が配布されていなかった」という事象には、いくつかのパターンがあると思います。

それでは、門脇氏はいったいなぜ、これらの可能性を考えることもなく、このような事実を、日本専門医機構の社員総会という、１００人規模で人が集まる場所でデデデーン、ほれみろ！という感じ（注：仲田の個人的感想です）でぶち上げたのでしょうか？？？？

実際、あの日、「なんで日本医学会連合会長が、専門医機構社員総会でこんな発言をしているのか？？？いったいどういうことなんだ？？？大丈夫なのか？こんなことして？？？」と思った方々はたくさんいたようです。（なので私の耳にも入りました）

しかし、門脇先生がこのような発言をするに至ったには、おそらく理由がありました。
実は、2月29日の社員総会時、渡辺理事長は、2024年度の専攻医採用数について説明使用としたときに、「お手元の資料をご覧ください」という風に言ったそうなのです。
それで、社員（おそらく門脇先生）から、「手元の資料がありません」と突っ込まれた。

渡辺先生はそのとき、「すみません。事務局のミスで」という内容の返答をしたそうです。
だから、門脇先生が、「資料をちゃんと用意しないとは事務局けしからん！」と思ったのもまあ、ある意味しかたがないかもしれませんね。
もともと、門脇孝という人は、資料のあれが違うこれが違うとか細かいことをすごいうるさく言う人だということを、複数のかたから聞いています。ま。一言でいうと、「事務局泣かせ」ってことなのですかね？（決して嫌な奴とかは言っていないのでご注意あれ！）

しかし、門脇先生は、これを、なぜ、「理事長と事務局の意思疎通の悪さ」ではなく、「理事会と事務局」に話を膨らませているのでしょうか？？？

おかしいですね。日本医学会会長（日本医学会連合会長）といえば、日本の医学界を代表する団体である日本医学会のトップで、学術活動の推進や医療政策への提言などを行う責任者です。「医学に関する学術団体の総責任者」という表現でも適切です。日本医学会会長は、医学分野の学術団体である日本医学会の総責任者として、その活動全般を統括します。

科学で最も重要な要素の一つは「立証可能性」と「再現可能性」です。
立証可能性は、科学的な主張や仮説が観察や実験によって検証されることを意味します。証拠に基づいて、その主張が正しいかどうかを判断できる必要があります。
再現可能性は、他の研究者が同じ条件で同じ実験を行ったときに、同じ結果が得られることを指します。これにより、結果が偶然ではなく信頼性があることが確認されます。
これらは科学的手法の基盤であり、科学の信頼性と客観性を支える重要な要素です。

医学も科学の一分野であるならば、門脇氏はなぜ、「理事長と事務局の意思疎通の悪さ」ではなく、「理事会と事務局」に膨らませたのでしょうか？？？？
全く意味が分かりません。

それから。門脇氏はなぜ、渡辺氏が社員総会の場で真実を述べた、ということを前提にしているのでしょうか？

自分と仲の良い人間（この場合、渡辺毅）が自分に嘘をつくはずがない、ということを前提にしているのだとしたら、門脇孝さんは大変幸福な人ですね。
しかし、現実はしばしば予想を裏切るものです。信頼している人が意図せず誤った情報を伝えることもあれば、意図的に隠し事をする場合もあります。もし門脇さんがそのような事実に直面したとき、彼の信念はどのように変わるのでしょうか。人間関係の中での真実とは、常に複雑で、多面的なものです。

2024/02/29日本専門医機構社員総会での渡辺理事長の事務局ディスりの真相とは？

これは、わたし、相当苦労して取材しました。
その結果、いろいろわかってきました。

まずは、渡辺理事長が2024年度の専攻医採用数について説明しようとしたのですが、その時点で、まだ、集計中だった学会がありました。
なので、正式なデータではないので、社員総会の場で出すのは不適切である、ということがあったのです。

それを、どういう形で発表するか？
中間報告という形でなのか？
あるいは、あくまで参考資料として扱うのか、議論が行われたことでしょう。
会議の場では、正確な情報に基づく意思決定の重要性が強調される一方で、現時点での状況を共有し、透明性を保つことも求められるでしょう。
結局、最も適切な方法で情報を提供するためには、どのような形であれば誤解を招かず、かつ、組織全体の理解を深めることができるのかという点が焦点となったことでしょう。

