The Eugenics Movement: Right Or Wrong?
Eugenics, Right or Wrong?
The Eugenics movement started in the late 19th century and eventually became an ideal adopted in countries such as Germany and the United States. The motivation behind this motion was based upon the preservation of sanity within society. Hence, the Eugenics movement was centralized around sterilizing people who exhibited “mental illness, mental retardation or epilepsy.” Many scientists and scholars tried to justify the morality of this conceptualization by stating that “through selective breeding, society would improve.” This idea of Eugenics or “selective breeding” has raised many questions such as the following: Is it ethical for the state to determine who can and cannot breed? Furthermore, why do the “feeble-minded” …show more content…
In a documentation written by F.O. Butler, M.D., he lays out the reasons for commitment in the state of California. He explicitly states that “we [, the State of California,] have the right to sterilize regularly committed cases without the consent of the patient, the relative, or the guardian.” He even goes on to say that a 1939 Californian piece of legislation allowed doctors to “sterilize such cases regardless of their intelligence” (Butler). The latter statement seems to be a contradiction to the original purpose of the Eugenics movement. In addition, as one looks into North Carolina’s history of sterilization, it appears that it was centralized around a political agenda. Elaine Riddick was a victim of the targeting of minorities and welfare-dependents. She was “robbed of the ability to ever bear children again” against her own will. “The North Carolina Eugenics board, a 5-person state committee [was] responsible for ordering the sterilization of thousands of individuals in the name of social welfare” (Hutchinson, ABC affiliate). Cases like these appear to neglect ethics in every sense. Furthermore, the authorities began to expand and abuse the use of sterilization past its initial intentions. The citizens of each state were left in the dark about the actions of the few hierarchical representatives. In the universal realm of morals, thou shall do not …show more content…
"Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina 's History of Eugenics." ABC News. ABC News Network, 4 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/sterilizing-sick-poor-cut-welfare-costs-north-carolinas/story?id=14093458>.
3) Kunkle, Fredrick. "Va. Eugenics Victims Would Receive Compensation for Sterilization under Proposed Bill." Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-eugenics-victims-would-receive-compensation-for-sterilization-under-proposed-bill/2013/01/30/eebad4de-6b0d-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html>.
4) Paul Popenoe, “The Progress of Eugenical Sterilization,” The Journal of Heredity (25:1), 1934. [This includes Justice O.W. Holmes opinion for the majority in Buck v. Bell.] Cold Spring Harbor Archives. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=2286&printable=1&detailed =0
5) "Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina 's History of Eugenics." The Washington Post 25 Apr. 1934.
The Eugenics movement started in the late 19th century and eventually became an ideal adopted in countries such as Germany and the United States. The motivation behind this motion was based upon the preservation of sanity within society. Hence, the Eugenics movement was centralized around sterilizing people who exhibited “mental illness, mental retardation or epilepsy.” Many scientists and scholars tried to justify the morality of this conceptualization by stating that “through selective breeding, society would improve.” This idea of Eugenics or “selective breeding” has raised many questions such as the following: Is it ethical for the state to determine who can and cannot breed? Furthermore, why do the “feeble-minded” …show more content…
In a documentation written by F.O. Butler, M.D., he lays out the reasons for commitment in the state of California. He explicitly states that “we [, the State of California,] have the right to sterilize regularly committed cases without the consent of the patient, the relative, or the guardian.” He even goes on to say that a 1939 Californian piece of legislation allowed doctors to “sterilize such cases regardless of their intelligence” (Butler). The latter statement seems to be a contradiction to the original purpose of the Eugenics movement. In addition, as one looks into North Carolina’s history of sterilization, it appears that it was centralized around a political agenda. Elaine Riddick was a victim of the targeting of minorities and welfare-dependents. She was “robbed of the ability to ever bear children again” against her own will. “The North Carolina Eugenics board, a 5-person state committee [was] responsible for ordering the sterilization of thousands of individuals in the name of social welfare” (Hutchinson, ABC affiliate). Cases like these appear to neglect ethics in every sense. Furthermore, the authorities began to expand and abuse the use of sterilization past its initial intentions. The citizens of each state were left in the dark about the actions of the few hierarchical representatives. In the universal realm of morals, thou shall do not …show more content…
"Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina 's History of Eugenics." ABC News. ABC News Network, 4 Aug. 2011. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. <http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/sterilizing-sick-poor-cut-welfare-costs-north-carolinas/story?id=14093458>.
3) Kunkle, Fredrick. "Va. Eugenics Victims Would Receive Compensation for Sterilization under Proposed Bill." Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 9 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/va-eugenics-victims-would-receive-compensation-for-sterilization-under-proposed-bill/2013/01/30/eebad4de-6b0d-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html>.
4) Paul Popenoe, “The Progress of Eugenical Sterilization,” The Journal of Heredity (25:1), 1934. [This includes Justice O.W. Holmes opinion for the majority in Buck v. Bell.] Cold Spring Harbor Archives. http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=2286&printable=1&detailed =0
5) "Sterilizing the Sick, Poor to Cut Welfare Costs: North Carolina 's History of Eugenics." The Washington Post 25 Apr. 1934.