Eugenics and Nazi Germany

What is Eugenics? How is it Related to Nazism?

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.

There were some other ideas, such as paternalism, that advocated social or intellectual hierarchy because according to this idea, there was inferior and the superior and reformed slavery was good because African-Americans needed to be taken care of. Then, there was the question of choosing, if cruelty was bad- as practiced in slavery- and improvement was good –as they claim slavery is required for improvement- how could one choose between these two different goals that were in conflict with each other.

Then there was discussion of parasites in the society. While economists believed trade was mutually beneficial, opponents of markets argued the opposite; that is, there were some winners, namely parasites. They claimed African-Americans and Irish, that were “child-like group”, should be looked after in the hierarchical institutions and there was no beneficial free exchange market; thus, racial slavery should be practiced. Jews were also added into this parasite group by the defenders of slavery because they were seen as greedy. This greedy idea was extended to “sweaters” and was connected to cannibalism. Words like human “leeches, vampires and tiger” were used, even the act of “slaughter” was mentioned in literacy works, that is, they might deserve death, as it was stated as “parasite extermination”. While Carlyle and Ruskin advocated natural hierarchy, the opposing view was that there was spontaneous order in which there were no orders given or followed.

Eugenics movement, which is based on the idea of human improvement by controlled selective breeding, was oppose to the Classical notion of abstract economic man. Pro-eugenics thought about creating the new person: bigger, better, whiter. This leaded to the discussion of whether eugenics was moral or not. They said Darwin’s natural selection to create better specimen by natural ways couldn’t be applied to human beings since humans have the sympathy and morals to help the ill, old and physically challenged, rather than letting to die, as it is in animals or some tribes. They thought inferior, which breeds more, should be replaced by better, which was the new model person created from the superior. Thus, there must be a group of “unfit”, which were blacks and Irish. As they claimed, other than encouraging fertility among the “superior” and reducing “inferior”, immigration should be restricted too.

It is clear that racism, paternalism and eugenics are all related to each other. I do not believe in any group of people are superior to another group. There might be certain individuals superior to others, which is expected in every society, but to assume everyone in the same group, just because they belong to that group, is superior to the other does not make any reasonable argument. Also, it should be questioned that how or when the group that sees itself as superior started to think that way.

Also, the role of religion is important to think about. While Mill did not want to make connections to advocate his view on everyone was equal and thus slaves should be liberated, Christian idea still helped him to make people believe that everyone was the same, all equal. So, for many people, it was not the abstract idea of human capacity was the same but rather in the eyes of God, everyone is the same, so for the sake of religion we must make sure slavery perishes. Carlyle and his followers made appeal to religion in the sense that work was godly so the slaves should be made to work, and thus whipping, beating etc were all okay. I do not think these people would have argued the same if they didn’t benefit from slavery system or racism. That is, it would hurt them, especially financially, when there was no slavery so they used different ideas and made different approaches to support slavery for the sake of their own benefit, it was not only to create a better society but most likely a better life for themselves because they were on top of the system .If people are on top any kind of system, they would not want change, especially if this change would alter their life in a way they do not prefer. It is seen more clearly, when they argued that the presumed inferior should be excluded from the market, they couldn’t be trusted but only their work-force could be used. This is a way of stopping people from thinking, not only degrading them but also underestimating their capacities, not giving them any options not letting them even to think because if they think, their benefits would not be the same. The use of media and literacy work can affect the views of belief. It is not surprising to see it is still the case and it was the case years ago. The authors and artists have so much power that sometimes it is perplexing, especially taken into consideration that many people even do not notice such a huge effect. The use of language, word choice, connotations of words and cartoons-that stand as the fastest and easiest way to persuade thoughts- are only few of the tools used at that time.

The debate on eugenics became more fierce.In the thirties, eugenicists gathered statistical evidence to show 1/250 Americans, which was more than half a million people at that time, would fill mental institutions; although this information was not officially proved. It was also stated that deficiency had doubled since the last survey. Moreover, they claimed ¾ of so-called “unfit” came persistently from low income and social character families. These families were referred as “social problem group”. In the report they also mentioned mental defectives were able to make it to adulthood because of improved public-health services.Based on this information pro-eugenicists started to worry for the future, as they stated they should be serious anxiety and apprehension “for the future physical and mental condition” of their people. In one of the studies of that time, the people who made the study concluded that poor had their biological class of their own and thus for the sake of civilization, their reproduction must be controlled.