渡辺理事長は、
「正式な数字じゃなくてもいいから、どうしても2/29の臨時社員総会で発表したい」
「資料は用意しなくていい、口頭で発表する」
と述べたそうです。

そして、2/29の社員総会で、いきなり、「お手元の資料をご覧ください」と言ってしまい、会場から「資料がない」と突っ込まれ、「事務局のミスで資料が配布できなかったことをお詫びする」旨を申し述べたそうです。

会議の後、事務局からは、渡辺理事長に対して、「そもそも事務局としては、データ集計中の学会があるから、発表しないでほしいとお願いしたにもかかわらず、渡辺理事長がどうしても発表したいと言って、口頭でいいから発表することになった経緯がある。事前にちゃんと資料は不要であるという打ち合わせをしているにもかかわらず、どうして事実に反することを社員の前で言うのか？」という内容の抗議がなされたそうです。
当然ですよね。
これに対して、渡辺毅氏は、「仕方ないじゃないか、あの場ではああ言わないとおさまりが付かなかったんだから」という内容を申し述べたそうです。

上司としては最低ですね。こんな上司の下で働く人は、本当に大変なことでしょう。

本来、この案件は、渡辺毅さんがその場で、「あ。間違いました。資料はありません。」と言えば済んだ話です。
それを、自分の体面を保つために、部下を犠牲にするって、卑怯極まりないですね。事実なら。
わたしは、複数の人から聞いているので、この内容に関しては真実性があると判断しています。
真実性があると思えないと、書けないです。わたしが名誉棄損に問われてしまいますので。

あれ？？？？
あれあれあれれれれれれ？？？？？？

門脇先生は、渡辺先生の発言の真実性をまったく疑いもせずに、「単なる事務的ミスではなく、理事会と事務局との連携の悪さがあるのではないかと気になるところがございました。」とまで述べています。

門脇先生って、サイエンティストじゃないのでしょうか？
「真実性」は彼にとって、「医学会会長の発言であるという権威性でどうでもよいことにできるくらい軽いもの」なのでしょうか？？？？

普通ですね、わたしがこのような誰かの問題点を提起するような発言をするときっていうのは、証拠をたくさん集めて、真実性をちゃんと担保してからです。
わたしは小心者なので。

だって、
世の中には、名誉棄損というものがありまして。
刑法230条に規定されており、事実を摘示して公然と他人の社会的評価を低下させた場合に成立します。

但し、違法性阻却事由というのもありまして。
違法性阻却事由（いほうせいそきゃくじゆう）とは、法律上は違法とされる行為であっても、特定の条件が満たされた場合、その行為が違法とされずに正当化される理由や状況を指します。これにより、通常であれば犯罪や不法行為とされる行動が、特定の状況では正当な行為と見なされ、処罰や賠償の対象外となります。

これらの理由が認められる場合、当該行為の違法性が阻却され、行為者は法的責任を問われません。

名誉毀損（きそん）の違法性阻却事由とは、他人の名誉を傷つける発言や表現が、本来であれば違法とされる状況でも、特定の条件を満たす場合に違法性が阻却される（違法とされない）理由や状況を指します。

これらの事由が認められる場合、名誉毀損の行為があったとしても、法的には正当化され、行為者が法的責任を問われることがないことになります。

門脇氏の発言は、そもそも事実じゃないことを前提にして、100人以上を前に「公然」と行われており、「理事会と事務局がうまくいっていない」ことをにおわせております。
そして、その前の発言で、「まず、第5期体制の運営に尽力された理事会をはじめとする関係者の皆様に、この場をお借りして深く感謝申し上げます。専門医機構は発足から10年が経ち、シーリングや働き方改革といった社会的な変化に対応しながら、わが国の専門医制度をここまで形作ってきたことに対し、感謝の意を表したいと思います。」と理事会をはじめとする関係者の皆様を持ち上げているので、この流れを見ると、「この問題は、単なる事務的ミスではなく、理事会と事務局の連携不足が原因ではないかと懸念されています。」と言った場合、問題なのは事務局体制である、ということになりませんか？？？？

