Subject(s)
Emigration and Immigration/legislation & jurisprudence , Law Enforcement/ethics , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Human Rights/ethics , Human Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Hysterectomy/ethics , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Law Enforcement/methods , Social Justice , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesSubject(s)
Developmental Disabilities/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Vasectomy/history , Autistic Disorder , Female , Government Regulation/history , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Humans , Male , Prisoners/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/statistics & numerical data , United States , Vasectomy/legislation & jurisprudence , Vasectomy/statistics & numerical data , Vasovasostomy/methods , Young AdultSubject(s)
Compensation and Redress/ethics , Compensation and Redress/legislation & jurisprudence , Eugenics/history , Human Rights Abuses/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Sterilization, Reproductive/ethics , Ethics, Medical , Eugenics/trends , Female , Government Regulation , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Human Rights Abuses/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Political Systems , Religion and Medicine , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/psychology , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/psychologyABSTRACT
During the "Third Reich," the majority of German gynecologists and obstetricians did not hesitate to put themselves at the service of those in power. In 1933, many gynecologists initially only focused on the fact that the biopolitical objectives of the National Socialists matched their own long-standing demands for population policy measures and the early detection and prevention of cancer. In addition, cooperating with the Nazis promised the political advancement of the profession, personal advantages, and the honorary title of Volksgesundheitsführer (national health leaders). As a result, gynecologists exchanged resources with the regime and thus contributed significantly to the implementation of the criminal racial policies of the Nazis. At the congresses of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologie (German Society of Gynecology) "non-Aryan" members, mostly of Jewish descent, were excluded, the law on forced sterilization of 1933 (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses/Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases) was scientifically legitimized, its implementation was propagated, and relevant surgical techniques were discussed with regard to their "certainty of success." In the course of these forced sterilizations, existing pregnancies were also terminated and the victims were misused for illegal scientific examinations or experiments. Drawing upon racial and utilitarian considerations, gynecologists did not even shy away from carrying out late abortions on forced laborers from the East during the Second World War, which were strictly prohibited even under the laws of the time. Some gynecologists carried out cruel experiments on humans in concentration camps, which primarily served their own careers and the biopolitical goals of those in power. The few times gynecologists did protest or resist was when the very interests of their profession seemed threatened, as in the dispute over home births and the rights of midwives. Social gynecological initiatives from the Weimar Republic, which were mainly supported and carried out by gynecologists persecuted for their Jewish descent since 1933, were either converted into National Socialist "education programs" or simply came to an end due to the exclusion of their initiators. German gynecologists had hoped for a large-scale promotion of the early detection of malignant diseases of the uterus and breasts, to which they had already made important contributions since the beginning of the 20th century. But even though the fight against cancer was allegedly one of the priorities of the Nazis, no comprehensive measures were taken. Still, a few locally limited initiatives to this end proved to be successful until well into the Second World War. In addition, German gynecologists established the modern concept of prenatal care and continued to advance endocrinological research and sterility therapy. After the end of the Nazi dictatorship, the historical guilt piled up during this period was suppressed and denied for decades. Its revision and processing only began in the 1990s.
Subject(s)
Congresses as Topic/history , Gynecology/history , National Socialism/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Abortion, Induced/history , Abortion, Induced/legislation & jurisprudence , Concentration Camps , Female , Germany , History, 20th Century , Human Experimentation/history , Human Experimentation/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Male , Obstetrics/history , PregnancySubject(s)
Healthcare Disparities , Informed Consent , Reproductive Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Justice , Sterilization, Involuntary , Adult , Czechoslovakia , Female , Humans , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications/drug therapy , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Substance-Related Disorders/drug therapy , United StatesABSTRACT
In a landmark decision handed down on November 30, 2016, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights analyzed the foundations of the right to informed consent. The court held Bolivia responsible for the forced sterilization of I.V., an immigrant woman from Peru, and recognized the importance of personal autonomy as a constitutive element of personality. This paper discusses the ethical foundations of the decision and explains the relevance of this judgment in furthering women's rights in Latin America.
Subject(s)
Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Personal Autonomy , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Women's Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Adult , Bolivia , Female , Humans , International Law , Peru/ethnologyABSTRACT
This article deals with the nine European nations which legalised non-consensual sterilisation during the interwar years, thus completing the review, the first part of which was published in an earlier issue of this Journal. Like we did for North America, Japan and Mexico, countries concerned are addressed in chronological order, as practices in one of these influenced policies in others, involved later. For each, we assess the continuum of events up to the present time. The Swiss canton of Vaud was the first political entity in Europe to introduce a law on compulsory sterilisation of people with intellectual disability, in 1928. Vaud's sterilisation Act aimed at safeguarding against the abusive performance of these procedures. The purpose of the laws enforced later in eight other European countries (all five Nordic countries; Germany and, after its annexation by the latter, Austria; Estonia) was, on the contrary, to effect the sterilisation of large numbers of people considered a burden to society. Between 1933 and 1939, from 360,000 [corrected] to 400,000 residents (two-thirds of whom were women) were compulsorily sterilised in Nazi Germany. In Sweden, some 32,000 sterilisations carried out between 1935 and 1975 were involuntary. It might have been expected that after the Second World War ended and Nazi legislation was suspended in Germany and Austria, including that regulating coerced sterilisation, these inhuman practices would have been discontinued in all nations concerned; but this happened only decades later. More time still went by before the authorities in certain countries officially acknowledged the human rights violations committed, issued apologies and developed reparation schemes for the victims' benefit.