In Britain, The Eugenics Society, along with others, published pamphlets in order to explain the benefits of sterilization. This act took so much attention that another set of 10,000 pamphlets was printed. According to the polls, majority of people were in favor of compulsory sterilization of habitual criminals and mental defectives. On both sides of Atlantic, house cleaners argued that sterilization was humane and practical, supporting their argument by mentioning the large number of sterilizations made -especially in California which was the leading state-, numbers of doctors, social workers and low rates of infections. Some patients, as it was reported, said that they were grateful since it was protection. By the help of Depression, sterilization had greater support, so great that it was far beyond eugenics. Its advocates were from different groups of people, such as professors and club women. Briefly, at that time almost everyone thought it was a great idea, including people from private congresses, a lord and a prince. As a result, in several countries such as, Sweden, Denmark, Finland governments enacted eugenic sterilization.

However, in Britain sterilization on any ground was considered as illegal, not directly but indirectly by stating it was crime for someone to cause bodily harm to another. Also, the doctors were reluctant to do operations even on volunteers. In the States, Mencken talked about voluntary sterilization and how so-called scientists were actually sharecroppers and hardly human. Moreover, he underlined the fact that how sterilization would be dangerous to society. The Court decided compulsory sterilization should take place only if disabilities of the inmates of state mental institutions were hereditary. Later, other states passed sterilization laws. As a result, nation-wide, in America the rate of sterilization increased by significant amounts, California and Virginia leading the list.

While the rate of sterilization was increasing, the number of people scared increased too since it could be done on them too. Even there were people running away, caught up by the sheriff, loaded and then sterilized. In other words, there were not more people to get welfare of the society.

Sterilization became so common that, at Lynchburg it was done regularly every Tuesday and Thursday to males and females respectively. Even that was not seen as enough by some, like Dr. DeJarnette. He said Germans were beating them (Americans) on their own game. At that time, Hitler promulgated a Eugenic Sterilization Law. The law was compulsory to all as long as they suffered from hereditary disabilities and physical deformities. They believed these people were “poisoning the entire bloodstream of the race” and thus, it was important for public-health. In Germany, there were courts and higher eugenic courts whose decision was final and thus carried by force when necessary. Sterilization was only the beginning of Nazi movement, creating the pure-improved German race. Later anti-Semitic policies started but in the beginning it was independent of Nazi sterilization. Few years later, racial Nazi and eugenics policies were combined. Eugenic marriage laws prohibited marriage of people with mental disorders, some infectious diseases and different racial backgrounds. If the mentally challenged couple was sterilized, then they could get married. However, there was no exception for the marriage of Jews and Germans. In the following years, euthanasia of some groups of mentally diseased or disabled was inaugurated. These groups included Jews too, no matter they had mental problems or not. Jews were shot and then gassed in shower-like rooms.

While Hitler’s sterilization policy was applauded by some as an act of great courage and statesmanship, others thought it was a nefarious racial act. Then, against Nazi policy, an anti-eugenic group was developed. Both secular and religious groups were in opposition to the mainline movement for common and different reasons of their own. These groups included Liberals and Labourites in England and civil libertarians in the U.S, social workers, social scientists and minority groups, at the same time Protestants, Jews and Catholics. While the religious groups focused their argument on body vs. spirit and spirit is more important than physical body and so-called unfits were actually blessed children of God; the secular group talked about the idea of “to eugenics rather than to esthetic” but nevertheless they agreed on eugenics was bad.

Chesterton’s collected essays, Eugenics and Other Evil, were main anti-eugenics source that shook both sides of the Atlantic. His critics included eugenics would end up causing forcible marriages by the police. Although eugenic marriage laws were enacted in some American States, it was impossible to stop marriages since people could go to other states and get married in the same country. Many believed that interference with marriage and procreation was invasion of civil liberty and distrust of democracy, which resembled the caste system. Moreover, Darrow underlined the fact that people in power could use eugenics, thus human breeding, for their own interest. Principle mentioned eugenics threat to lower-income groups. Catholics also attacked eugenics, mentioning poor immigrants. Opponents of eugenics concluded that eugenics was not improving the social life conditions but instead preventing the lower class from reproducing and thus it was exploitation. Social reformers said that the thing that should be halted was social rather than racial decline. Principle used the founding of social sciences -such as anthropology, sociology and psychology- to support his anti-eugenics movement.

Many people started to believe eugenics was morally and socially offensive. During WWI, geneticists started to separate themselves from mainline eugenicists. There was decline on eugenic organizations, meetings and journal entries. The leading scientists in the anti-mainline assault were Haldane, Huxley, Hogben and Jennings.

