Brief History of Eugenics and Sterilization
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1890s--Francis Galton coined the term “eugenics”
Reflected fears of many whites that genetically defective
members of society (including "feeble-minded," criminals,
sexually wanton, epileptics, the insane, and non-white races)
were rapidly out-reproducing the "normal" members of society
at an alarming rate
Eugenics movement:
– “Positive eugenics" -exhorting the genetically gifted to
reproduce;
– “Negative eugenics--sought to prevent the defective from
breeding
1900+ state legislatures and Washington receptive to eugenics
1910s - 1920s Eugenical lobbying contributed to the powerful
anti-immigration movement, using their scientific studies to
support the claim that non-whites and immigrants were inferior
to native-born white Americans in intelligence, physical
condition, and moral stature.
Meticulous studies of Franz Boas, H.S. Jennings, and others
demonstrated the failure of eugenical methodology, but
eugenical tide continues to swell
•
•
•
•
•
1930s Most states had passed eugenical laws authorizing the
sterilization of "defectives,"
U.S. Supreme Court agreed such laws were constitutional (Buck v
Bell, 1927).
America's eugenics movement inspired eugenics in France,
Belgium, Sweden, England and elsewhere
Cliques of eugenicists did their best to introduce eugenic principles
into national life, pointing to recent precedents established in the
United States
German eugenicists formed academic and personal relationships
with the American eugenics establishment
– Number of other charitable American bodies generously funded
German race biology with hundreds of thousands of dollars,
even after the depression had taken hold.
1933 Hitler seizes power in Germany. State eugenic policy of
identification, segregation, sterilization, euthanasia, eugenic courts,
mass termination.
1934
– Germany sterilization rate: 5,000+ per month
– (ten years after Virginia passes its 1924 Sterilization Act)—”The
Germans are beating us at our own game.”—Joseph Dejarnette,
superintendent of VA Western State Hospital.
American Eugenic Society Display at State Fair
Photo: Am. Phil Society.
Photo: Am. Phil Society.
1
Winner of the “Fitter Family” Contest
Large Family Category
Texas State Fair, 1925
1916—American Book Extolling the Nordic Race
•Described the “corruption” of the Nordic race by Jews, Negroes, Slavs
and others who did not posses blond hair and blue eyes.
Photo: Am. Phil Society.
Eugenics Record Office (~1925)
Library of Congress Images
•One of Adolf Hitler’s favorite books
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
http://gradschool.cshl.edu/
2
Buck v Bell
Dr. Albert Priddy, 1912
First superintendent
of the Virginia Colony
for Epileptics and the
Feebleminded
(brought the case
against Carrie Buck)
Dr. James H. Bell-superintendent of the
Virginia State Colony
for Epileptics and
Feebleminded.
Photo: Cold Spring
Harbor
Carrie Buck
Buck v. Bell
• Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927), was the United
States Supreme Court ruling that upheld a statute
instituting compulsory sterilization of the mentally
retarded "for the protection and health of the state”
• 1924--state of Virginia adopted a statute authorizing
the compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded
• Dr. Albert Sidney Priddy, superintendent of the Virginia
State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, filed a
petition to his Board of Directors to sterilize Carrie
Buck, an 18-year-old patient at his institution whom he
claimed had a mental age of 9.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
(per testimony of Dr. Priddy) Buck's 52-year-old mother
possessed a mental age of 8 and had a record of prostitution
and immorality.
Emma Buck had three children without good knowledge of
their parentage.
Carrie, one of these children, had been adopted and attended
school for five years, reaching the level of sixth grade.
According to Priddy, Carrie had eventually proved to be
"incorrigible" and eventually gave birth to an illegitimate
child.
Her adopted family had committed her to the State Colony as
"feeble-minded" no longer feeling capable of caring for her.
It was later discovered that Carrie's pregnancy was not
caused by any act of "immorality" on her own part. In the
summer of 1923, while her adoptive mother was away "on
account of some illness," her nephew raped Carrie, and her
later pregnancy and institutional commitment is now
considered an attempt to save the family reputation
During litigation, Priddy died and his successor, Dr. James
Hendren Bell, was substituted to the case.
