Aldous Chris
University of Winchester, UK.
Nihon Ishigaku Zasshi. 2008 Mar;54(1):3-17.
Historical assessments of the Occupation's efforts to tackle enteric diseases (cholera, typhoid, paratyphoid and dysentery) have generally reflected a celebratory narrative of US-inspired public health reforms, strongly associated with the head of the Public Health and Welfare Section, Crawford F. Sams. Close inspection of the documentary record, however, reveals much greater continuity with pre-war Japanese public health practices than has hitherto been acknowledged. Indeed, there are strong grounds for disputing American claims of novelty and innovation in such areas as immunisation, particularly in relation to typhoid vaccine, and environmental sanitation, where disparaging comments about the careless use of night soil and a reluctance to control flies and other disease vectors reveal more about the politics of public health reform than the reality of pre-war practices. Likewise, the representation of American-inspired sanitary teams as clearly distinct from and far superior to traditional sanitary associations (eisei kumiai) was closer to propaganda than an accurate rendering of past and present developments.
对战后美国占领当局在应对肠道疾病（霍乱、伤寒、副伤寒和痢疾）方面所做努力的历史评估，通常反映出一种以美国为主导的公共卫生改革的颂扬性叙述，这与公共卫生与福利科科长克劳福德·F·萨姆斯密切相关。然而，仔细审视文献记录就会发现，它与战前日本的公共卫生实践有着比迄今所承认的更大的连续性。事实上，有充分理由质疑美国在免疫接种（特别是伤寒疫苗方面）以及环境卫生等领域所宣称的新颖性和创新性。在环境卫生方面，对随意使用夜粪以及不愿控制苍蝇和其他病媒的贬低性评论，更多地揭示了公共卫生改革的政治因素，而非战前实际情况。同样，将受美国启发组建的卫生团队描绘得与传统卫生协会（卫生组合）截然不同且远优于它们，这更像是宣传，而非对过去和现在发展情况的准确描述。
