There are many patients in psychiatric hospitals in Japan. Forced hospitalization and lack of human rights are problematic in Japan, and the number of cases of limb restraint to beds is increasing. For example, a one―day survey in 2016 reported that, out of 1,523 persons admitted forcefully (a form of involuntary hospitalization based on two designated psychiatrists' judgment that, if left unattended, the person would harm himself/herself or others), 9% were physically restrained; so were 7% of the 129,593 persons admitted forcefully accompanied by the consent of a family member (another form of involuntary hospitalization for the same concerns but the consent of a family member is obtained.
 The issue of physical restraint is growing and some hospitals are also trying to reduce physical restraint. The terms detained and restraint are not regulated by law in Japan. Tribunals and support systems are also insufficient.
 Psychiatric restraint must be considered from the viewpoint of human rights. Psychiatric restraint is a human rights violation, and goes against the Japanese constitution such as dignity (article 13), right of movement (article 22 (1)), and due process of law (article 13 or 31). Restraint beyond the minimum must not be enforced because it is a legal problem, being unconstitutional and against criminal and civil law.
 I think a "less restrictive alternative" is the minimum. This must be carefully considered because even if the purpose of restraint can be justified, other less restrictive measures should be taken in such situations because restraint is a serious constitutional human rights violation that should be predicated on evaluation by a third party.
 Careful consideration is required not only at the start but also during. Strict regulation of the conditions, timing, and assessment systems is needed, and chances to appeal should be fulfilled.
 <Author's abstract>