Eugenics: Forgotten History

                                                    Charles Darwin

When we think of eugenics we usually think of Hitler, perhaps the most hated man in history. We are reminded of his plan to get rid of Jews, the mentally ill, homosexuals, and others he considered sub-normal human beings.  We may also think of Joseph Mengele, known as the ‘angel of death', who conducted eugenic experiments at Auschwitz on twins, many of whom were children.

But apparently the idea of eugenics and how to improve the human race by eliminating certain people was an idea that had been around for some time before it erupted in Nazi Germany. Darwin wrote about  natural selection, a process in which the best and strongest survive. If this is the case, then the human race should improve naturally. The weak bodied, the weak-minded, those with inherited disabilitating diseases, even homosexuals, it was thought, should naturally disappear in time. But for some in the early 20th-century, natural selection wasn’t doing the job fast enough. What if science accelerated the process of improving human beings so that there would no longer be drug and alcohol addicts, the insane, and the mentally retarded? Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, coined the term ‘eugenics’ in 1883, from its Latin roots meaning ‘good in birth’ or ‘noble heredity’ and it was promoted as a science.

Some well known Americans and British jumped on the bandwagon to improve the human race by eugenics and  backed the idea with their money and their writing. As is usual, the ideas filtered across the border into Canada as we will see. Here are a few  of those in 20th century America who aided the birth of the so-called ‘science of eugenics’.

Charles Benedict Davenport -(1866-1944)  was a Harvard zoologist who said, “Prevent the feeble-minded, drunkards, paupers, sex offenders and the criminalistic from having children or marrying their like, or cousins or any person belonging  to a neuropathic strain.”

Harry Hamilton Laughlin (1880-1943), who with Davenport founded the Eugenic Record Office on Long Island, New York with their staff, compiled detailed records on 534,625 Americans whom they considered defective.  Sixty thousand of them would face sterilization, the males by forced castration. Their aim was to sterilize fourteen million people in the United States and more worldwide to replace them with ‘pure Nordic stock’. Sound familiar?

Davenport had plenty of funds to accomplish this, but soon the Rockefeller Foundation poured in thousands more. In 1914, John Kellogg, brother of the Cereal King, founded the Race Betterment Foundation in Michigan.

 Lucien Howe, was the ophthalmologist who discovered that bathing the eyes of newborns with diluted silver nitrate would save the sight of thousands.  But he was an avowed eugenicist and proposed that blind people should be sterilized and forbidden to marry. The state of New York voted against this so it did not become law there.

In some states, prohibitions of marriage between certain races were prohibited: black/white marriages in several states, white/Asian marriages in Montana, white/Native Americans in other states.  Delaware criminalized marriages of people on welfare!

Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes wrote the decision that was voted on by the United States Supreme Court to uphold legalized sterilization. In 1917 there were only 1,422 sterilized people in institutions in the US, but by 1941 there were 38,087. Not surprisingly, public support for sterilization was not strong and the movement against it was aided by the Hearst newspaper which published horror stories of sterilizations

In 1908, Nova Scotia was home of the first ‘eugenics movement’ in Canada when the League for the Care and Protection of Feebleminded Persons was established in the province. In Quebec, Ontario, and elsewhere, academics and physicians worked to enlist others to publicly support eugenics.

The most damaging sterilization program in Canadian history was afforded via the passing of the Alberta Sterilization Act of 1928. Youths, minorities, and women were sterilized in disproportionately high numbers. Indigenous people and Métis, regardless of age, were also targeted making up 25% of the sterilizations performed even though they represented only 2.3% of the general population in Alberta.  If the persons were deemed 'mentally defective' no consent was required.

British Columbia’s Sexual Sterilization Act, legislated in 1933 and repealed in 1973, closely resembled Alberta’s legislation. In BC however, the Act created a Board of Eugenics, consisting of a judge, psychiatrist, and social worker and fewer people were sterilized there. Many were inmates of Riverview or Essendale Mental Institution.

