NationStates Jolt Archive


Did you know?

SMALL EARTH
06-04-2005, 22:30
Social Darwinism was introduced into the German scientific community at the end of the 19th century. Proponents of this theory contended that medical care had interrupted the natural struggle for existence by preserving the weak and that "defective" persons were reproducing faster than healthy ones (9, 10). Biologist Ernst Haeckel wrote that humans are not always bound to prolong life and proposed the establishment of a commission to determine which of the chronically ill should be put to death by poisoning (11). In 1915, psychiatry professor Alfred Hoche described the end of atomistic individualism and the transformation of the nation into a higher organism, the Volk (12, 13). This quasi-mystical image, later incorporated into Hitler’s world view, portrayed society as an organism with its own health and identified human beings as functional or dysfunctional parts of a larger whole (14, 15).

The political, social, and economic turmoil that followed Germany’s defeat in World War I radicalized many German professionals and created popular support for the idea of the Volk (15). After the war, eugenicists focused their concern on costly welfare programs, the care of injured veterans, the loss of valuable genetic stock through war, and the decline in birth rates among the elite (16, 17). In 1921, the German Society for Race Hygiene advocated a eugenics program in which voluntary sterilization was favored (18).

Nazi Transformation of the Medical Profession

Soon after rising to power in 1933, Hitler asked the German medical profession to address the "race question" (19). He took control of its professional organizations, restructured the medical schools and the Public Health Department (purging them of non-Aryans), and centralized the insurance and payment systems (20). Many physicians were attracted to Nazi ideology, and the medical profession had one of the highest rates of party membership of any profession (21). By 1936, 31% of Berlin’s non-Jewish physicians had joined the Nazi party, and rates of party membership were similar elsewhere in Germany (22, 23).

Financial incentives encouraged physicians to support the Nazi government. From 1927 to 1932, physicians’ average annual income had fallen by 27%, and many were unemployed (24). The inability of the preceding Weimar government to address this problem was countered by Nazi promises to restore the lost status of physicians (25). By 1935, physicians’ average taxable income had increased by 25% (21). Physicians were also induced to join the Nazi party because a spotless Nazi record was required for a government-sponsored practice (26).

Academic appointments and salary support in German medical schools depended on loyalty to the Nazi party, and Nazis of dubious professional attainment were appointed as rectors and deans (27). Instruction in eugenics became compulsory for medical students, and by 1935, students were required to wear Nazi uniforms and undergo Nazi indoctrination. Nazi medical propaganda was also directed at practicing physicians (20).

The Nazi Eugenic Sterilization Program

Although eugenic thought was easily appropriated by Nazi ideology (28, 29), the early eugenics movement was disengaged from party politics. Existing German law did not support eugenic sterilization, and before 1933, physicians who performed sterilizations for other than therapeutic reasons were sporadically prosecuted (30, 31). In 1932, before the Nazis took power, discussions among the German medical associations, the Reich Minister of the Interior, and the Prussian Health Council addressed the urgent economic need for compulsory sterilization (32). Five months into their rule, the Nazis enacted a law allowing the involuntary sterilization of persons with diseases thought to be hereditary, including schizophrenia, epilepsy, alcoholism, manic depression, hereditary deafness or blindness, severe hereditary physical deformity, Huntington chorea, and congenital feeblemindedness (33). The diagnosis of "feeblemindedness" was left largely to the discretion of the examiner (34). Although the law did not provide for sterilization on racial grounds, healthy Jews (35) and Gypsies (36) were nonetheless targeted.

Sterilization could be requested by physicians, guardians, or institutions and was authorized by hereditary health courts (29, 37). From 1933 to 1939, 360 000 to 375 000 persons were sterilized; of these operations, 37% were voluntary, 39% were involuntary (done against the person’s will), and 24% were nonvoluntary (consent was granted by a guardian for persons who could not choose or refuse sterilization) (38, 39).

Sustained resistance to the sterilization program by the medical profession was scarce and was largely organized by small groups of Marxist physicians (40). Although some physicians were moved by Hippocratic or religious principles to resist the program (41), others indiscriminately sought sterilization for some of their patients (21, 34, 42). The Roman Catholic church in Germany took a strong stand against the sterilization law. To avoid conflict, the Nazis decreed that Catholic judges would not be asked to preside over hereditary health courts, Catholic surgeons would not be required to perform sterilizations, and Catholic citizens deemed defective would be exempt from sterilization if they were institutionalized at the expense of family or church (43).