Subject(s)
Eugenics/history , Eugenics/methods , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Compensation and Redress/history , Compensation and Redress/legislation & jurisprudence , Europe , Euthanasia/history , Euthanasia/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 20th Century , Humans , Intellectual DisabilityABSTRACT
In the late 19th century, eugenics, a pseudo-scientific doctrine based on an erroneous interpretation of the laws of heredity, swept across the industrialised world. Academics and other influential figures who promoted it convinced political stakeholders to enact laws authorising the sterilisation of people seen as 'social misfits'. The earliest sterilisation Act was enforced in Indiana, in 1907; most states in the USA followed suit and so did several countries, with dissimilar political regimes. The end of the Second World War saw the suspension of Nazi legislation in Germany, including that regulating coerced sterilisation. The year 1945 should have been the endpoint of these inhuman practices but, in the early post-war period, the existing sterilisation Acts were suspended solely in Germany and Austria. Only much later did certain countries concerned - not Japan so far - officially acknowledge the human rights violations committed, issue apologies and develop reparation schemes for the victims' benefit.
Subject(s)
Eugenics/history , Informed Consent/history , Reproductive Rights/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Canada , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Germany , History, 19th Century , History, 20th Century , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Japan , Male , Mexico , National Socialism/history , Reproductive Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , United StatesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare population-based sterilization rates between Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os sterilized under California's eugenics law. METHODS: We used data from 17 362 forms recommending institutionalized patients for sterilization between 1920 and 1945. We abstracted patient gender, age, and institution of residence into a data set. We extracted data on institution populations from US Census microdata from 1920, 1930, and 1940 and interpolated between census years. We used Spanish surnames to identify Latinas/os in the absence of data on race/ethnicity. We used Poisson regression with a random effect for each patient's institution of residence to estimate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and compare sterilization rates between Latinas/os and non-Latinas/os, stratifying on gender and adjusting for differences in age and year of sterilization. RESULTS: Latino men were more likely to be sterilized than were non-Latino men (IRR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.15, 1.31), and Latina women experienced an even more disproportionate risk of sterilization relative to non-Latinas (IRR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.48, 1.70). CONCLUSIONS: Eugenic sterilization laws were disproportionately applied to Latina/o patients, particularly Latina women and girls. Understanding historical injustices in public health can inform contemporary public health practice.
Subject(s)
Eugenics , Hispanic or Latino , Sterilization, Involuntary , California , Eugenics/history , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Eugenics/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hispanic or Latino/history , Hispanic or Latino/statistics & numerical data , History, 20th Century , Humans , Male , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
In 1917, the Ontario government appointed the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Mentally Defective and Feeble-Minded, headed by Justice Frank Hodgins. Its final report made wide-ranging recommendations regarding the segregation of feeble-minded individuals, restrictions on marriage, the improvement of psychiatric facilities, and the reform of the court system, all matters of great concern to the eugenics movement. At the same time, however, it refrained from using explicitly eugenic vocabulary and ignored the question of sterilization. This article explores the role the commission played in the trajectory of eugenics in Ontario (including the province's failure to pass sterilization legislation) and considers why its recommendations were disregarded.
Subject(s)
Eugenics/history , Intellectual Disability/history , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 20th Century , Intellectual Disability/therapy , Ontario , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Global Health/ethics , HIV Seropositivity , Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Rights Abuses , Informed Consent , Physicians/ethics , Social Isolation , Social Stigma , Sterilization, Involuntary , Chile , Cultural Characteristics , Ethics, Medical , Female , Global Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Rights Abuses/ethics , Human Rights Abuses/psychology , Humans , Namibia , Personal Autonomy , Physicians/legislation & jurisprudence , Prejudice , Social Isolation/psychology , Social Justice , South Africa , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/psychologyABSTRACT
In England during the late nineteenth century, intellectuals, especially Francis Galton, called for a variety of eugenic policies aimed at ensuring the health of the human species. In the United States, members of the Progressive movement embraced eugenic ideas, especially immigration restriction and sterilization. Indiana enacted the first eugenic sterilization law in 1907, and the US Supreme Court upheld such laws in 1927. State programs targeted institutionalized, mentally disabled women. Beginning in the late 1930s, proponents rationalized involuntary sterilization as protecting vulnerable women from unwanted pregnancy. By World War II, programs in the United States had sterilized approximately 60,000 persons. After the horrific revelations concerning Nazi eugenics (German Hereditary Health Courts approved at least 400,000 sterilization operations in less than a decade), eugenic sterilization programs in the United States declined rapidly. Simplistic eugenic thinking has faded, but coerced sterilization remains widespread, especially in China and India. In many parts of the world, involuntary sterilization is still intermittently used against minority groups.