Board of Directors issued an order for the sterilization of
Buck
3
•
•
•
•
•
Buck’s guardian appealed the case to the Circuit Court of
Amherst County, which sustained the decision of the Board.
The case then moved to the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia.
Buck's lawyer, Irving Whitehead, poorly argued her case,
failed to call important witnesses, and was remarked by
commentators to often not know what side he was on.
It is now thought that this was not because of incompetence,
but deliberate.
– Whitehead had close connections both to the counsel for
the institution, and Priddy himself.
– He was also a member of the board for the Virginia State
Colony of which Priddy was director
– Had personally authorized Priddy's sterilization requests
and was a strong supporter of eugenic sterilization.
The appellate court sustained the sterilization law as
compliant with both the state and federal constitutions, and it
then went to the United States Supreme Court.
The plaintiff's lawyers argued that this procedure ran counter
to the protections of the 14th Amendment.
“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.” [emphasis added]”
• How is mandatory sterilization different
from taxes or compulsory community
service?
• What ethical similarities and differences
exist between compulsory vaccination and
mandatory sterilization?
• On May 2, 1927, in an 8-1 decision, the Court accepted
that she, her mother and her daughter were "feebleminded" and "promiscuous," and that it was in the state's
interest to have her sterilized. The ruling legitimized
Virginia's sterilization procedures until they were repealed
in 1974.
• Justice Pierce Butler dissenting. No opinion was written
(Butler of Catholic background).
• Carrie Buck was operated upon, receiving a compulsory
salpingectomy (form of tubal ligation).
• She was later paroled from the institution as a domestic
worker to a family in Bland, Virginia.
• She was an avid reader until her death in 1983.
• Her daughter Vivian, was also sterilized as a young girl
• Vivian did very well in her two years of schooling, once
being on the school's honor roll.
• She died at the age of eight
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sterilization law vs
taxes/jail
Physically invasive
Benefit—Carrie,
society
Harm
Permanent
Carrie is innocent
Eugenic law does not
apply to everyone
(undue burden?)
Steriliz. vs Mandatory
vaccination
• Sterilization takes
away, vaccination
delivers a benefit
• Vaccination –
temporary harm (skin
prick); sterilization –
permanent limit on
autonomy
4
What errors in Due Process were described in the
Lombardo article?
Errors in Due Process
for Carrie
Ulterior Motive
Unfair representation
for Carrie
Legal protection for
Priddy and Colony
Being sent to Colony
Dobbs family wants to
cover their
embarrassment
Priddy et al. want to
promote eugenic goals
Science is wrong
• Even at the time of Buck v Bell, eugenics
was controversial and a significant
number of scientists declared eugenics
as false science. Why was good science
(or at least the uncertainty of eugenics)
ignored?
• Who is more likely to see the value of
eugenics and less likely to see its harms?
Parallels between Tuskegee and Buck v Bell
What do the huge “errors” in Due
Process in Buck v Bell tell us about
science, the law, and society?
• Politics as usual. The strong and
powerful manipulate politics for their own
purposes.
• Eugenics seems to easily tap into racial
and class prejudice
• If the law makes an error, permanent
actions can’t be taken back.
• Scientists and doctors with a scientific or
societal agenda (“for the good of
society”)
• Scientists and doctors carrying out a
policy that does not affect them.
• Deception. Victims are not able to tell
that they are being tricked (opacity of
science/medicine).
• Power and authority v. poorer population
(science has power)
5
Scientists and Doctors Can Not Decide for All
•
Scientists/ doctors cannot know what it is to be
– Poor
– Bearing burden of disease/sterilization/risk
– (How would science policies have been recommended were
scientists to equally bear the burden?)
•
Scientists/doctors are human
– Own interests and priorities
– Cannot be assumed to have all parties’ best interests absolutely
at heart (despite Hippocratic Oath)
•
Extra danger—a malicious doctor is worse than a malicious
lay person
– Authority and power
– Opacity of biomedical information—lay people cannot recognize
when the scientist/doctor is wrong Æ no built-in check.
Spring 2007
6