From Eugenic Sterilization to Involuntary Euthanasia

In 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding (a retired jurist and widely published legal scholar) published Permitting the Destruction of Unworthy Life as a solution to the economic burden of institutionalized mentally handicapped patients. "Unworthy life" referred to "those irretrievably lost through illness or injury" and the "incurably insane." They dismissed the Hippocratic oath as a vestige of "ancient times," insisting instead on the "standpoint of a higher civil morality" that considered the health of the state and abandoned the unconditional preservation of valueless lives (44).

The Nazi regime first discussed involuntary euthanasia in 1933 (45, 46). However, it was not until 1 September 1939 that Hitler ordered a program of involuntary "mercy killing" to commence with the start of World War II; he knew that the upheaval of war would diminish public resistance (47). Never sanctioned by law, this program was executed in relative secrecy by using such methods as starvation, injection of morphine, and asphyxiation by gassing (48). After strong opposition by Protestant and Catholic church leaders (49, 50), the program officially ended in 1941—after 70 253 persons had been put to death—but it continued in a limited manner until the war’s end (51). Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician and the supreme medical authority in the Third Reich, testified at the Nuremberg trials that the euthanasia program to eliminate disabled children was a natural outgrowth of the 1933 sterilization law (52).

http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/132/4/312?
Ashmoria
06-04-2005, 22:33
yes i did, more or less. whats your point?
Neo-Anarchists
06-04-2005, 22:34
What's really scary is that some very similar stuff went on in the US before the Nazis started.
If I'm not mistaken, some of Hitler's work was inspired by us, albeit his was on a much greater scale.
The Cat-Tribe
06-04-2005, 22:42
What's really scary is that some very similar stuff went on in the US before the Nazis started.
If I'm not mistaken, some of Hitler's work was inspired by us, albeit on a much greater scale.

Very true. :(

Eugenics was most popular in the US. :eek:

Hitler's policies were inspired by the policies of the U.S. :eek:

U.S coporations helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele. :eek:

War Against the Weak -- Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create A Master Race (http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/)
Supremacist Science - American pseudo-science and the crimes of the Third Reich. (http://www.motherjones.com/arts/books/2003/09/ma_513_01.html)
Eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics)
Neo-Anarchists
06-04-2005, 23:15
I think this thread deserves a bump.

BUMP!
The Cat-Tribe
06-04-2005, 23:48
I think this thread deserves a bump.

BUMP!

I agree.
Anarchic Conceptions
07-04-2005, 00:44
There used to be a Chair of Eugenics at a prestigious British Uni (UCLI think). It still technically exists but has changed its name after WWII. Anyone have any idea what it is?

I accept no responsibility if this is an UM, a teacher told me this and it is currently too late to care.
SMALL EARTH
07-04-2005, 03:27
yes i did, more or less. whats your point?


Ash,

Just curious to see where people's heads are at...

Ken
Andaluciae
07-04-2005, 03:29
Ah, yeah, that one's my fault...sorry about that...
Ashmoria
07-04-2005, 03:32
there are a lot of ideas that seem great "on paper" and its not until you see what it really means to carry them out that you realize they suck.

so when the nazis started killing jews, gypsys, homosexuals, the retarded, etc etc it was suddenly very clear that eugenics wasnt such a great idea after all.
The Cat-Tribe
07-04-2005, 03:52
there are a lot of ideas that seem great "on paper" and its not until you see what it really means to carry them out that you realize they suck.

so when the nazis started killing jews, gypsys, homosexuals, the retarded, etc etc it was suddenly very clear that eugenics wasnt such a great idea after all.

Of course these ideas were put into practice for several decades here in the good ole USA. People continued to think they were a good idea.
Whispering Legs
07-04-2005, 03:55
As soon as genetic manipulation and screening are affordable, it will become a reality based on science, not just the fantasies of a few nutjobs.
SMALL EARTH
07-04-2005, 16:24
there are a lot of ideas that seem great "on paper" and its not until you see what it really means to carry them out that you realize they suck.

so when the nazis started killing jews, gypsys, homosexuals, the retarded, etc etc it was suddenly very clear that eugenics wasnt such a great idea after all.

