applying selected srv themes to the eugenic … selected srv themes to the eugenic movement ......
Post on 26-Apr-2018
236 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Applying Selected SRV Themes to the Eugenic Movement in Canada &the United States, 1890-1972
Thomas Malcomson
Introduction
T HIS AIITICLE eXAMINES THE eugenics movemenr in Canada and rhe Unired Srares, from its first appearance ro the J 970s, as
i( relates to several of the ren themes in Social Role Valori7_arion (SRV) theory. 1 1he present aniclc can only provide a brief hisrory of me eugenics moverl)ent in ea.ch. COlmtry.2 First, however, is an even
briefer overview of rhe conrext in wh.ich eugenics theory and pracrice made iLS appearance.
The cum of rhe rwentierh cenrury found Canada and the United Srates immersed in a period of grear change and perceived rurmoiJ.3 The populations of borh countries were growing primarily as a resuJr of immigration. Ramer than from Grear Brirain and Nonhern European countries, as in the pasc, borh Canada and me United States drew immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe and Asia. Viewed as significantly negatively different, concerns over the immigrants' potential corruprion of Nonh American sociery occupied rhe pens of the press and orhers. At rhe same time the urban centers, fuelled by great industrial development, were growing at an alarming rate. Unbridled urban expansion and overcrowding brough[ wim it an increase in crime and ourbrea.ks of
conragious disease. No clearer is rhe overcrowding demonstrated than in me work of Jacob A. Riis, who reponed on and photographed me horrid living conditions of New York Ciry's working
class poor.' Various reformers presenced solutions
for the identified social problems, from rhe incidence of prostiturion and drunkenness to [he apparent increase in people labelled 'feebleminded.' Into this milieu came rhe idea of eugenics .
The Origin of Eugenics
FRANCIS GALTON COINED TI-lE TEIUvf eugenics in 1883, from me Greek words "eu"
meaning weU and "genos" meaning binh.
Deeply moved by The Origin o/Species, wrirren by his cousin Charles Darwin, Galton set our CO ap
ply the principle of evolurion to humans, quickly identifying superior from inferior races within [he species.~ The differences Galton noted ran largely along class lines, with the middle and some mem
bers of the upper class being hereditarily superior ro members of the lower class and those of the upper class who demons[rated characteristics deemed to be degenerate. 111is division favoured Galton and his supporters with the privileged position of superioriry over rhe 'orher.' Eugenics reAected the middle class values of lace Victorian Britain, which labelled the socially devalued characteristics as 'degenerate.' l1le list of degenerace ch<l.racterj~cics included many ro,<;.~ibilirje.~, from
imelJeccua\, menral or physical disability or instabiliey, to poverry, alcoholism, and/or any sexual behaviour deemed aberrant. Eugenicists believed that degenerate conditions were inherited and
would be passed on ro future generacions by afAicred parenrs.
June 2008
Galcoo developed several definitions for eugen
ics over the years. He first defined it as the science
of improving the human srock, with me focus on providjng the "most suitable races and Strains of
blood" with eve_ry advancage co prevail over me "less suirable."t I n his collection of essays -on eu
genics he defined it as "che science which deals
with aU influences [bat improve the inborn quali
ties of a racej also with those that develop them
to the utmost advantage."? To obtain this end
Galton encouraged the use of "positive eugenics"
wh.ich involved promoting an increased birth rate
among those people with superior stock or blood. The alrernative action was "negarive eugenics,"
which called for preventing procreacion among the people deemed to be of inferior s(Ock or blood
by various merhods including insticurionalization
and steriliution. The impact of negacive eugenics on the labeIJed human is all roo clear: devaluation
and subsequent multiple wounding ofthe person
through the experience of institutional life and! or
the experience and stigma of sterilization.
Few British academics and professionals paid
anention [Q Galton's ideas uncil 1900, when
the famous statistician Karl Pearson made it his
life's work to spread rhe eugenic gospel. s Pearson
broughr Galton out of a self-imposed retirement
to deliver public lecrures on eugenics. In one lectUre, given to the British Sociological Society in
L904, Galcon laid our the seeps necessary ro real
ize the goals of eugenics . Beyond conrinued re
search into tbe hereditary transmission of traits,
rhe exploration of the "conditions" of eugenics,
and rhe study of marriage, he encouraged an ac
rive program to inform rhe public of eugenic
ideas. Concerning the public education in eugen
ics effon, Ga\ron said,
Firstly it m-us! be made familiar as an aca
demic que.ltion, until its exact importance
has been understood and accepted aJ foct; Secondly it must be recognised as a subject
whose practical development deserves seri
ous consideration; and 'D'b-dly it must be
introduced into the national conscience, like a new reDgi.on. 9
35
An Overview of the Eugenic Movements in Canada &the United States
S !MILAR PROGRAMS OF PROPAGANDA, to in
doctrinare the professional and lay person
ro rhe necessity of eugenics, played a central role in the growth of rhe eugenics movemenrs in
Canada and the United Scares . -The idea of eugen
ics came to North America in (he late ! 8805 as a
number of academics and physicians, influenced
by Galton and orher Europe:m writers 00 eugen
ics, began to apply rhe concepT ro the citizens of their own counrries. 1u The North American eu
genicists lIsed lectures, articles in both academic
and rJle POPUl;H press, books, films and comeses ro advance their ideas of increasing [he numbers
of superior people, and removing a.nd eliminarjng
rhose judged inferior. The creacion of national and
provincial or st<lre eugenic socieries ensured a na
tion wide chan ne! for co nveyi ng eugen.ic idea5. 11
l1le eugenic societies provided a base from which
members coutd lobby governmenc officials to en
<lCt eugenic laws . As in Britain, (he eugenic ideaJs
of Canadian and American eugenicists were built on middle class vatues .
