Sullivan, Dennis M.

English

Digital Commons

Cedarville UniversityDigitalCommons@CedarvilleBioethics Resources Center for Bioethics2013A Short History of Eugenics Thought and PracticeDennis M. SullivanCedarville University, sullivan@cedarville.eduFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/center_for_bioethics_resourcesPart of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics CommonsThis PowerPoint is brought to you for free and open access byDigitalCommons@Cedarville, a service of the Centennial Library. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Bioethics Resources by an authorizedadministrator of DigitalCommons@Cedarville. For more information,please contact digitalcommons@cedarville.edu.Recommended CitationSullivan, Dennis M., "A Short History of Eugenics Thought and Practice" (2013). Bioethics Resources. 2.http://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/center_for_bioethics_resources/2A Short History of Eugenics Thought and PracticeBy Dennis Sullivan, MD, MA (Ethics)Cedarville UniversitySources Based on facts taken from:– www.eugenicsarchive.org– http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/publications/scopenotes/sn28.htm Special note of thanks to:– Joe W. Francis, Ph.D. (Masters College)Introduction to Eugenics– Eugenics: from the Greek “eugenes” for “good birth” Underlying ideas quite ancient in origin Plato argued that human baby production should be limited to people selected for desirable qualities– Term coined in 1883 by Francis Galton Englishman and cousin of Charles Darwin Applied Darwinian science to heredity and “good birth”Definitions The Encyclopedia of Bioethics:– “A science that investigates methods to ameliorate the genetic composition of the human race, a program to foster such betterment; a social movement; and in its perverted form, a pseudo-scientific retreat for bigots and racists.” Kevles:– “By 1935 eugenics had become hopelessly perverted into a pseudoscientific facade for advocates of race and class prejudice, defenders of vested interests of church and state, Fascists, Hitlerites, and reactionaries generally.”The popularization of genetic science: Phrases used at the end of the 19th century:– “Survival of the fittest”– “Struggle for existence” Eugenics societies were created throughout the worldSocial Origins of Eugenics  Economic, social, and political context– The rapid growth of American industry– Increased mechanization of agriculture– Major migration away from farms– Cities expanded faster than adequate housing– Wholesale exploitation of labor created militant labor union organizations– Huge influx of immigrants from Europe in years before WWISocial Darwinism Explained social and economic inequalities as the “survival of the fittest.” – Declining birthrate among the wealthy and powerful– Working class was reproducing at a faster rate Social philanthropy and religious institutions little help. Progressive reformers: faith in science as a “cure-all” The New Social Engineering: Eugenics Genetically “selected” traits– pauperism, feeble-mindedness, alcoholism, rebelliousness– nomadism, criminality, prostitution All due to “defective germ plasm” Defective individuals should not reproduce –led to compulsory sterilization  Some races more prone to defects – led to selective immigration restrictionFrancis Galton1822-1911 English scientist, argued that genius and talent are inherited Advocated “positive eugenics”– Improving future generations by encouraging the “best” in society to have more children. – Contrast with “negative eugenics” Culling defectives and degenerates from the population to promote and preserve the fittest– Eugenics movements in the United States, Germany, and Scandinavia favored the negative approach.Sir Francis Galton 1822-1911Other Eugenicists Charles Davenport– Established the Eugenics Record Office (ERO)– The ERO trained field workers to collect pedigrees of families with interesting traits– Wrote extensively on “pauperism,” criminality and “feeble-mindedness.”Charles Davenport  1866-1944Eugenics Research Example: “Naval officer”– An “inherited trait,” composed of subtraits for: Thalassophilia: love of the sea Wanderlust– Trait is unique to males.Harry Laughlin ERO’s superintendent Ambitious promoter of laws:– to sterilize “hereditary defectives”– to restrict the inflow of “worthless” immigrantsEugenics in the early 20thCentury Positive Eugenics– 1920s: American Eugenics Society sponsored “Fitter Families Contests”– Based on an application and testing– Prize-winning families won fame and a medalNegative Eugenics “Degeneracy theory” dated from 1700s– Masturbation, cited in medical textbooks, first biological theory of the cause of degeneracy– Harry Clay Sharp (prison physician in Jeffersonville, Indiana) carried out vasectomies on prisoners beginning in 1899 1907 Indiana law mandating compulsory sterilization of “degenerates”  First eugenic sterilization law in the United States.1920s and 1930s: Margaret Sanger started Planned Parenthood with strong eugenics bias Many states passed sterilization laws 1920s: U.S. Congress required thousands of Americans to become sterilized so they could not pass on “inferior” traitsAmerican EugenistsCharles Davenport  1866-1944American EugenistsCharles Davenport  1866-1944Buck v Bell:U.S. Supreme Court, 1927Buck v. Bell U.S. Supreme Court, 1927 Case overview– Plaintiff: Carrie Buck – Defendant: Dr. J.H. Bell, superintendent of the Virginia Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded– Appellants claim: Virginia’s 1924 eugenic sterilization law violated Carrie Buck’s constitutional rights.