That's for sure!!! SO who funded the Nazi rise to power?

Ken
Macracanthus
07-04-2005, 16:35
In sweden it was also unfortunally very common, had a centre for it in Swedens oldest university. Many mentally ill people was given the choice to either be sterilised or to be locked in to sanitarium for the rest of their life.
Bottle
07-04-2005, 16:46
just out of curiosity:

does anybody here believe it may be possible to enjoy some of the benefits of "eugenics" without succumbing to the slippery slope toward a Gattaca world? can we allow people to use genetic screening or gene therapies to improve their lives and the lives of their children, without progressing towards a Nazi-nightmare-type universe?
Eutrusca
07-04-2005, 16:50
As soon as genetic manipulation and screening are affordable, it will become a reality based on science, not just the fantasies of a few nutjobs.
There's a world of difference between genetic manipulation to eliminate defective genes from an individual's genetic makeup, and "eugenics," which advocated sterilization or "mecry killing."

BTW ... there was a really excellent movie about this very subject: "GATTACA." If you've not seen it yet, I highly recommend it.
The Cat-Tribe
07-04-2005, 19:14
There's a world of difference between genetic manipulation to eliminate defective genes from an individual's genetic makeup, and "eugenics," which advocated sterilization or "mecry killing."

BTW ... there was a really excellent movie about this very subject: "GATTACA." If you've not seen it yet, I highly recommend it.

Gattaca (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/) is awesome!

Oh, and you are correct, sir.
SMALL EARTH
07-04-2005, 20:58
In sweden it was also unfortunally very common, had a centre for it in Swedens oldest university. Many mentally ill people was given the choice to either be sterilised or to be locked in to sanitarium for the rest of their life.

Do you know anything about Lebensborn? I know it was well known in Norway...

Ken
Riverlund
07-04-2005, 21:05
Talking about eugenics in Nazi Germany is all well and good, but if we go back to the previous century we find...

The nation that had the second largest eugenics movement was the United States. Beginning with Connecticut in 1896, many states enacted marriage laws with eugenic criteria, prohibiting anyone who was "epileptic, imbecile or feeble-minded" from marrying. Charles B. Davenport, a prominent American biologist, assumed the role of director of a biological research station based in Cold Spring Harbor. Here he began experimenting with evolution of plants and animals. That same year, Davenport received funds from the Carnegie Institution to found the Station of Experimental Evolution. 1910 heralded the Eugenics Record Office, Davenport and Harry H. Laughlin began to promote eugenics. In years to come the ERO collected a mass of family pedigrees, which concluded that those that were unfit were from economically and socially poor backgrounds. Eugenicists such as Davenport, the psychologist Henry H. Goddard, and the conservationist Madison Grant (all well respected in their time) began to lobby for various solutions to the problem of the "unfit" (Davenport favored immigration restriction and sterilization as primary methods, Goddard favored segregation in his The Kallikak Family, Grant favored all of the above and more -- even entertaining the idea of extermination). Though we now see the methodology and research methods as being highly flawed, in their time they were seen as legitimate scientific research, though they did have their scientific detractors (notably Thomas Hunt Morgan).

In 1924, the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, with eugenicists for the first time playing a central role in the Congressional debate, as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from Eastern and Southern Europe. This reduced the number of immigrants from abroad to fifteen percent of that of previous years, to control the proportion of "unfit" individuals entering the country. The new Act strengthened the existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool. Eugenic considerations also lay behind the adoption of incest laws in much of the USA, and were used to justify many anti-miscegenation laws.

Always nice to know that America can lead the way in political thought (both good and bad), isn't it?
Macracanthus
08-04-2005, 08:20
Do you know anything about Lebensborn? I know it was well known in Norway...