門脇氏はどうすべきだったのか？

およそ医学という科学者団体（アカデミア）のトップを務めるような人物ならば、本当のことは何か、ということを知ろうとする、という態度を大切にすべきだったと思います。
たとえば、「渡辺先生は社員総会の場でああいったけど、事務局の人に実際はどうだったのかを確認してもらえないか？」
ということを、日本医学会連合にも事務局はあるわけなので、せめてそちらの事務局員に確認してもらうべきだったんじゃないかと思いますね。
わたしが調べて出てくる内容が、日本医学会連合会長が調べようとして出てこないはずがありません。

要するに、門脇氏は、「信じたいものを信じた、それをあたかも真実のように発言し」て、日本専門医機構事務局の信頼性を低下させたと評価できるでしょう。

あれ？
これって、名誉棄損の構成要件をばっちりみたしてないですか？？

あらら？？？
やばくないですかね？

門脇氏の発言のほかの問題点については

順次書いていこうと思います。
この問題は、日本の医学のアカデミアの最高峰であるはずの、日本医学会連合会長が関係しているので、前回同様、英語をつけておきます。
もうね。世界中の人に見てもらったほうがいいんですよ。
どうせ日本人なんてガイアツでしか変われないのですから。
内容に問題がある、英文が間違っている、情報提供などありましたら、ぜひ、コメント欄からお知らせください！

Hello everyone.
In the previous article, we reported on the content of the comments made by Dr. Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, and Dr. Matsumoto, President of the Japan Medical Association, at the general meeting of the Japan Medical Specialty Board held on 28 June 2024. (Related article:Japan Medical Specialty Board 2024/06/28 General Meeting: Unrestful remarks by the President of the Japan Medical Association and the President of the Japan Medical Association )
This time, we would like to examine the legal issues surrounding the comments made by Dr. Kadowaki at the Japan Medical Specialty Board 2024/06/28 General Meeting.
We will be delving deeper into these issues in a series of articles, so please look forward to them.
Let’s review the problematic comments made by Dr. Takashi Kadowaki, President of the Japanese Medical Science Federation, at the Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting.
Dr. Kadowaki, President of the Japanese Medical Science Federation:
My name is Kadowaki, and I am the President of the Japanese Medical Science Federation. -omission-
The other thing that concerns me is the administration of the secretariat, and the cooperation between the secretariat, the board of directors, the various committees, and the various academic societies. At the extraordinary general meeting of employees on 29th February, when President Watanabe was trying to explain the number of residents to be recruited in 2024, there was a situation where the documents were not distributed to the employees and directors, and there was a misunderstanding. I was concerned that this was not just an administrative mistake, but that there was a lack of coordination between the board of directors and the secretariat.
After that, I heard from many people involved that the secretariat was not able to provide various reports and explanations to the board of directors, committees, academic societies, etc. The secretariat strongly requested that academic societies in each field register for the system despite being insufficiently prepared, causing confusion, and it took time for the board of directors to be informed of the multiple leaks of personal information, and the list goes on.
In addition, I have heard on multiple occasions that the person in charge at the secretariat approached various academic societies with a story that had no basis in fact, and that this led to a situation that was considered suspicious. While the individual secretariat staff are working hard, I have serious concerns about the external governance of the person in charge at the secretariat, who has contact with various doctors and business partners. I have also heard that the working environment is such that the treatment of secretariat staff is influenced by the decisions of the secretariat’s responsible persons without consultation or approval from the President or Board of Directors, and that secretariat staff cannot engage in their work with peace of mind.
I have just approved the 25 directors, but I would like the next executive board to make sure that the treatment is fair, and to work hard to create a good working environment with psychological safety and good communication, and to establish proper governance as a specialist medical organisation. That is all.
Dr. Kadowaki, President of the Japan Medical Association, made these remarks at the Japan Medical Specialty Board’s general meeting of employees. (We cannot guarantee the exact wording of the remarks.)
Issues with Dr. Kadowaki’s Remarks
In this article, we would like to consider the issues with the following parts of the remarks
The fact that ‘At the previous extraordinary general meeting (29th February), the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Watanabe, tried to explain the number of specialist doctors to be recruited in 2024, but there were no handouts and confusion arose’ is linked to the conclusion that ‘There are concerns that this problem is not just an administrative error, but may be due to a lack of cooperation between the Board of Directors and the secretariat.’
Pas op!
People who are trying to frame someone often try to link one event to a completely different conclusion without checking the facts.
Friedrich Nietzsche
‘There are no facts, only interpretations.’ This phrase emphasises that our understanding of things is subjective and often based on prejudice and misunderstanding. When someone tries to frame someone else, it can be understood that they may act based on their own convenient interpretation rather than the facts.
The fact that Mr. Kadowaki points out is that ‘the materials were not distributed regarding the content that the Chairman Watanabe tried to explain at the general meeting of employees’.
How does that lead to the conclusion that ‘there is concern that the cause is a lack of cooperation between the board of directors and the secretariat’?
In this case, there are several possible patterns for the event ‘the materials were not distributed for the content that the Chairman Watanabe tried to explain at the general meeting of employees’.
Possible patterns
1. Mr. Watanabe forgot to tell the secretariat to prepare the final materials at the meeting before the general meeting of employees.
2. Mr. Watanabe decided to make an oral presentation without preparing the final materials at the meeting before the general meeting of employees.
3. Mr Watanabe told the secretariat to prepare the final documents at the meeting before the general meeting, but the secretariat made a mistake.
4. Mr Watanabe said that he didn’t have to prepare the documents, but when an employee said ‘there are no documents’, he mentioned that this was a mistake by the secretariat.
So why did Mr. Kadowaki make such a big deal of this fact at the Japan Medical Specialty Board’s general meeting of employees, a gathering of around 100 people, without even considering these possibilities?
In fact, on that day, there were many people who thought ‘Why is the President of The Japanese Medical Science Federation making such a comment at the Japan Medical Specialty Board General Meeting? What on earth is going on? Is he all right making such a comment?’. (So I heard about it too.)
However, there was probably a reason why Dr. Kadowaki made such a comment.
In fact, at the general meeting of employees on 29th February, when the Chairman Watanabe was explaining about the number of medical specialists to be employed in 2024, he said, ‘Please refer to the documents in front of you’.
Then, an employee (probably Dr. Kadowaki) interrupted him, saying, ‘I don’t have the documents in front of me’.
At that time, Professor Watanabe is said to have replied, ‘I’m sorry. It was a mistake by the secretariat’.
So, it may be understandable that Professor Kadowaki thought, ‘The secretariat is inexcusable for not preparing the materials properly!
Originally, I have heard from several people that Takashi Kadowaki is someone who is very picky about small details, such as this one thing being different from that one thing. Well, to put it simply, he’s a pain in the neck for the secretariat, isn’t he? (Please note that I’m not saying he’s a nasty person!)
But why is Dr. Kadowaki talking about the ‘poor communication between the board of directors and the secretariat’ when he could have just said ‘the board of directors and the secretariat’?
That’s strange. The President of the Japan Medical Congress (President of the Japanese Medical Science Federation) is the head of the Japan Medical Science Federation, which represents the Japanese medical community, and is responsible for promoting academic activities and making recommendations on medical policy. It would also be appropriate to describe him as ‘the overall manager of an academic organisation for medicine’. As the overall manager of the Japan Medical Science Federation, an academic organisation for the field of medicine, the President of the Japan Medical Science Federation oversees all of its activities.
Two of the most important elements of science are ‘provability’ and ‘reproducibility’.
Provability means that scientific claims and hypotheses are verified through observation and experimentation. It is necessary to be able to determine whether a claim is correct based on the evidence.
