[Honors granted by the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGKJP) and its predecessors]. / Die Ehrungen der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie, Psychosomatik und Psychotherapie e. V. (DGKJP) und ihrer Vorgängerorganisationen.

Honors granted by the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGKJP) and its predecessors Abstract. Abstracts: This research on the "honors" granted by the German Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychosomatics and Psychotherapy (DGKJP) investigated all persons honored by the society from 1950 (following the postwar reestablishment of the society) up through 1990 (German reunification). We explored the adequacy of the honors regarding the professional ethics of the honorees during the NS-regime. Ethics violations included so-called T4-assessments (euthanasia) leading to death, working in "special units" where children were murdered using drugs, or any form of nontherapeutic experiments on humans. The Heinrich Hoffman Medal was first awarded in 1957, with honorary memberships being conferred from 1963 onward. From 1957 to 1990, the DGKJP awarded 19 honorary memberships and 9 Heinrich Hoffman Medal to 27 recipients (one person received both). Of those honored, three were detected as violators of professional ethics. After long internal discussions, the DGKJP had already distanced itself from Elisabeth Hecker (1895-1986), Hans-Alois Schmitz (1899-1973), and Werner Villinger (1887-1961). The ideology shared by these three was formulated by Villinger as the "ineducability" of their child victims because of an "inferiority paradigm." The rejection by the DGKJP went little noticed in public, and until 2021 was only briefly mentioned in the society's newsletter. Eleven honored persons were former members of the NSDAP without demonstrable ethical transgressions; the investigations are still ongoing for three others, whose ethical transgressions have neither been ruled out nor confirmed.

[So-called "difficult children" urgently needed their own medical association: the history of the introduction of the specialist title of "child and youth psychiatry" in Germany in 1968]. / Die "schwer erziehbaren Kinder" benötigten dringend einen Arzt ­ verbandspolitische Vorgeschichte der Einführung des Facharzttitels für Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie in Deutschland 1968.

So-called "difficult children" urgently needed their own medical association: the history of the introduction of the specialist title of "child and youth psychiatry" in Germany in 1968 Abstract. In post-war Germany, child psychiatry (CP) was not an independent discipline but part of adult psychiatry/neurology. The primary goal of adult psychiatrists of the day was to maintain power in all areas dealing with nervous diseases and their treatment. Interest in smaller specialties such as CP remained secondary, leaving only the option of an additional qualification. Switzerland, on the other hand, had already early on introduced a separate CP specialization. In many other industrialized nations, CP was expanding to deal better with the difficulties posed by "difficult children" and their sequelae. Because of "cleansing" and the enforced synchronization of social and health care systems during the Nazi regime as well as the effects of the war, the development of CP in West Germany was subject to exceptional conditions. Specialists for this important "social task" were missing. Only after adult psychiatrists had accepted the separation of the disciplines of neurology and psychiatry did the specialist in "Child and Youth Psychiatry" emerge and receive the approval of the Medical Assembly in 1968.

[Coercive Measures in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Post-war Germany, Using the Example of the "Pflege- und Beobachtungsstation" in the State Psychiatric Hospital Weissenau (1951-1966)]. / Zwangsmaßnahmen in der Kinder- und Jugendpsychiatrie in der Nachkriegszeit am Beispiel der Pflege- und Beobachtungsstation des Psychiatrischen Landeskrankenhauses Weissenau (1951-1966).

Coercive Measures in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in Post-war Germany, Using the Example of the "Pflege- und Beobachtungsstation" in the State Psychiatric Hospital Weissenau (1951-1966) The patient admissions at the children's ward of the State Psychiatric Hospital Weissenau in the years 1951, 1956, 1961 and 1966 were analyzed regarding documented coercive measures. Shortage of staff, mainly inadequately skilled personnel, a mixing of age groups in the patient cohort, neurological and psychiatric disorders and of patients who were in need of nursing and of those who needed treatment constituted the general work environment. Coercive measures against patients, mostly disproportionate isolations, were a constant part of daily life on the ward. This affected in particular patients who had to stay longer at the hospital and whose stay was financed by public authority. The uselessness of such measures was known, which can be seen e. g. in the Caretaker's Handbook of that time and the comments in the patient files. The situation still escalated in some cases (for example by transfer to an adult ward). For a long time, coercive measures against patients were part of everyday life at the children's ward of the Weissenau; the actual figures are suspected to be much higher.