When the Nazis took power in Germany in 1933, they patterned their program of eugenics on American legislation. As well, they received financial assistance from those in the American movement. As we know, it turned into something horrific and 10,000 Jews alone were murdered.  Many more who were deemed ‘undesirable’ by the Nazi regime were also killed. When the truth became known at the end of the war, the world recoiled at the very idea of forced sterilization and getting rid of so-called ‘inferior’ human beings. Instead, it turned to ‘more civilized’ methods of contraception and abortion which was supposed to rescue women from being slaves to their fertility and protect the world from over-population. Those who were deemed the undesirable segments of humanity were targeted. ‘A Woman’s Choice’ was the cry of the day and Margaret Sanger headed a new onslaught on who should be allowed to have babies. 
What will the future bring?  More couples are opting to not have children.  Although abortion has decreased in some years, it has not disappeared by any means.  Artificial contraception is now common and although it was historically forbidden by all Christian denominations, the Anglican Church was the first to say it could be used "in some situations".  Now Christians from all Protestant denominations practice artificial contraception and only in the Catholic Church is it still not allowed (even though many Catholics ignore the Church's teaching). 
China brought in the "one-child policy" which has resulted in not enough women for Chinese men to marry. Will countries bring in forced laws to abort children or limit the number of children a couple can have?  Pope Paul VI made some predictions in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae" and that was one of them.  The suggestion that we can "decrease our carbon footprint" by not having children is a scary reminder that this may be on the horizon.  

A Woman's Right to Her Own Body

If a woman has a right to her own body, which of the actions below does a woman have a right to do? Is it legal (in your country)? Does it only affect the woman herself or does it harm others?

- use heroin?

- not use a seatbelt when driving?

- wear a hijab?

- abort her baby?





Using heroin is destructive to your body but does it hurt anyone else? It can be harmful to others if you encourage others to use heroin or sell it to others, you steal to support the habit or you drive when you are high and kill someone. But most of all you hurt yourself. However, in most countries, using heroin is illegal and rightly so.

Not wearing a seatbelt when you are driving is also illegal in many countries. It is illegal in Canada to drive a car and not have your seatbelt on. But if you are in an accident and you aren't wearing a seatbelt and you get hurt or are killed - you only did damage to yourself. No one else (except those who love you) was hurt by you not wearing a seatbelt. And yet it is illegal to do so and rightly so.

What about wearing a hijab or scarf? It seems many people get very upset about women wearing a hijab even though it harms no one. If a woman covers her face and cannot be seen it could be argued that this is a security risk - she could not be identified after a crime, for example. The argument that a weapon could be hidden while wearing a hijab does not hold water because you could hide a weapon under a cap or hat more easily than a light scarf. And non-Muslim women wear scarves that are not the hjiab. Covering one's head is something that both women and men do in cold weather and there is no uproar about it. Some argue that women may not want to wear a hijab and are forced to do so by their father or husband. They should be free not to wear a hijab but we would have to admit that there are women who do want to wear it and are not forced to do so. There are also women who are forced to do other culturally based actions by other people that they may not choose to do on their own. If women can wear a hijab it should follow that women, for whom this is not part of their faith, should be free of not having to cover their heads - even in countries where they are a minority.

What about having an abortion? It is true that women should be free to do what they want with their own bodies. However a baby in utero is not part of a woman's body. The baby is dependent on the mother's body but it is not part of the mother's body. The baby may have a different blood type than the mother and the baby has a unique DNA. Having an abortion is, in many countries, legal. Of all these examples it is the only one that does harm to another. And yet it is legal.


Strange, isn't it?

Maternal Health Care?

