Black Stork and Its Implications for the Acceptance of Eugenics - Essay Example

Section/# Black Stork and Its Implications for the Acceptance of Eugenics As a result of Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution near the end of the 1800’s, people began to take his ideas and run them to their logical conclusions. One such idea was that of survival of the fittest as it related to human reproduction. In this model, certain people were of the assumption that if survival of the fittest could somehow be tweaked by human hands and combined with the idea of natural selection (also aided by human hands) – a new type of human being would be possible (Black, 2003). It was the belief of those that ascribed to this type of world view that such a human was possible and the only thing that was stopping the further evolution of mankind was societal constructs of mercy and value towards all life equally. The proponents of the eugenics movement, Dr. Harry J. Haiselden himself a member, advocated for a more direct approach towards achieving this particular interpretation of Darwin’s theories (Pernick, 1996). The rational for this particular worldview was not formed from a state of mind that espoused hatred, malice, or contempt for human life; instead, the proponents of eugenics sought to create an idealistic world in which society would no longer be plagued by disease, and genetic disorders – a world in which a superhuman would eventually emerge. As such, opponents to the eugenics movement quickly crystallized around the belief and notion that all human life was sacred and it was not for the doctor/attending physician or anyone else for that matter to deem what life was not worthy of being saved through his own inaction allow an infant to die (Voluntary Euthanasia, 1932). As such, in 1919 a silent movie entitled Black Stork began to be shown in the then rare theaters. The movie was concentric around the actions/inactions of Dr. Harry J. Haiselden which led to the deaths of many infants the doctor deemed unworthy of life. Although this name is not likely to ring any bells currently, this was a medical doctor whose exploits were the thing of tabloid newspapers at the time. Due to the fact that Dr. Haiselden was a strong proponent of eugenics he was known to withhold treatment from certain infants that when born required immediate surgical procedures to ensure their continued longevity. As such, Dr. Haiselden was known to withhold theses procedures deeming it as a mercy to the child and to society to prevent them from being a drain on their parents and the society at large. As such, the movie displayed in detail the process through which the doctor would make these determinations as well as the graphic display of the corpses of the dead and dying infant with its own mother. This practice alone caused the film to have to be edited on a number of occasions in order to tone down the graphic displays of death and dying that were presented to the audience (CITE). The idea of eugenics, coupled with the fact that many in society were willing to carry to an ultimate end the theory of natural selection (aided by human hands) and survival of the fittest, meant that a term was brought into the lexicon of the medical community and society at large in a new and revamped way. The term itself, “Euthanasia” had previously had a much different meaning; however, due to the exploits of individuals such as Doctor Haiselden, the meaning grew from “efforts to ease the sufferings of the dying without hastening their death" to “actively or inactively ending life in an effort to end suffering” (Capron, 1974). As such, the term greatly progressed from what was its original meaning. Furthermore, the movement was presented to society in ways that they could no longer ignore the implications that such practices brought along with them. It is interesting to theorize what would have happened with eugenics and euthanasia had Hitler not risen to power in Germany during the early 1930’s (Benzenho?fer, 2010). Due to the Third Reich’s belief that racial superiority was the best model for explaining the world and the best hope of ameliorating its problems, Germany began the clandestine T-4 program during the late 1930’s (Miller, 2006). The T-4 program centered around systematically collecting individuals who suffered from mental illness, schizophrenia, epilepsy, “imbecility” and other “impairments” and having these people forcibly euthanized; usually via exposure to carbon monoxide gas via means of a gas chamber. As such, the stigma surrounding euthanasia for those suffering from genetic or mental illness always hearkens back to the atrocities that were carried out under Nazi Germany during implementation of the T-4 program. Had the United States and the remainder of the Western world not been brought face to face with the horrors of the ultimate end of euthanasia, racial science, and the belief that there exists in society “life unworthy of life” one shutters to think what our current world might look like. However, due to the fact that Nazi Germany provided such a stark contrast between the two viewpoints, it helped to push society towards renunciation of such practices in lieu of a more humane and merciful approach to life; even if it was inarguably flawed and/or imperfect as is oftentimes the case. It is at least partly because of this reason that many countries continue to err on the side of caution with relation to euthanasia as a direct result of the negative images and thoughts that the word itself conjures with respect to the events of the past. Regardless of this fact, euthanasia, as the term evolved to mean under Dr. Haiselden, is a topic that regularly comes up in our society at various times even to this day (Kohl, 1976). More and more developed countries (specifically Western European countries) are adopting laws that decriminalize doctors who are willing to perform euthanasia for their patients. However, it is important to note that these countries are also mandating a host of rules and regulations that go alongside the permission that they are granting (Lamerton, 2006). These laws specifically relate to the fact that the patient must be of sound mind when he/she makes the choice to end their own life. If the patient is not of sound mind, they must necessarily have a witnessed and legally recognizable document attesting to the fact that their wish was to end their life at such a time as they were no longer able to make decisions for themselves and had lost certain use of mental or physical capacities. So even though Haiselden’s term (as he understood it) is still employed today, the methods under which it operates are so dissimilar from the way in which he employed it as to make the practice nearly unrecognizable to one who had not gained an intimate understanding of the historical path that euthanasia has taken to the point we are today. References Benzenho?fer, Udo. Euthanasia in Germany Before and During the Third Reich. Mu?nster/Ulm: Klemm + Oelschla?ger, 2010. Black, E. (2003). War against the Weak : Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows. Capron, A. M., & et, . (January 01, 1974). Euthanasia. Commentary (New York, N.Y.), 57, 5, 7-8. Kohl, M. (January 01, 1976). Beneficent euthanasia. The Humanist, 34, 4.) Lamerton, R. (January 01, 2006). Euthanasia. Nursing Times, 70, 8.) Miller, Michael. Leaders of the SS & German police. San Jose, CA: R. James Bender Pub, 2006. Pernick, M. (1996). The black stork : eugenics and the death of "defective" babies in American medicine and motion pictures since 1915. New York: Oxford University Press. VOLUNTARY EUTHANASIA. (January 01, 1932). American Journal of Public Health and the Nation's Health, 22, 2, 180-2. Read More