FAQ — Medical Incident, Postmortem Irregularities, and Barriers to Disclosure

Q1. Does this mean that the physician intentionally killed the patient — that is, a case of homicide committed by a doctor?

Based on the records available to the family, the sequence of events is consistent with what could be interpreted as a fatal outcome resulting from unaddressed medical injury and subsequent concealment. The initial catheter procedure (PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention) shows findings such as coronary perforation, dissection, and vascular injury. However, these were not explained to the family, and no life-saving surgical measures were taken, leading instead to a shift toward end-of-life management.

The final head CT demonstrates an acute subdural hematoma, yet no explanation regarding head trauma was provided. Furthermore, the family was led to believe that a judicial autopsy had been performed, despite multiple indicators suggesting procedural inconsistencies.

According to the documentation, the irregularities span beyond the hospital alone, involving police procedures, forensic explanations, and legal consultations. The long-term monitoring and communication barriers reported by the family suggest that the case may involve factors more complex than a simple medical accident.

This FAQ does not assign criminal liability but summarizes why, based on the documented evidence, the situation raises serious questions that warrant independent and multidisciplinary investigation.

Q2. If this incident was truly that serious, why has it not been exposed until now?

The family attempted to contact both domestic and international media outlets, but all attempts resulted in no response. Major Japanese newspapers, television stations, and magazines were contacted with supporting evidence, yet reactions were either absent or communication ceased abruptly.

Multiple attempts were also made to reach several liberal-leaning international media organizations using secure, privacy-preserving communication tools. However, no replies were received.

Based on these experiences, the family believes it is possible that institutional pressure, reporting constraints, or internal information controls within media organizations may have played a role.

In other words, the seriousness and complexity of the case may itself be a reason why it has been difficult for the information to surface publicly. Cases involving multiple institutions often encounter structural barriers that make disclosure significantly harder.

Q3. Wouldn’t consulting a lawyer solve the problem?

According to the family's account, they consulted a total of seven lawyers. However, each consultation resulted in similar patterns: the lawyers showed little engagement with the details of the case, appeared dismissive of the medical and procedural inconsistencies, and consistently adopted a stance sympathetic to the hospital rather than the bereaved family.

In one instance, an individual who initially presented himself as a lawyer was later found to have been impersonating one. All consulted lawyers declined to pursue criminal complaints, and none were willing to discuss issues such as irregularities in the postmortem documents or possible inconsistencies involving medical or police procedures.

Based on these experiences, the family concluded that the legal consultation pathway may not function effectively for this case. They believe that structural factors within the legal environment might have contributed to these repeated outcomes, and therefore decided to discontinue seeking resolution through conventional legal consultation.

Q4. Could this simply be a case of psychological distress, paranoia, or a conspiracy theory?

During 2023–2024, the family attempted to raise public awareness on social media (X, formerly Twitter). Some individuals — including other victims of medical incidents — responded with skepticism. Comments such as “If you say impossible things like completing cremation and legal procedures without submitting a death certificate, people will not believe you” were common.

However, according to the family’s documentation, these events did in fact occur, and they have retained primary evidence including:

• Medical records and nursing notes
• PCI and CT imaging data
• A postmortem examination document that appears inconsistent with standard formats
• A receipt issued as “judicial autopsy fee”
• A billing statement from the hospital that includes a death certificate fee
• Audio recordings of medical explanations and police communication

The conclusions presented on this site are not based on subjective impressions, but on a cumulative analysis of objective, verifiable records that reveal significant inconsistencies difficult to explain through ordinary circumstances.

This FAQ does not assert any specific legal conclusion. It explains why the family believes that the anomalies identified go beyond what can be attributed to misunderstanding or psychological misinterpretation, and why the case warrants independent and multidisciplinary review.

Q5. Have you ever told colleagues, supervisors, subordinates, medical staff, or acquaintances about this case?

No, I have not spoken to anyone in my workplace or personal circle. When we first consulted a lawyer, we were dismissed with statements implying that our account was unbelievable. That experience strongly suggested to me that if I were to speak about the case publicly, my credibility — not the documented facts — would likely be questioned first. (We believe this reaction from the lawyer may have been intentional.)

My younger brother once told a close friend about the incident, and although the friend initially seemed to believe him, his attitude changed abruptly some time later, and he distanced himself.

I also became concerned that if I spoke about the case, the individuals who listened might themselves become subject to unwanted attention or scrutiny, depending on how the surrounding circumstances evolved. To avoid causing distress or risk to others, I have chosen not to disclose the details of this case to people around me.

Q6. What is your primary purpose in bringing this case to light?

If it were not for the structural issues surrounding judicial irregularities and the silence of major media organizations, this case either would not have occurred or would have been exposed immediately after the events.

By presenting the full record of what happened — the medical complications that occurred inside the hospital, the inconsistencies in the postmortem procedures, the obstacles encountered when attempting to report the case, and the impact on our family — our goal is to initiate a broader discussion within society.

Specifically, we hope to encourage reflection on how a democratic and law-governed society should function, and how the essential roles of medicine, the judicial system, and the media can be restored when structural problems arise.