These four were the primary advocates of new mode in biology; that is, experimentalism with their own interpretations of physics and chemistry. First three were British while Jennings was American. Their knowledge on genetics made them fight against eugenics as one body. Thus, they became friends. Almost all came from wealthy, intellectual and aristocrat families. As a result, they were all very well educated but they had different religious views. They also had different views on imperialism, wars, Marx, Soviet etc but were gathered around left side. However, they agreed mainline eugenics was not more than race and class prejudice. These four were famous writers of books and articles on both sides of the Atlantic. Their works and ideas, based on their knowledge and wit, were effective weapons against the authority of mainline eugenics in public discourse.

People still have different views on eugenics and it seems the controversy will not end soon. However, it is interesting to see how this whole process has started. The idea of creating a better society is a well respected one but an important question comes to mind: Who knows what is the best for the society?

Preventing mentally or physically challenged ones from having children, thus reducing their population in the society, may be considered as what should be done to create a better society. However, what if the advocates of sterilization themselves have children that are challenged in one way or another innately: Would the advocate still want his/her own child not to have the joys of having an offspring of him or her? I do not believe that it would be the case. In addition, the next step of sterilization involves excluding the so-called “unfit” from society, which is basically killing, or using a better name: euthanasia. If the goal is to decrease the number of so-called unfits in society, this can be done not only by sterilization but also simply by killing. Therefore, the idea of excluding the unfit by hereditary expands to killing other unfits that had deficiencies after having an accident or illness, in other words not necessarily deficient by hereditary. As it was seen in the relatively recent history, before the Second World War in Germany, genocide of certain group of people would start; genocide which gets its roots from racism. Neither genocide, nor racism has ever done good to societies.

The goal of creating a better society should not be based on excluding some group of people from others though. On the contrary, the ideal society should try to make the world a better place for those with physically or mentally challenged too, whether they have problems by hereditary or traumatic incidents. For that reason, in today’s modern world access to buildings and use of resources of any kind for the ones that are not able to walk or see is one of the main means of measuring civilization. The idea should be founded on that everyone wants to “fit” into the society but sometimes they cannot the way many others think because they do not have control over their own situation. I do believe that nobody would choose to be challenged by any boundaries. And saying or treating people as if they are not good enough for the rest of society cannot be humane, especially taking into consideration that they do not have any control over their situation.

Moreover, everyone has its own potential in a unique way. For instance, a child with a down syndrome, with relatively low IQ, can still contribute something to the society one way or another, if not by quantitative intelligence way but some other; or even if s/he cannot contribute to the society but s/he can do so at least to his/her family by bringing different kinds joys, such as love. Or there can be someone who has gone over some kind of terrible trauma such as the death, or even worse murder, of a close family member. There can be someone being raped by family members or someone who lost health due to an illness. As a result, this individual who has gone over a trauma might have mental issues, which is normal. However, is it not more respected and humane to help this person out and bring him/her back to the society again with healthy people? It is not the fault of this person to go through such difficult and painful events and suffer. What is worse is to exclude this person because of his/her situation instead of stopping their pain and helping out.

Exclusion of some people would create fear, violence and more importantly hatred between anyone-whether included or not in a certain group, which can never be beneficial to any member of a healthy and happy society. It is better to create a society with people loving and respecting each other with the way they are and this is not possible by eugenics since eugenics separates people into groups by its own standards of evaluating. If everyone is unique in his/her own way, then it is not possible to talk about dividing people into groups by more defining “fit” ones because there is no one in any society to decide who fits better or not than the others.

Nazi Movement, the Timetable

In order to see the correlation between eugenics and Nazism, one needs to know clearly what Nazism is. "Nazism, known officially in German as National Socialism, is the totalitarian ideology and practices of the Nazi Party or National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945."(w)

January 30, 1933:President Hindenburg appoints Adolf Hitler Chancellor of Germany

March 20, 1933: SS opens the Dachau concentration camp outside of Munich

April 1, 1933: Boycott of Jewish-owned shops and businesses in Germany

April 7, 1933: Law for the Reestablishment of the Professional Civil Service

July 14, 1933: Law for the Prevention of Progeny with Hereditary Diseases

September 15, 1935: Nuremberg Race Laws

March 16, 1935: Germany introduces military conscription

March 7, 1936: German troops march unopposed into the Rhineland

August 1, 1936: Summer Olympics begin in Berlin

March 11-13, 1938: Germany incorporates Austria in the Anschluss (Union)

November 9/10, 1938: Kristallnacht (nationwide pogrom in Germany)

May 13, 1939: The St. Louis sails from Hamburg, Germany

September 29, 1938: Munich Agreement

August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Nonaggression Agreement