– Decision: The court upheld as constitutional Virginia’s compulsory sterilization of young women considered  “unfit to continue their kind.”Case details Carrie Buck and her mother Emma:– Committed to the Virginia Colony in Lynchburg, Virginia– Judged “feebleminded” and promiscuous, because they had both had borne children out of wedlock– Carrie’s child, Vivian, judged by an expert to be “feebleminded” at seven months of age.– The “feeblemindedness” was inherited– Based of antisocial conduct in Carrie and her mother, leading to criminality and pauperism– Lawyers claimed Carrie would cease to be a charge on society if sterilizedArguments Pro and Con Defended by her lawyer who claimed protection of the 14th Amendment Compulsory sterilization likened to compulsory vaccination (for promotion of public health). Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes delivered the nearly unanimous opinionOliver Wendell Holmes: “Carrie Buck is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring, likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health and that her welfare and that of society will be promoted by her sterilization . . . it is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Dr. Bell sterilized Carrie Buck on October 19, 1927. Influence of the Buck v. Bell decision  Virginia’s law served as a model for similar laws in 30 states 50,000 U.S.citizens were sterilized without their consent. Buck v. Bell has never been officially reversed by the Supreme Court.Influence of the Buck v. Bell Decision (cont.) Harry Laughlin, had been author of the “model sterilization act” of Virginia Made draft available to state and foreign governments Became Germany’s Hereditary Health Law of 1933 Nuremberg war trials: Nazi lawyers cited Buck v Bell as acceptable precedent for the sterilization of 2 million people in its Rassenhygiene program.Later U.S. Developments 1935: scientific committee found the work of ERO “without scientific merit” Abuses of the Nazis led to a decline in popularity of eugenics ERO closed on December 31, 1939.Timeline of U.S. Eugenics 1899: Surgical treatment of Habitual Criminals, JAMA (April) 1900-14: 13 million people immigrate to U.S (avg. = 1 million/year) 1907: Indiana first state to adopt involuntary sterilization law 1913: 29 state laws forbid interracial marriage 1924: Harry Laughlin’s Virginia law 1927: Buck v. Bell Supreme Court case 1930: 50,000 Americans sterilized by this time 1939: ERO closed, eugenics waning in popularity in U.S. 1942: Skinner v. Oklahoma reversed involuntary sterilization of criminals 1975: Sterilization of mentally ill continues: 60,000 Americans sterilizedEugenics in Nazi Germany: Roots coincided with U.S. Eugenics movement:– 1896: Alfred Ploetz publishes a book to introduce concept of Rassenhygiene (racial hygiene) into German thought– 1913: Eugene Fischer publishes a book about mixed-blood people of Southwest Africa, arguing that they be offered minimal protection as “a race inferior to ourselves.”– 1917-1918: Wartime rationing leads to widespread deaths from starvation of psychiatric patients in German hospitals (they are clearly of low priority)Eugenics in Nazi Germany (cont): 1920: Publication of book Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life, Hoche.and Binding– Argues that lebensunwertes leben, “life unworthy of life,” justifies medical killing– The right to life must be earned, not assumed– Justified negative eugenics in the German mind 1920-33: Widespread recognition of “minderwertig:” bad genesStepping up the pace: Genetics still in its infancy, DNA and molecular basis unknown Behavioral phenotype associated with inherited genotype– Most eugenics work based on pedigrees– Not the exclusive the domain of scientists– Pedigrees and racial analysis performed by social workers and bureaucrats Scientific/medical justification:– Psychologists and psychiatrists did testing– identifying traits were behavioral– Lebensunwertes leben as “Medical Therapy” Ultimately, used as stepwise justification for the “Final Solution.”A Short History of Eugenics Thought and Practice

A Short History of Eugenics Thought and Practice

https://digitalcommons.cedarville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=center_for_bioethics_resources

A Short History of Eugenics Thought and Practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons