Eugenics and Nazi Germany

What is Eugenics?

Eugenics is by definition the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. Since then the debate on eugenics has not stopped. While some people believe it is for the good of the society by creating a better generation, the other group argue it cannot be beneficial simply because it is racist.

Carlyle and Mill were only the two people in the history of economics with different views on several issues and eugenics was one of these issues. While Carlyle advocated eugenics movement, Mill thought it was the institutions, not the race, that explained why a country was rich or poor and he advocated all people were the same, thus they all deserved liberty. Therefore, the economists of that time could not agree on emancipation of slaves. Some supporters of Mill were evangelicals, who were Christians believing slaves should be free since all were equal in the eyes of God. This idea was referred in the phrase: “Am I not a man and a brother?”. On the other hand, according to Carlyle, African-American were sub-humans, thus they needed to be supervised by the whites and thus actions such as whipping were for their own good, which was also beneficial for the society. Carlyle thought it was not only African-Americans but also Irish that were inferior to whites. Opposed to him, Adam Smith argued that there were no natural masters or slaves but differences between people which could be explained by incentives, history and luck.

Gender Discrimination in Nazi Germany

Women's Role in Nazi Germany

Although mass murder is the most profound example of eugenics in Nazi Germany, it is also important to analyze the role women played in this time period. In 1932 Germany reached an international low in birth rates. This was most likely due to the economic conditions at the time; however it was perceived as a strike by women. The remedy was social improvement through the use of financial and social incentives.

In Nazi Germany, women were divided into two sections: superior and inferior. This classification was determined by their nationality, marital status, and position they held within society. Germans were considered superior, whereas people of Jewish, Polish or other national descent were inferiors. Additionally house servants, unskilled factory workers, farm workers, prostitutes, unmarried women, and anyone who deviated from the norm were classified as inferior as well. This separation determined who was allowed to reproduce and who would be forbidden. The ideology behind this was to promote the expansion of the German Volk or Aryan race.

These divisions of superior and inferior women determined the applicable laws dealing with pregnancy. Women of the superior race, were expected to bear children and continue on the Aryan race. These women were forbidden to obtain an abortion and if violated, faced various consequences depending on the degree of their crime committed. Whereas women of inferior status, were often prohibited to procreate through practices of sterilization or abortions. These women were considered as lacking value to the community and so were their offspring. The idea was that the number of degenerates born depends on the number of degenerate women capable of procreation, so take that ability away and the problem is solved. This caused physician- patient relationships to be replaced by loyalty to the state. Anyone who was deemed hostile or against the state could then be classified as inferior and have certain rights and privileges revoked.

Abortion Laws

Nazis' viewed women only as bearers of children and therefore the use of contraceptives were considered a violation against nature and a degradation of motherhood. Abortions were made illegal for women of the superior class. The Reich wanted to promote gene value by building up the superior race. Blocking reproduction of the German Volk or mixing blood with lesser races (Jews, Polish, or other inferiors) was considered detrimental to the German nation and people were punished for racial treason.

Laws and Punishment

In May 1933, two penal laws prohibited availability of abortion facilities, legalized eugenic sterilization, and prohibited voluntary sterilization. Restrictions were also placed on advertisements for abortions and the use of contraceptives. However, condoms were exempt because they could prevent venereal disease.

There were three main paragraphs of the penal code that were emphasized during this anti-abortion time period. Paragraph 218 of the penal code stated that a pregnant women who killed her baby in utero could serve 5 years of a penitentiary sentence. Paragraph 219 stated that any person who performs an abortion for financial gain would be subject to penitentiary sentence of 10 years. It also stated that anybody who advertised or advocated abortions would face a fine or prison sentence not exceeding two years. The final paragraph, 220 stated that anyone who publicly offers services for abortions will face a fine or punishment up to two years. Some punishments of disregarding the penal code were as extreme as imposing the death penalty, forcing people into retirement, or forced emigration. By 1938, convictions against these codes reached 7000, which was a 65% increase from 1932. Of those convicted, a majority were female physicians even though they accounted for the minority of doctors.

There were two exceptions to the penal code that allowed some superior women to be eligible for an abortion. The first exception was that abortion could only be performed if it threatened the health of the mother, which had to be confirmed by at least two doctors. The second exception stated that after having three children a woman was eligible to have an abortion. Between August 1944 and May of 1945, the Hamburg council of physicians had only 38 petitions for abortions (health issues etc), in which only 89% of those were approved. A woman with cancer had her request denied because there was no proof that an abortion would prolong her life. Furthermore, if a woman petitioned for an abortion her and her partner were required to undergo racial examination in which the court would deem if the future child would be racially valuable. For German women to have an abortion, serious health problems had to be the reason. Whereas a woman of Polish, Russian or other nationalities, need only state they were foreign to have an abortion. Polish abortionists were not punished so long as they only performed abortions on Polish women and not German Volk.

It is important to note that documentation of the enforcement of abortions was limited. There were documents that told of abortions being performed illegally by the women themselves or unqualified people. In 1926 Hamburg predicted that 2 out of 3 pregnancies were aborted illegally. Since abortion laws were not lifted, this number continued to grow and in 1937 it was estimated that 400,000 abortions occurred. The increasing social unrest also caused the number of abortions to increase.

As of 1988, abortion became legally available to pregnant women in the 1st 3 months of pregnancy. Abortions still often face medical opposition in Germany.

Sterilization Laws

Sterilization laws were applied to those of the inferior class. In 1934 sterilization laws determined nine different conditions that were summons to be sterilized: 5 related to psychiatric illnesses, 3 to physical invalidity, and the last to alcoholism. Mental problems, physical disabilities, alcoholism, prostitution, social problems, poverty, criminality, were all seen as inheritable traits. In 1936, castration by destruction of women gonads begun. X-rays were used for mass sterilization without the knowledge of the inmates. By 1937, German authorities had sterilized more than 220,000 people. In 1940 officers were granted permission to perform sterilization and abortions on inferiors.

Project T4

Also known as Euthanasia, took place from 1939-1941. This was a top secret program that was eventually leaked which caused its demise. During this time over 100,000 inmates were killed. Sterilization was the first measure taken. Gas chambers were first used under this program. After this program became exposed, pressure forced Hitler and the S.S. to put a hault to this plan and the 3 million they had planned to kill.

Effects of Nazi Eugenics Today

The use of eugenic practices in Nazi Germany led to a huge downfall in the eugenics movement after World War II. The association with Nazis and the Holocaust caused many to shy away from using the term eugenics at all. However, the emergence of “new eugenics” began with the discovery of the chemical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick in 1953. This discovery spurred new medical research including inherited genes, cloning, genetic testing, and the “Human Genome Project (HUGO) throughout the 1990s. The goal of HUGO was to map out 3.3 billion nucleic bases of the human genome. With the emergence of results, the project was given the slogan, “The secrets of life have been discovered.” One of the main goals of HUGO was to be able to locate the genes for specific genetic diseases and prevent these diseases in future generations through genetic intervention. Due to these rapid medical discoveries, in the 21st century many couples are turning to genetic testing when trying to conceive children. Couples that are predisposed to certain genetic diseases have the ability to choose healthy embryos to be implanted or abort early pregnancies with genetic defects. As this practice has become more and more common, a debate has emerged about whether these genetic practices are a return to old eugenics.

Old Eugenics vs. New Genetics Debate

Two distinct arguments have emerged out of this debate. One group feels that genetics is completely separate of eugenics and another believe genetics is eugenics renewed or reformed. Those that believe in separation base their reasoning on six key arguments: (1) Old eugenics was racial politics whereas new genetics is preventative medicine; (2) Old eugenics was discriminatory against women while new genetics gives new opportunities for women; (3) Old eugenics was discriminatory against the disabled whereas new genetics gives new opportunities to the disabled; (4) Old eugenics was oriented around a belief in collectivism and promotion of social rights whereas new genetics focuses on individualism and protection of individual rights; (5) Old eugenics was coercive whereas new genetics is voluntary; and (6) Old eugenics was based on flawed science whereas new genetics is accurate science. While those that believe genetics is separate from eugenics have support for each one of these claims, those that believe genetics and eugenics are linked have opposing support for each claim.

Radical Politics vs. Preventative Medicine

The first claim is that old eugenics was based on racial politics while new genetics is preventative medicine. Those that champion genetics believe that eugenics was used by Nazis in Germany as biological warfare to carry out their racist beliefs. Minority ethnic groups were targeted in order to keep them from reproducing which would eventually lead to the extinction of the group. Today, however, genetics can be used to test for hereditary genetic diseases that are straining on both the person afflicted and their family.

Some believe that genetic testing today still targets minority groups, even though the term “race” has been replaced with “ethnic group” or “population.” (2) The claim has been made that testing particular groups is necessary due to the prevalence of certain diseases within specific races (African Americans and sickle cell anemia for example). However, separating these groups and labeling them in distinct biological ways can lead racial discrimination within the medical field. Critics of genetics claim that separating ethnic groups can be “used to legitimate a return to eugenic policies of segregation, exclusion, discrimination or genocide” (2). Certain communities have recognized the practice of labeling based on race and have refused to participate in genetic research in order to prevent further discrimination of their people. In relation to these groups, many believe that genetics is simply a return to old eugenics.

Opportunities For Women

The second claim is that old eugenics was discriminatory towards women while genetics creates new opportunities for women. During the eugenics movement, women were especially targeted and influenced to make responsible reproductive decisions. Women of reproductive age considered to be genetically fit were encouraged to reproduce (with the right partners) while other women who were deemed “feeble-minded” were discouraged from reproduction. Many women were either tricked into sterilization or were sterilized without their knowledge or informed consent. Today, many believe that genetic testing provides new opportunities for women that have not previously been available. Women who undergo genetic testing can find out if they are carriers of specific genetic diseases and can take certain measures to prevent the disease from being passed on to their children. Through this testing, healthier children are born and genetic diseases can be all but eradicated.

However, some believe (including many feminists) that genetic testing is discriminatory towards women and provides immense social pressures. Women are discriminated against because the woman is genetically tested first, followed by the man if she is a carrier of a disease. Women often feel pressure to consent to testing because they take on large responsibility for their child. If a child is born with a preventable disease, the mother is left with tremendous guilt which is reinforced by societal pressures. In a similar way that women were pushed into sterilization in the past, many women are coerced into testing or are tested without their consent. One study found that British obstetricians commonly refuse to perform amniocentesis on a woman until they agree to termination if something is found in advance. Women’s choice is being removed and more and more as testing becomes less voluntary. This treatment led L. Andrews to write in 2001, “The language used in the current debate on preventing pregnancies…sounds like the language used in the earlier eugenics movement” (585). While genetic testing may open new doors for women, many believe that it is a continuation of exploitation of women that began with eugenics.

Opportunities for the Disabled

The next claim states that old eugenics was discriminatory towards disabled people, while new eugenics presents them new opportunities. When the Germans first adopted eugenic policies, the Jews were not the first ones to be tested. Children with disabilities were the first victims. Rothman writes, “Children under the age of three with Down’s syndrome were the first group the Nazi gassed” (585). Nazi Germany took old eugenics to an extreme, euthanizing those with genetic diseases. Although other countries did not take such extreme measures, old eugenics was discriminatory towards disabled people. Those that argue for genetic testing claim that new technology protects the rights of children, preventing them from being born with debilitating diseases. One advocate writes that genetic testing allows “the genetically weak to produce and give birth to the genetically strong” (586). Testing prevents children from the suffering with the burden of lifelong hard-to-treat diseases.

Others argue that testing is a new form of disability oppression. There is wide disagreement about how to define disability. The medical model and the social model of disability conflict, creating controversy about genetic testing. When it is determined that a child will be born with a specific disease, one must determine when a life is not worth living. This is a matter of opinion and is different for all people. The argument about who has the right to live is similar to arguments made within eugenics. Therefore, many claim that genetics is simply eugenics revisited. In fact, some claim that it is an intensification of negative eugenics objectives.

Collectivism vs. Individualism

The fourth claim says that old eugenics was oriented around a belief in collectivism and promotion of social rights whereas new genetics focuses on individualism and protection of individual rights. As shown through the policies and practices of Nazi Germany, eugenics focused on the good of the collective. The overall improvement of a nation was more important than any single individual. The culmination of individual decisions could have great effects on a group of people, and eugenics was an attempt to control that effect. Those in favor of genetics today claim that testing is done to help individuals, the complete opposite of the aim of eugenics.

While the practice of genetic testing is beneficial for individuals, many insist that it still has a collective focus, similar to eugenics. By aborting fetuses or disposing of embryos that are predisposed for disease, specific diseases would be eradicated. While genetics claims to be focused on helping individual couples and their children, many claim that improving the collective is still the main goal. Genetics has been called “covert” while eugenics was “overt.”

Coercion

Next, many argue that old eugenics was coercive while new genetics is voluntary. As previously mentioned, eugenic policies (not only in Nazi Germany but in the United States and Britain as well) were extremely coercive, forcing sterilization and institutionalization. Many times women gave consent for sterilization when they were unaware that the procedure was irreversible. Eugenics practices were forced upon these people, they did not choose to participate. Today, many argue that genetic testing is completely voluntary. It is an option for those who believe they are carriers of certain diseases, but is not mandatory.

There is no denying that old eugenics was more overtly coercive, but the argument has been made that genetics is not without coercion. This coercion is much more subtle. Often it comes from both societal pressures and researchers trying to obtain data and grants. Potential parents can also feel coerced by the fear of financial burdens and inadequate health care of a child born with a disease that could have been prevented by genetic testing. Counseling is offered to parents considering testing, where the counselor presents objective information about the process. However, counselors’ personal beliefs unavoidably influence patients. The degree of coercion changes with the counselor’s gender, ethnicity, religion, and ideological beliefs, but coercion definitely occurs.

Sources

Bock, Gisela. "Racism and Sexism in Nazi Germany: Motherhood, Compulsory Sterilization, and the State." Chicago Journals 8.3 (1983): 400-21. Jstor. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3173945>.

David, Henry P., Jochen Fleischhacker, and Charlotte Hohn. "Abortion and Eugenics in Nazi Germany." Population Council 14.1 (1988): 81-112. Jstor. Web. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1972501>.

Ekberg, Merryn. “The Old Eugenics and the New Genetics Compared.” Social History of Medicine 20.3 (2007): 581-593.

Güvercin, C.H., B Arda. "Eugenics Concept: From Plato to Present." Human Reproduction and Genetic Ethics 14.2 (2008): 20-28.