Ken

Nope, don't know so much about Norways modern history unfortunally.
SMALL EARTH
12-04-2005, 15:37
Lebensborn means "spring of life". The "Lebensborn" project was one of most secret and terrifying Nazi projects. Heinrich Himmler created The "Lebensborn" on December 12th, 1935. The goal of this society ("Registered Society Lebensborn - Lebensborn Eingetragener Verein") was to offer to young girls "racially pure" the possibility to give birth to a child in secret. The child was then given to the SS organization which took in charge his "education" and adoption.

In the beginning, the "Lebensborn" were SS nurseries. But in order to create a "super-race", the SS transformed these nurseries in "meeting places" for "racially pure" German women who wanted to meet and make children with SS officers. The children born in the Lebensborn were taken in charge by the SS and it is important to know that most of them were also victims of this race policy....

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Lebensborn.html
Preebles
12-04-2005, 15:43
What's really scary is that some very similar stuff went on in the US before the Nazis started.
If I'm not mistaken, some of Hitler's work was inspired by us, albeit his was on a much greater scale.
I'm pretty sure a US eugenicist received an award from Hitler... It may have been the same guy who said that black and white people shouldn't have kids because the children would be tall (like white people) and half short, white people-esque arms, so they'd have trouble picking things up... Yes, someone really said that. Hmmm, I did a lecture on the topic. I could probably post some of it... *runs off to find*


A Brief History of Eugenics
In 1924 the US state of Virginia passed a statute allowing hospitals and psychiatric institutions to sterilise certain patients and inmates. The objective was to prevent those with hereditary failings from passing their genes on to future generations. Soon after, a 17 year old girl, called Carrie Buck, was diagnosed as a “moral imbecile” and confined in the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, in Lynchburg.
Carrie’s mother was also an inmate, certified ‘feebleminded’. And Carrie’s daughter, born out of wedlock, was reported to have a low IQ. Because Carrie’s daughter was illegitimate, the authorities also declared Carrie to be promiscuous. In fact, the child was the result of Carrie’s rape by a relative of her foster parents. Even so, the medical authorities ordered sterilisation.
The decision to sterilise Carrie was immediately contested and the case, Buck v. Bell, eventually came to the United States Supreme Court. Here Carrie’s advocates were told that Carrie’s rape was irrelevant to the proceedings, even though her child’s illegitimacy was used as evidence of her “moral imbecility” (they didn’t protest, not least because her defence attorney was actually working with the attorney representing the Virginia Colony). Having mulled over the evidence, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes approved sterilisation. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” he famously declared. This decision saw an upturn in the frequency of compulsory
vasectomies and tubal ligations in many American states and elsewhere. Incidentally, Carrie’s infant daughter, Vivian, was judged to be ‘not quite normal’, but her firstgrade report later showed her to be a solid ‘B’ student, who received an ‘A’' in deportment. She died aged eight.

Rational reproduction
Over the subsequent hundreds of years, little more was said about the possibility of the state having a say in whom its citizens married. But during the late 1700s and the 1800s serious interest was revived. There are several reasons for this. First, doctors began to assume more authority and it made sense to many of them that laws should dictate who did and did not breed. Second, the new fascination for human heredity was tightly linked to the beginning of a craze for animal breeding. Some aristocrats even had the lineages of their prize bulls painted and hung in their mansions alongside those of their own eminent forbears. It was easy to extrapolate from finely
bred animals to humans. But more important was the onset of industrialism and the consequent rise of a large, urban underclass as a feature of American, European and later Australian towns and cities.

During the 1800s, the middle and upper classes tended to see the lowest
classes as inherently different, a “race apart”, perhaps even hereditarily prone to “idleness, drunkenness and criminality”. The large, restless populations engendered more fear and disapproval than pity. Rarely before had Europeans witnessed poverty so widespread. And they nearly always blamed it on the poor themselves: arguing that the lowest classes were immoral, weak and irresponsible. The statistician and public health reformer William Farr was not alone in arguing that the occasional epidemic
was good for “cleansing the race.” The lowest social tier, comprising those who could rarely find regular employment, were often referred to as the “urban residuum”. And it was this section of society that many people wished simply would disappear. It seemed that some people had greater worth than others. It was in this context that
Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species appeared.