Stephen Harper and the Canadian government have been praised for improving the health of women and children in the developing world. They did this without plunging into the murky waters of 'family planning' which so often means abortion. Harper explained that many of the countries where they directed help have laws against abortion or cultures which do not accept abortion or methods of family planning. Melinda Gates, who in the past has funded family planning and abortion programs in developing countries, this time has worked with the Harper government. Much praise has been directed to both Harper and the Canadian government for this kind of positive help and so many appreciate that abortion was not a part of the plan.
What kind of medical care is needed for mothers and children in developing countries? I worked in the medical field in Asia for fourteen years. Although I was not a midwife or a physican, I know firsthand that there are many ways to improve maternal and child health without providing abortions. Improved nutrition and access to trained medical professionals for prenatal care, delivery and postnatal care should be the primary foci.
Often the cause of a problem in an obstetric unit is post-partum haemmorhage (excessive bleeding after delivery of the baby). Here I was more involved. As a medical laboratory techonologist I had to find whole blood and crossmatch it with the patient so we could give her a transfusion. We usually had to find relatives of the same blood group to donate blood. Often the blood is needed urgently so if a mother delivers her baby in a remote area where these services are not available, the mother dies. We have to ask the question,'Is safe blood and the means to get it to the patient quickly available?'
Pre-natal (or in the UK antenatal) care is a vital part of maternal and child healthcare. Expectant mothers need food which provides all the vitamins and minerals necessary for formation of a child. The baby will take necessary vitamins from the mother and leave her depleted if she does not have enough for both. Foods rich in protein (e.g. meat and fish) are often too expensive or not available for everyone. Of course, calcium for strong bones, iron for healthy blood - these and lesser known minerals are also important. In developing countries it is necessities like these that need to be provided for expectant mothers.
Reports from Chile by epidemiologist, Dr. Elard Koch, claim that accessibility to professional birth attendants in a hospital setting is primarily responsible for a decrease in that country's maternal mortality rates:
                           1960   275 maternal deaths in 100,000 live births
                           1999     23 maternal deaths in 100,000 live births
                           2000     18.7 maternal deaths in 100,000 live births
In South America, Chile has the lowest rate of maternal mortality and yet Chile's laws do not allow legal abortion!

Guyana, on the other hand, has allowed abortion since the 1990s and has the highest maternal mortality on the South American continent. In 1999 the maternal mortality was 110/100,000. Compare that with 23/100,000 in Chile in the same year. (See Nationmaster.com for stats)

Cultural Aspects
Apart from the health care aspect - why do Western women want to impose their ideas about abortion on those women in Asia and Africa - many whose religion and traditional cultures teach that children should be welcomed?  In many countries having children means that there will be people around to look after you when you are old. Yes, these families cannot have fancy houses or live lavishly but they believe that children are irreplaceable treasures.

Children's Health
I have spoken about maternal health and abortion and have not mentioned children. Obviously abortion is not very healthy for children!
Children who survive birth need to be protected from the diseases around them: mosquito nets so they don't get malaria, electrolyte packets to prevent serious dehydration when they have diarrhoea, nutritious foods so they do not become anaemic and vaccination to prevent diseases like measles and polio. There are lots of things to spend money on without spending it on provision of abortion facilities or contraceptives.
Hopefully people will realize that abortion is not the answer to maternal and child healthcare - in fact, it is not healthcare at all but the very opposite.

Articles that don't make the headlines.......

July 11, 2012 The European Parliament condemned the practice of forced abortions and sterilizations in China as a violation of human rights. Reference was made to a woman in her seventh month of pregnancy who had been kidnapped by ‘family planning officials’ and was forced to have an abortion. The couple had not paid the required fine for having more than one child. It is estimated that 13 million children are aborted in China every year. The United Nations Population Fund and other Western NGOs help to carry out this policy. (summarized from Elizabetta Pittino’ article in Zenit News.org July 11, 2012)

Do We Value Life?