Reproducibility refers to the fact that when other researchers perform the same experiment under the same conditions, they obtain the same results. This confirms that the results are not coincidental, but reliable.
These are the foundations of the scientific method, and are important elements that support the reliability and objectivity of science.
If medicine is a field of science, why did Mr. Kadowaki expand the phrase ‘poor communication between the board of directors and the secretariat’ to ‘the board of directors and the secretariat’?
I don’t understand at all.
Also, why does Mr. Kadowaki assume that Mr. Watanabe told the truth at the general meeting of employees?
If he is assuming that people close to him (in this case, Tsuyoshi Watanabe) would never lie to him, then Mr. Kadowaki is a very lucky person.
However, reality often defies expectations. Sometimes the people you trust unintentionally pass on incorrect information, and sometimes they deliberately conceal things. If Mr. Kadowaki were to face such a fact, how would his beliefs change? The truth in human relationships is always complex and multifaceted.
2024/02/29 What is the truth behind the secretariat’s explanation by the Japan Medical Specialty Board’s Chairman Watanabe at the general meeting of the organisation’s employees?
I had a lot of trouble gathering this information.
As a result, I have come to understand a lot of things.
First of all, ‘Chairman Watanabe tried to explain the number of specialist doctors to be recruited in 2024’, but at that point, there were still some academic societies that were in the process of compiling their data.
So, because it wasn’t official data, it was inappropriate to present it at the general meeting of employees.
How should it be presented?
As an interim report?
Or should it be treated as a reference document?
At the meeting, while the importance of making decisions based on accurate information was emphasised, it was also necessary to share the current situation and maintain transparency.
Ultimately, the focus was on what form would be most appropriate for providing information in a way that would not lead to misunderstandings and would also deepen understanding throughout the organisation.
President Watanabe is reported to have said
‘I don’t need official figures, but I really want to make an announcement at the extraordinary general meeting of employees on 2/29.’
“I don’t need to prepare any documents, I’ll just make the announcement verbally.’
.
Then, at the general meeting of employees on 29 February, he suddenly said, ‘Please look at the documents in your hands’, but when the audience pointed out that there were no documents, he said, ‘I apologise for the mistake made by the secretariat in not being able to distribute the documents’.
After the meeting, the secretariat made a formal complaint to the President Watanabe, saying ‘In the first place, the secretariat asked the President not to make a presentation because there was a conference where data was being compiled, but the President insisted on making a presentation, and so it was decided that he could make a presentation verbally. Despite the fact that we had already discussed beforehand that there was no need for written materials, why did you say something that was contrary to the facts in front of our employees?’
Of course they would.
In response to this, Tsuyoshi Watanabe is said to have said something along the lines of ‘I had no choice. I had to say that in order to settle things down’.
As a boss, that’s the worst thing you could do. It must be really tough for the people who work under a boss like that.
Essentially, this whole thing could have been settled if Tsuyoshi Watanabe had just said ‘Oh, I was wrong. I don’t have the documents.’ at the time.
To sacrifice his subordinate in order to save his own face is extremely unfair. If it’s true.
I’ve heard it from multiple people, so I’ve decided that there is truth to this story.
If I don’t think there is truth to it, I can’t write about it, because I would be accused of defamation.
What?
What? What?
Dr. Kadowaki, without any doubt about the truthfulness of Dr. Watanabe’s comments, even went as far as to say, ‘I was concerned that it might not have been a simple administrative error, but rather a sign of poor communication between the board of directors and the secretariat.’
Isn’t Dr. Kadowaki a scientist?
Is ‘truthfulness’ something that he considers to be ‘so light that it can be made to mean whatever he wants by the authority of it being a statement from the president of the medical association’?
Normally, when I make a statement like this that raises questions about someone, I gather a lot of evidence and make sure that the truthfulness is properly guaranteed.
I’m a small-minded person.
Because,
there is such a thing as defamation in this world.
It is stipulated in Article 230 of the Criminal Code, and is established when someone publicly lowers another person’s social reputation by stating facts.
However, there are also grounds for exemption from illegality.
The term ‘justifiable cause’ refers to reasons or circumstances that justify an act that would normally be considered illegal if certain conditions are met. This means that in certain circumstances, actions that would normally be considered crimes or illegal acts are considered justifiable and are not subject to punishment or compensation.
The main reasons for exemption from illegality
Self-defence: An act that is unavoidably committed in order to protect one’s own or another’s life, body, or property.
Emergency escape: An act that is unavoidably committed in order to avoid a current danger to oneself or another.
Official act: An act committed by a public servant or police officer in the course of their duties in accordance with the law.
Justifiable act: An act committed in accordance with the law, legitimate business, or social propriety.
If these reasons are recognised, the illegality of the relevant act is negated and the actor will not be held legally responsible.
The reasons for negating the illegality of defamation refer to the reasons and circumstances under which the illegality of defamation is negated (i.e. not considered illegal) even in situations where defamation of another person’s reputation would normally be considered illegal, if certain conditions are met.
Typical reasons for the illegality of defamation to be ruled out
The following are examples of reasons for the illegality of defamation to be ruled out.
1. Publication of facts concerning public interest
If the defamatory statement or expression is a fact concerning public interest, and it is considered to be important information that attracts public interest and is beneficial to society, there is a possibility that the illegality will be ruled out.
2. Proof of truthfulness (truth defence)
If it is proven that the statement or expression is true, that is, if it is based on fact, then even if the statement is defamatory, there is a possibility that the illegality of the statement will be ruled out. However, it is necessary that the statement be completely true. In Japanese courts, even if the facts are proven to be true in ‘important respects’, there are cases where this is recognised as a reason for the illegality of the statement to be ruled out.
3. Proof of substantial truth
If the speaker has a reasonable basis for believing that the content is true (for example, if it is based on a reliable source), the act may not be considered illegal. This is often used in particular when the media and other organisations publish important facts.
4. Acts for a justifiable purpose
If a statement or expression is made for the purpose of social or public benefit, and the purpose is recognised as legitimate, the illegality of the act may be negated. For example, this would apply to an expression made with the aim of denouncing a social problem.
5. Guarantee of free speech
The freedom of expression guaranteed by the constitution is also a factor that can be used to dismiss the illegality of defamation. However, this is not unlimited, and a balance with the rights and interests of the other party is necessary. Just because there is freedom of expression does not mean that you can defame someone else’s reputation unconditionally.