September 1, 1939: Germany invades Poland, starting World War II in Europe

September 17, 1939: The Soviet Union occupies Poland from the east

October 8, 1939: Germans establish a ghetto in Piotrków Trybunalski, Poland

April 9, 1940: Germany invades Denmark and Norway

May 10, 1940: Germany attacks western Europe (France and the Low Countries)

July 10, 1940: Battle of Britain begins

April 6, 1941: Germany invades Yugoslavia and Greece

June 22, 1941: Germany invades the Soviet Union

July 6, 1941: Einsatzgruppen (mobile killing units) shoot nearly 3,000 Jews at the Seventh Fort, one of the 19th-century fortifications surrounding Kovno

August 3, 1941: Bishop Clemens August Graf von Galen of Muenster denounces the “euthanasia” killing program in a public sermon

September 28-29, 1941: Einsatzgruppen shoot about 34,000 Jews at Babi Yar, outside Kiev

November 7, 1941: Einsatzgruppen round up 13,000 Jews from the Minsk ghetto and kill them in nearby Tuchinki (Tuchinka)

November 30, 1941: Einsatzgruppen shoot 10,000 Jews from the Riga ghetto in the Rumbula Forest

December 6, 1941: Soviet winter counteroffensive

December 7, 1941: Japan bombs Pearl Harbor and the U.S. declares war the next day

December 8, 1941: The first killing operations begin at Chelmno in occupied Poland

December 11, 1941: Nazi Germany declares war on the United States

January 16, 1942: Germans begin the mass deportation of more than 65,000 Jews from Lodz to the Chelmno killing center

January 20, 1942: Wannsee Conference held near Berlin, Germany

March 27, 1942: Germans begin the deportation of more than 65,000 Jews from Drancy, outside Paris, to the east (primarily to Auschwitz)

June 28, 1942: Germany launches a new offensive towards the city of Stalingrad

July 15, 1942: Germans begin mass deportations of nearly 100,000 Jews from the occupied Netherlands to the east (primarily to Auschwitz)

July 22, 1942: Germans begin the mass deportation of over 300,000 Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to the Treblinka killing center

September 12, 1942: Germans complete the mass deportation of about 265,000 Jews from Warsaw to Treblinka

November 23, 1942: Soviet troops counterattack at Stalingrad, trapping the German Sixth Army in the city

April 19, 1943: Warsaw ghetto uprising begins

July 5, 1943: Battle of Kursk

October 1, 1943: Rescue of Jews in Denmark

November 6, 1943: Soviet troops liberate Kiev

March 19, 1944: Germans forces occupy Hungary

May 15, 1944: Germans begin the mass deportation of about 440,000 Jews from Hungary

June 6, 1944: D-Day: Allied forces invade Normandy, France

June 22, 1944: The Soviets launch an offensive in eastern Belorussia (Belarus)

July 25, 1944: Anglo-American forces break out of Normandy

August 1, 1944: Warsaw Polish uprising begins

August 15, 1944: Allied forces land in southern France

August 25, 1944: Liberation of Paris

December 16, 1944: Battle of the Bulge

January 12, 1945: Soviet winter offensive

January 18, 1945: Death march of nearly 60,000 prisoners from the Auschwitz camp system in southern Poland

January 25, 1945: Death march of nearly 50,000 prisoners from the Stutthof camp system in northern Poland

January 27, 1945: Soviet troops liberate the Auschwitz camp complex

March 7, 1945: U.S. troops cross the Rhine River at Remagen

April 16, 1945: The Soviets launch their final offensive, encircling Berlin

April 29, 1945: American forces liberate the Dachau concentration camp

April 30, 1945: Adolf Hitler commits suicide

May 7, 1945: Germany surrenders to the western Allies

May 9, 1945: Germany surrenders to the Soviets

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.

Accurate Science

The final claim is that old eugenics was based on flawed science whereas new genetics is accurate science. Eugenicists believed that all human traits were determined by genes, with no influence from the outside physical or social environment. Other major flaws in eugenic science included the drawing broad conclusions from small sample sizes, studying highly subjective characteristics (“feeble-mindedness”, “courage”, and “trustworthiness”), and flawed assumptions about how certain traits, such as intelligence, are inherited. With rapid improvements in technology came discovery about the complexity of genes. Genetic testing today is based on expansive knowledge compared to eugenics of the past.

While the knowledge about genetics and how certain traits are inherited is unarguably better today than when mainline eugenics was popular, there is still some degree of error. Genetic tests are not without their flaws, but there is the tendency to overestimate their predictive ability. These errors may result in “new forms of social inequality and genetic discrimination” (591).

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.

Lutz, Heather. "Eugenics roots impact health policies today." The Cleveland Jewish News. 111.7 (2007): 10-12.