The man who shot one hundred sled dogs in Whistler last year has been charged with causing undue suffering to the animals. The dogs were used for tourism sledding and after the 2010 Winter Olympics business declined. The dogs were killed because the company could not afford to keep them any longer. People world-wide were upset that the dogs were killed for economic reasons and without trying to find homes for them. A great fuss arose. Of course, no one wants to see healthy animals destroyed for no reason. No doubt there would have been those who would have taken the dogs and raised them. However, does anyone think about the thousands of unborn babies who are killed each year in countries around the world? Often, they are killed for economic reasons or just because they are not wanted by the couple. Perhaps the woman is single and the father does not want to take responsibility. Perhaps a baby would disrupt life too much by interrupting studies or a career. It is believed that these babies suffer pain when they are killed. Those who have been present at abortions have noticed the baby trying to 'escape' the probe as seen on the screen. According to Nationmaster (www.nationmaster.com) the most recent available statistics for legal abortions in the following countries are: Russia - over 2 million babies legally aborted in one year USA - over 1 million babies legally aborted in one year India - 596,345 babies legally aborted in one year Japan - 343,026 babies legally aborted in one year Canada - 70,549 babies legally aborted in one year This is just a sample of countries. Look on the Nationmaster site to check on how many babies were aborted in your country. Yes, it is legal but it is moral? The excuse is used - a foetus is not a person. But when one considers how upset people were about dogs being killed, why are they not upset about a foetus being killed? If you don't like the word 'killed' here say 'terminated their life'. It means the same thing. Pre-born babies are human beings that have their own DNA; for example,they may have a different blood group than their mother. They are separate little beings that if not interfered with will come into the world, grow into children and then adults. Just think - if your mother would have had an abortion when she was pregnant with you, you would not be alive now.

'It's a Girl' - could be a death sentence: A Controversial Editorial in Canadian Medical Association Journal.

CBC News, Vancouver at 6 pm January 16, 2012 reported that a ‘controversial’ editorial has been written in the CMAJ by the editor-in-chief (interim), Dr. Rajinder Kale. Controversial? You bet! Dr. Kale advocates that the results of the child’s gender from an ultrasound should be withheld from the parents until the very late stages of the pregnancy. In his editorial, entitled, “It’s a Girl - Could Be a Death Sentence” (online www.cmaj.ca January 16, 2012) he states that a considerable number of Canadians in the South Asian and Chinese communities use these ultrasound results to choose boys over girls. In other words, if the ultrasound shows that the baby is a girl, an abortion is done. Boys are preferred over girls because girls prove very expensive before marriage when a dowry must be paid to the groom. He claims that this type of abortion “is the worst form of discrimination against women.” Dr. Kale cautions against painting all South Asians or Chinese with the same brush as some are against such practices. But he adds “...postponing the transmission of such information is a small price to pay to save thousands of girls in Canada. ...If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?” It, is of course, what people in the pro-life movement have been saying all along. But now we have a medical doctor who has written that abortion should not be used as a means of selecting boys over girls. But the implication in the editorial is more than that isn’t it? For if the ‘foetus’ is a boy or a girl, it is not just a ‘growth’ or a ‘blob of tissue’ that the mother has a right to do away with. Another medical doctor, Dr. Parghit Singh was also interviewed on the CBC report and he said that the practice of aborting female babies is ‘barbaric’. He actually said ‘female babies’! These two are not those radical,hated fundamentalists or Catholics who go marching around abortion clinics. Here are two doctors from South Asian cultures themselves who recognize that aborting female babies, for sex-selection at least, is wrong. It is a step in the right direction and perhaps soon people will realize that aborting babies of any gender is ending the life of not just ‘a foetus’ but a real, human life, ‘a baby’. It’s discrimination all right - against both male and female babies. And is it a barbaric custom.

A Wise Doctor

A worried woman went to her gynecologist and said: 'Doctor, I have a serious problem and desperately need your help! My baby is not even 1 year old and I'm pregnant again. I don't want kids so close together. So the doctor said: 'Ok and what do you want me to do?' She said: 'I want you to end my pregnancy, and I'm counting on your help with this.' The doctor thought for a little, and after some silence he said to the lady: 'I think I have a better solution for your problem. It's less dangerous for you too.' She smiled, thinking that the doctor was going to do as she asked. Then, he continued: 'You see, in order for you not to have to take care 2 babies at the same time, let's kill the one in your arms. This way, you could rest some before the other one is born. If we're going to kill one of them, it doesn't matter which one it is. There would be no risk for your body, if you choose the one in your arms. The lady was horrified and said: 'No doctor! How terrible! It's a crime to kill a child! 'I agree', the doctor replied. 'But you seemed to be OK with it, so I thought maybe that was the best solution.' The doctor smiled, realizing that he had made his point. He convinced the mom that there is no difference in killing a child that's already been born and one that's still in the womb. The crime is the same!

The Abortion Dilemma Part II

When I was training as a medical laboratory technologist (a long time ago), the term ‘foetus’ (or in the US ‘fetus’) was only used in the medical field. Ordinary people spoke about ‘unborn babies’ or ‘the baby’. Someone might ask expectant parents, “What are you going to name the baby?” or ask the expectant mother, “How is the baby?” She might answer, “This baby is very active. He is kicking me all the time.” or something similar. Have you seen an expectant mother wearing a t-shirt with an arrow pointing down to her stomach and a sign which says, “Baby here.” ? Did you ever see the UNESCO poster a while back, with a baby in utero, and the comment, “This might be the only home this baby will ever know.” ? Notice how the unborn baby is not called a ‘foetus’ in ordinary conversation. Only when one is talking about abortion is the word ‘foetus’ used. This is a clever move. We picture a ‘baby’ as something with big eyes, dimples, a cute smile, an innocent and very lovable being. A ‘foetus’ , on the other hand, does not sound all that human. It is not a ‘cute’ word. By using the word ‘foetus’ we can disassociate what we know as babies from the abortion discussion.
Maybe we should examine our use of language in this case. When do we use ‘foetus’ and when do we use ‘baby’? If an unborn child is ‘a baby’ how does it affect our feeling about abortion?
There is a newly released book, ‘Unplanned’ by Abby Johnson, a former director of an abortion clinic in the US. I suggest you read it. I haven’t read it yet, but have seen an interview on Focus on the Family and plan to read it soon.

The Abortion Dilemma

Are you 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'? Do you know what these terms mean? Have you really thought about why you believe as you do? Or are you, like many, really not sure what to think about it all?
Many people, if asked, would say they were 'pro-choice'. This has a good ring to it in our modern world. Why should the government tell women what to do with their bodies? We, especially in the West, like to feel that we are free to do what we want, especially with our own bodies.
When thinking about abortion the questions we must ask are:
Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
Is a foetus a 'part of the woman's body' or is the foetus an 'individual being'?
What defines a person? Is a foetus a person?
When is it right to end the life of another person? When are we allowed to kill?

In this first 'edition' I will discuss the first four questions:

Are people always free to do whatever they want with their own bodies?
There are two clear cases that I can think of when a person cannot do what they want with their own bodies. The first is illegal substance use. The law in Canada (and in many other countries) says you cannot have an illegal substance in your possession – either to sell, give to others or presumably, to use yourself. You cannot use a drug yourself without having it in your possession and that is illegal. The second case is that we must use a seat belt when driving or riding in a vehicle. Not using a seat belt, when it saves a life, saves only the life of the person using the seat belt. Not wearing a seat belt will not endanger anyone else. You may be able to think of other things that we do with our own bodies that are illegal. Self-imposed suicide is not illegal as the person cannot be charged with a crime if the suicide is successful. Attempted suicide used to be illegal but now a person who has attempted suicide is more likely to have access to counselling and is not charged with any offense. Assisting in someone else's suicide is illegal in Canada and most states of the US but this does not fit into our search for 'what we are not free to do with their own bodies.'
Should governments legislate what we can and cannot do to our own bodies?
There are areas in which the government passes laws which help us to make the right choices for our bodies. Legislation against smoking in public places may be more to do with bothering others than in preventing cancer for the smoker. As it stands people are free to smoke as long as it is not in a public place or a place which causes danger to others (e.g. where oxygen tanks are in use in a hospital). Some provinces are trying to encourage people to eat healthier by making the use of saturated fats for frying fast foods illegal. This has not been widely done yet. Also some countries have tried to make wearing clothing that completely covers the face and the body illegal. One cannot understand why a simple head-covering should be a problem (as it does no harm to anyone) but a garment that completely covers the face and body could be used to hide dangerous weapons or explosives, or be used to smuggle goods into a country or make illegal entry possible as it masks the identity of the person. We can see that legislation for what we can do with our own bodies is a tricky business.