Eugenics becomes popular
Not many people listened to Galton. The notion of controlling human breeding seemedfar-fetched. But by the 1890s, when H. G. Wells was writing, the idea began to seemmore attractive. The rights and wrongs of imposing standards of parenthood were now being widely debated. Indicatively, a Eugenics Education Society was formed in Britain in 1907, established both to lobby for eugenic legislation and to encourage voluntary celibacy among those deemed unfit.
The inception of other such bodies followed in major British cities and in Sydney in Australia. Local eugenic groups also appeared in dozens of American cities, e.g. the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle
Creek, Michigan.
And in 1923 such American luminaries as Alexander Graham Bell and the
leading geneticist Charles Davenport set up the American Eugenics Society. The propagandising of these groups attracted plenty of attention. In 1911 the Oxford Union debating society voted in favour of eugenics by 2 votes to 1.

In America, eugenicists targeted state fairs, beginning at the Kansas Free Fair in 1920, where they displayed boards illustrating the principles of genetics and applied Mendelian insights to human social problems.
Worried about the deaths of so many of the ‘fittest’ young men in the trenches of the First World War, some eugenicists went so far as to request that the army issue eugenic stripes for those who were maimed victims of World War I but nevertheless “came from good stock”. In 1909 the entry on “Civilisation” in the normally apolitical Encyclopaedia Britannica included the comment that future efforts to advance civilisation were almost certain to involve “the organic betterment of the race through wise application of the laws of heredity”. Fitness was always synonymous with white skin, Nordic ancestry, education, worldly success, and the exercise of typically white
middle-class civic virtues.

Eugenics now appealed to a wide spectrum of political positions in Britain,
America and Australia. Leading statesmen were among the movement’s keenest supporters. At the 1912 International Eugenics Congress, held in Britain, Winston Churchill expressed his enthusiasm. On several occasions, Churchill spoke in favour of the “feebleminded” and other “degenerate types” being “segregated under proper conditions [so] that their curse dies with them.” Theodore Roosevelt was in full agreement. “Someday,” he remarked to the geneticist Charles Davenport in 1910, “we will realise that the prime duty, the inescapable duty, of the good citizen of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world.”
...

In 1906 another American eugenicist, Henry Goddard, was hired to open a
psychological laboratory at the Training School for Backward and Feeble-Minded Children in New Jersey. He commissioned a local school teacher to investigate the family history of an inmate named Deborah Kallikak, classified as a “high-grade feebleminded”. She found that the girl’s great-great-grandfather’s lineage was replete with paupers, alcoholics, the sexually immoral, and the feebleminded. And all Deborah’s impairments, she asserted, could be traced back to a single liaison between a Kallikak woman and a soldier, following a night in a tavern. Goddard’s The Kallikak
Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeble-Mindedness (1912) argued for the
compulsory segregation of the feebleminded.
In Britain the eugenics movement bore little fruit. But by 1914, 30 US states
had enacted new marriage laws or amended old ones, most of which made it possible to annul the marriages of ‘idiots’ and the insane. In 1896 Connecticut prohibited the marriage of the “eugenically unfit”. In 1907 Indiana passed the first state sterilisation law, permitting the sterilisation of repeat offenders, the insane and idiots. By 1907, sterilisation laws had been enacted by another fifteen states, although none of these were in the South.
By the end of the 1920s, in fact, sterilisation statutes were on the books of 24 states, including some in the South. By the mid-30s, 20,000 had been sterilised.
Clearly, the much more well-known German euthanasia programme was not simply a Nazi aberration. Rather, it drew upon a growing belief in Europe and America that the state was justified in eliminating those who could not play a productive role in society.
A Gallup poll of 1937 revealed that 45% of Americans approved of legislation
favouring euthanasia for defective infants. Moreover, the Nazi eugenic legislation drew heavily and explicitly on American laws. The American eugenicist Harry Laughlin even went to Germany to encourage and advise German eugenicists. Receiving an honorary degree from a leading German racial scientist, he could hardly restrain his delight.
5. Eugenics in Australia
Explicitly eugenic legislation was never enacted in Australia, although it came very close on a few occasions. But eugenic sentiments were widely expressed. Australians

took Darwin’s ideas very seriously and used them to justify a belief that white
Europeans were the superior race.

The original lecture is MUCH longer than this... Interesting stuff. *wubs health sociology*