[Hans Heinze and the Research Programme of the German Association of Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education 1942-1945]. / Hans Heinze und das Forschungsprogramm der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinderpsychiatrie und Heilpädagogik.

Hans Heinze and the Research Programme of the German Association of Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education 1942-1945 Upon its foundation in 1940, Paul Schröder, full professor for psychiatry in Leipzig, was the first president of the German Society for Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education (DGKH). Following his death in 1941, his student Hans Heinze (Brandenburg/H.) succeeded him, prevailing over Werner Villinger (Breslau). The principal task of the DGKH was considered to be the exploration of the genetic origins of intellectual disabilities and behavioural disorders among children and adolescents. Based on their research since the 1920s, Schröder and Heinze believed that genetically predisposed, i. e. hereditary, character structures were aetiological for behavioural deviations among minors. It was their opinion that, based on the characterology they had established, development capabilities of children, as well as their "value" for the community, could be reliably predicted. In order to spare the community fruitless expenditures, they suggested that pedagogical stimulation was to be diminished in cases that reached the "hereditary boundaries of education". This assessment of a hereditary and hence unswayable inferiority was contested by the "Berlin School", represented by psychiatrist Franz Kramer and social pedagogue Ruth von der Leyen. They argued that while the possibility of "brutal-egoistical behaviour" existed, given the hereditary predisposition, it could however be successfully counteracted by pedagogic-therapeutic measures. After 1933, this faction controversy within the institutionally emerging child and adolescent psychiatry was decided in favour of the "Leipzig School", which was conform to the system and ideology of the time.

[The foundation of the German Society for Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education ­ Paul Schroeder's road to foundation chairman]. / Die Gründung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kinderpsychiatrie und Heilpädagogik.

The reconstruction of the evolutionary history of this professional association lays its focus on the developments which contributed to the society's formal foundation during the time of the patient killings in Germany after 1939. Methodologically the study follows strategies of historical network analysis including the main actors of the foundation process. The foundation of this society can be seen as the result of the interaction of a) the Reichs-Health-Agency, its president Hans Reiter, and Fritz Rott as National Socialist health politicians, b) the scientific development geared to this policy of a young discipline that shared its knowledge base as well as its medical 'object' with established specialties like psychiatry and pediatrics, c) a postulated need for character studies, prognosis and selection, and d) personal as well as professional-political interests of the main protagonists Schroeder and Villinger. Once more it is obvious that medicine and politics were not only interwoven, but in certain areas in accordance with each other. Borders could rather be established between social regulatory "instances". The foundation of the DGKH (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kinderpsychiatrie und Heilpädagogik; German Society for Child Psychiatry and Therapeutic Education) is an example of a 'radical regulatory reasoning' according to Raphael, that by means of "institutional arrangements at medium level" (Raphael, 2001) was supposed to implement the 'new National-Socialist order'.

[Gene-environment-interaction of ODD and Conduct Disorder Versus "Anethic Psychopathy"]. / Eine frühe Gen-Umwelt-Theorie der Störungen des Sozialverhaltens versus "Anethischer Psychopathie".

Gene-environment-interaction of ODD and Conduct Disorder Versus ¼Anethic Psychopathy«. In 1934, Kramer and von der Leyen demonstrated in a sophisticated longitudinal study with eleven conduct disordered and neglected children labelled as ¼anethic psychopaths« that ¼anethic traits« subsided in a favourable educational setting. Sound prognoses, due to the diversity of environmental factors, were found to be impossible. On the contrary they stated that negative labelling led to an affirmation of a negative prognosis. In theory, they supposed a genetic predisposition resulting in a heightened sensitivity to the environment. This early theory of epigenetics radically contradicted the Nazi dogma of hereditability and ostracism and the selection procedures in mainstream psychiatry at that time. The debate ended with von der Leyen's suicide and the prohibition of medical work and publication towards Kramer. Even after the end of the Nazi policy of ¼eradication of the socially debased«, this early theory was not taken on again, nor dignified.