Subject(s)
Eugenics/history , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , China , Europe , Female , Germany , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Humans , Male , Population Growth , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Involuntary/statistics & numerical data , United StatesABSTRACT
Medical necessity may lead to secondary sterilization of individuals with intellectual disabilities, but legal statutes mandate that certain procedures be followed in these cases. In this article, we present a case of medically necessary sterilization of an individual with intellectual disability, and we discuss important legal statutes that guide this practice in North Carolina.
Subject(s)
Down Syndrome/psychology , Hysterectomy/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent By Minors , Intellectual Disability/psychology , Menorrhagia/surgery , Mental Competency , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Adolescent , Down Syndrome/complications , Female , History, 20th Century , Humans , Intellectual Disability/complications , Menorrhagia/complications , North Carolina , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a growing clinical consensus that Medicaid sterilization consent protections should be revisited because they impede desired care for many women. Here, we consider the broad social and ideological contexts for past sterilization abuses, beyond informed consent. RECENT FINDINGS: Throughout the US history, the fertility and childbearing of poor women and women of color were not valued equally to those of affluent white women. This is evident in a range of practices and policies, including black women's treatment during slavery, removal of Native children to off-reservation boarding schools and coercive sterilizations of poor white women and women of color. Thus, reproductive experiences throughout the US history were stratified. This ideology of stratified reproduction persists today in social welfare programs, drug policy and programs promoting long-acting reversible contraception. SUMMARY: At their core, sterilization abuses reflected an ideology of stratified reproduction, in which some women's fertility was devalued compared to other women's fertility. Revisiting Medicaid sterilization regulations must therefore put issues of race, ethnicity, class, power and resources - not just informed consent - at the center of analyses.
Subject(s)
Family Planning Policy/history , Family Planning Services/ethics , Healthcare Disparities/history , Human Rights Abuses/history , Prejudice/prevention & control , Reproductive Rights/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Family Planning Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Healthcare Disparities/ethics , History, 20th Century , History, 21st Century , Human Rights Abuses/legislation & jurisprudence , Human Rights Abuses/prevention & control , Humans , Informed Consent/ethics , Informed Consent/psychology , Medicaid/ethics , Reproductive Rights/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Justice , Sterilization, Involuntary/ethics , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Tubal/ethics , Sterilization, Tubal/psychology , United States , Women's RightsABSTRACT
The article takes as its subject Gaute Heivoll's latest novel Over det kinesiske hav [Across the Chinese Ocean], which describes the establishment of a private nursing home at Finsland in Vest-Agder county immediately before the liberation. The novel's protagonist describes retrospectively how his parents adopted a number of mentally disabled persons, among them a group of siblings from Stavanger. When their adoptive family is exposed to a tragedy, views on who are the providers and receivers of care are challenged, as are concepts such as madness and normality. The article shows how a fictional exposée of conditions for the mentally disabled in recent Norwegian history can provide new perspectives on historic health and care practices. Reading Gaute Heivoll's Over det kinesiske hav highlights the practice of placing patients in private care, as well as the 1934 Act that authorised the sterilisation of mentally disabled persons.
Subject(s)
Intellectual Disability/therapy , Medicine in Literature , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 20th Century , Humans , Norway , Nursing Homes , Persons with Mental Disabilities , Private SectorABSTRACT
The history of eugenic sterilization connotes draconian images of coerced and involuntary procedures robbing men and women of their reproductive health. While eugenics programs often fit this characterization, there is another, smaller, and less obvious legacy of eugenics that arguably contributed to a more empowering image of reproductive health. Sexual sterilization surgeries as a form of contraception began to gather momentum alongside eugenics programs in the middle of the 20th century and experiences among prairie women serve as an illustrative example. Alberta maintained its eugenics program from 1929 to 1972 and engaged in thousands of eugenic sterilizations, but by the 1940s middle-class married women pressured their Albertan physicians to provide them with sterilization surgeries to control fertility, as a matter of choice. The multiple meanings and motivations behind this surgery introduced a moral quandary for physicians, which encourages medical historians to revisit the history of eugenics and its relationship to the contemporaneous birth control movement.
Subject(s)
Contraception/history , Eugenics/history , Sterilization, Reproductive/history , Alberta , Eugenics/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , History, 20th Century , Humans , Marriage , Social Class , Sterilization, Involuntary/history , Sterilization, Involuntary/legislation & jurisprudence , Sterilization, Reproductive/legislation & jurisprudence , WomenABSTRACT
Scholarship on Alberta's Sexual Sterilization Act (1928-1972) has focused on the high-level politics behind the legislation, its main administrative body, the Eugenics Board, and its legal legacy, overlooking the largely female-dominated professions that were responsible for operating the program outside of the provincial mental health institutions. This paper investigates the relationship between eugenics and the professions of teaching, public health nursing, and social work. It argues that the Canadian mental hygiene and eugenics movements, which were fundamentally connected, provided these professions with an opportunity to maintain and extend their professional authority.