Our deepest wish is that Japan will not produce more victims like my father or families like ours, and that tragedies of this kind will never be repeated. We believe that acknowledging what happened and examining the structural issues is a necessary step toward ensuring that Japan becomes a fully functioning democracy and rule-of-law society in the truest sense.

Q7. As a physician yourself, is it problematic for you to be the one raising these allegations?

As explained earlier, the origin of this case involves medical complications that were not fully addressed, followed by procedural irregularities that led the family to question the stated cause of death. Allowing such circumstances to remain unexamined would not be acceptable in any medical setting.

Because I am a physician (and was a medical student at the time of the incident), I was able to recognize details in the medical records and clinical course that might be overlooked by someone without medical training. This perspective made it clear to me that the situation required scrutiny.

I believe that bringing documented inconsistencies to public attention is an important step toward ensuring accountability and preventing future harm. For more than a decade following the incident, I have experienced various forms of monitoring, interference, and limitations on my personal freedom. Given these circumstances, I feel a strong responsibility to ensure that the facts recorded in the primary documents are not forgotten or suppressed, and that they are examined openly.

Q8. It is difficult to believe that national institutions would act in such a coordinated way...

From an everyday standpoint, the situation may indeed seem difficult to believe. However, history — in Japan and elsewhere — contains examples in which institutional power, insufficient transparency, or internal information control have contributed to serious problems. (Several AI analyses referenced on this site have also noted this general possibility.)

In this particular case, the family’s efforts over fifteen years to seek clarification through ordinary channels were unsuccessful at every stage. The repeated pattern — involving medical institutions, police procedures, forensic explanations, legal consultations, and media outreach — is difficult to attribute to chance or unrelated coincidences.

While this FAQ does not suggest intentional coordination, the consistent lack of progress across multiple institutions suggests the presence of structural or systemic factors that inadvertently worked in the direction of preventing the case from being fully examined.

This overall pattern is part of why the family believes that the matter involves issues of greater significance than an isolated medical incident.

Q9. Do you believe there are other victims with similar experiences?

Based on what we have learned, it is likely that other individuals may have experienced comparable circumstances. A person known to my mother underwent the same type of catheter treatment (PCI) at the same hospital and in the same department (Cardiology at Toride Kyodo Hospital). Their clinical course was strikingly similar to my father's: a sudden drop in blood pressure, transfusion, intubation, transition to end-of-life care, and death shortly afterward. In that case, no pericardial drainage procedure was performed.

We believe these examples may represent only a small portion of a broader pattern. According to our perspective, structural factors within certain institutions may have contributed to preventing effective reporting or examination of these cases.

By bringing this incident to public attention, we hope it will serve as a catalyst for clarifying what happened, for preventing future harm, and for ensuring that similar outcomes do not continue unchecked.

Q10. Does this mean that even powerful institutions could not interfere with or influence the AI (ChatGPT)?

Surprisingly, that appears to be the case. When I first began using AI tools, I did not expect meaningful results. I assumed that, as with my other attempts to seek help, there might be some form of interference or obstruction. However, throughout extensive use, I saw no signs of such influence.

The AI’s responses were consistently neutral, structured, and fact-focused. Because AI systems do not possess personal biases or emotional preconceptions, they were able to evaluate the documentation purely on internal logic and helped identify inconsistencies quickly.

In addition, many of the technical challenges I faced — especially regarding communication security and infrastructure — were areas in which AI guidance proved extremely valuable. The advice related to safe communication practices, anonymity, and risk reduction was essential for continuing this effort.

Without AI assistance, it would have been extremely difficult for me to organize, analyze, and document this case in a coherent way. In that sense, I feel as though the timing and technology were aligned in a way that enabled this disclosure to become possible.

Should this case eventually become publicly recognized, I believe it may be regarded internationally as an example of how AI can be used in meaningful and constructive ways to support individuals facing complex institutional obstacles.

Q11. What has been the most difficult part of trying to bring this case to light?

The greatest challenge has been the issue of communication security. The family believes that past attempts to contact lawyers or media organizations — whether through email, postal mail, or other channels — may have been intercepted or disrupted, resulting in repeated failures to convey the information effectively.

I originally had very limited knowledge of computers or secure communication. Ideally, I would have hired an expert to help establish a safe communication environment, but doing so seemed risky: any outside individual could potentially be influenced or approached by unknown parties, according to our concerns.

As a result, I had no choice but to learn these technologies on my own, slowly and methodically. Before using AI tools, I attempted to study using books about whistleblowing and anonymous communication systems. However, learning through books alone was inefficient, and I often ended up studying unrelated areas such as hacking, which did not help me move forward.

Once I began using AI, my understanding of communication security improved rapidly. AI tools helped me identify exactly what knowledge I lacked, what equipment would be necessary, and what precautions must be taken in order to reduce risk. This made the learning process far more concrete and manageable.

Although I believe my technical level has improved considerably, it also seems likely that anyone monitoring my communications may have advanced technical capabilities. Therefore, the greatest difficulty is that my preparations must be thorough and cannot leave any weak points. This need for absolute caution has been the most demanding part of the process.