Governments Legislation and Our Bodies?

In 1859 John Stuart Mill, a British political writer, wrote On Liberty. In this work he discussed what role collective society should have over the individual. In other words: Can society (and the government) tell individuals what to do? His conclusions were:
•An individual is not accountable to society for his actions in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself.
•For those actions which harm or hurt the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subject to social or legal punishment if society agrees on this action.
Many of our governments in the Western world operate under these guidelines.

Is a Foetus 'part of the mother's body' or is the Foetus 'an individual being'?

This is now a crucial question if we accept Mill's propositions. For if the foetus is only a part of the woman's body if she has an abortion she does harm to no one but herself. She is, therefore, not accountable to society for her actions. If, however, the foetus is an individual being, then an abortion does harm to another being and the mother (and those who have performed the abortion) are accountable to society.

Is a Foetus A Person?

Many have concentrated on whether or not a foetus is a 'person' under the law. Personhood has been defined in various ways: a person can make decisions, a person can own property, a person can feel pain. Some of these definitions raise problems as an infant cannot own property and would therefore not be a person according to that definition. No one thinks it is right to kill an infant. An interesting point is that women, before the 19th century in many countries, were not considered 'persons' under the law and yet to kill them would still have carried a penalty.
Margaret Sommerville, is an ethicist and founder of the McGill Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law in Montreal, Quebec, Canada . She defines a person as anyone belonging to the species Homo sapiens or, in other words, any human. Sommerville elaborates by saying that no member of any other species is a person. So when we kill an animal we are not breaking any law but if we kill a human being then we are breaking a law. (Of course, there are those who would disagree and say that killing animals should be illegal. But that does not concern us here. ) The question, 'Is a foetus a person?' would have to be answered in the affirmative if we accept Margaret Sommerville's definition, for a foetus belongs to the species Homo sapiens. Not everyone agrees with her definition, however.
The foetus has a different genetic make-up than his/her mother having inherited genes from both his/her mother and his/her father. In other words, a foetus can have a different blood type or eye colour than the mother. Can we say, then, that a foetus is just a 'growth' or part of the woman's body? Is a foetus not a separate entity? A separate person?

These are the questions we must consider if we want to claim we are either 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. We cannot just glibly say we are 'pro-choice' because we want to be in control. This is not the issue. The issue is, 'Are we killing a human being when we have an abortion?'

IVF's implication in Abortion

British physiologist, Robert Edwards, was recently awarded the 2010 Nobel Prize for medicine. It is not my intention to give the pros and cons of his winning nor to discuss the morality of the procedure which he perfected. But there are implications in the procedure with the other much-debated option - that of abortion.
When interviewed on television, Lesley Brown, the first baby to have been conceived by in vitro fertilzation, said that without this procedure she would not be here today. It would be nice if those who feel abortion is an acceptable option would see the relationship between what Ms. Brown said and abortion. If those babies whose lives have not been allowed to continue, that is, those babies who were aborted, could speak, wouldn't they say the very opposite? Wouldn't they say, "If it weren't for abortion, I would be here today." In one case a life was given, in the other, lives were taken away. If we can state the first truth, isn't it reasonable to admit, the second truth?