If these reasons are accepted, even if there is an act of defamation, it will be justified legally and the perpetrator will not be held legally responsible.
Mr. Kadowaki’s comments were made ‘publicly’ in front of more than 100 people, based on the premise that they were not true in the first place, and they implied that ‘the board of directors and the secretariat were not getting along’.
And in the statement that preceded this, he said, ‘First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the board of directors and all those involved who have worked so hard to manage the fifth term system. The Japan Medical Specialty Board has now been in existence for 10 years, and I would like to express my gratitude for the way in which it has shaped the specialist system in Japan while responding to social changes such as the introduction of the ceiling system and work-style reforms.’ and is praising the board of directors and other people involved, so if we look at this trend, wouldn’t it mean that the problem is with the secretariat system when we say, ‘There are concerns that this issue is not just an administrative error, but may be due to a lack of cooperation between the board of directors and the secretariat’?
What should Mr. Kadowaki have done?
I think that someone in a position to lead a scientific organisation like the Japan Medical Association (academia) should have made it a priority to find out what really happened.
For example, he could have asked the secretariat, ‘Dr Watanabe said that at the general meeting, but could you check with the secretariat staff to see what really happened?
I think that at the very least, he should have asked the secretariat staff at The Japanese Medical Science Federation to check for him.
There is no way that the content I would find out about would not be found out by the president of The Japanese Medical Science Federation.
In short, Mr. Kadowaki can be assessed as having ‘believed what he wanted to believe, and then spoken as if it were the truth’, and having lowered the credibility of the secretariat of the Japan Medical Specialty Board.
Wait a minute.
Doesn’t this perfectly meet the requirements for defamation?
Oh no!
Isn’t this a problem?
I will write about the other problems with Mr. Kadowaki’s comments
in turn.
As this issue involves the president of The Japanese Medical Science Federation, which is supposed to be the highest peak of Japanese medical academia, I will add English to the article, as I did last time.
You know, it’s better if people from all over the world can see it.
After all, Japanese people can only change if they are given a good kick.
If you have any problems with the content, or if you find any mistakes in the English, or if you have any information to provide, please let us know in the comments section!