Wolfensberger has stared thar as a rheory So
cial Role Valorization (SRV) is open [Q crearing
either positive or negacive ourcomes for people. A negative applicacion of rhe (en cenrral rhemes in
SRV would creare groups of devalued and vulnerable people. I- Wirh rhis in mind, seven of [he SRV
rhemes can help us understand how rhe various
merhods employed by the Canadian and Ameri
can eugenic movements, to advance their ideas,
promored rhe acceprance and pracrice of eugenics .
The seven themes are the role of unconsciousness,
[he dynamics and relevance of social imagery, the
power of mind sets and expectancies, role expec
tancy and ro le circularity, personal competency
enhancement and [he developmental model, in
rerpersonal identification between valued and de
valued people, and personal social integration and
36
valued social paniciparion.'-' Eugc.nicis[S produced a mou.nrain of papers. ar
ticles :lnd books excolling me scientific groUJ1ds of eugenics, rhe ncccssiry [0 engage in it, and the rypes of humans most in need of [he resrrictions, segregation and administrations which eugm.ics entailed' /o Dr. John H. Kellogg, in an 1897 pam phlet, assured Ilis readers mar me human race was "cer_ tainly going down physically (award race exrincli on." ' ~ The culprirs he claimed were nor only the physically d iS'ablcd, blind and deaf but the criminal. indigene and pauper. All owed [heir "deformi[ies" to hereditary factors, and were each unable ro change their assigned lor in life. His solution was for iodividuals ro ear properly, Jnd develop good personal hygiene habirs and morals. Kellogg promoted posidvc eugenics by encouraging society ro focus on the strengthen ing of the heal thy individual, instead of arrempting [0 help rhe defective person. Dr. H . C. Sharp, of [he Indiana Reforma[Ory, published an eleven page pamphlet advancing the case for rhe sterili7.-arion of all degener;ue.s. '6 Sharp stared thar more man half of all [he people with any form of menral or nervous defect were so bec.1use of hered.irary problems. He sugges red sterilization as rhe mos[ effective way ro prorc:cr sooery from the growing nwnbers of people unable to
care for themselves and who posed a rhre:u ro lhe safery of society. Marriage restricrions would be a second alternative, bur Sharp lamemed rhat m:\friage was nor a naruraJly maodatory condition for procrea[jon . incarceration, ro segregate [he male and female defectives, offered a solurion bur would fail due [0 [he high COSlS and frequenr escapes. He !.hen discLlssed [he ease of performi ng vasectomies (withour "anesmeric eimer general or local") on me inmates of me reformarory in which he worked. Eleanor Wembridge in 1927 wrote a fantasy article for The American Mercury in wh.ich 'Morons' and 'me Neurotics', who haled from 'Moronia' and 'Neurorica' (respeccively), accounred for all rhe crime, immorality, and disability in rhe 'Normal's' world. 17 Historian Deborah Dolan stares rhat in rhe early twentieth century rhe eugenic movemenr
The SRV JOURNAL
and other progressive era reformers had creared a pro-involUJ1tar}t srerilization movement across me United St.:lres.' Central to this movement was me concern over the social costs lo society of SUppOf[iog me people declared < d~fecr.ive.'
lbe [WO leading narional figures in rhe American eugenic movemenr were Charles Davenport and Harry Laughlin. Davenport beaded (he Station for Experimental Evolurion ar [he Biological Research Srarion ar Cold Spring Harbor (1904-1939) and worked t:ireles ly It promoti ng rhe eugenic idea uHoughour the Unired Stare.s .l9
Davenport raised funds , trained eugenic field research ,vorker~ and conducted research. 2Q Harry Laugh.lin, a former school principal, joined Daveopon ar the Cold Spring Facilicy in 19) O. Toge ther (hey opened the Eugenic Record Office ar Cold Spring Harbor in 1929 ro coordinace eugenic research and rhe dissem i narion of eugenic i nformation. Their mission reAecred the same gO<'lis as GallOn's call for informing rhe professional and [he public of (he (ruth of eugcnioi . Laughlin focused on sterilizarion and immigration legislarion. Serving as advisor [0 rhe 1923 House Comminee on Immigrarion rhat wrore the Immigration Ace of 1924. his eugenic ide.as forged one of (he most resuictive pieces of immigrarion legislarion in the hiscory of [he Uniced Sra[es.]1 Laughlin's venrurc inco sterilizarion law is discussed below.
The family pedigree srudies formed the central evidence for me American eugenics moveme,rt[. In these srudies a researd1er(s) rraced rhe ancestors of a parricuJar group of people back several generations . I n each generation they identified the health or illnesses of me various famiJy members. The studies were used to show thar defeCLive characterisrics (e.g., feeblemindedness, alcoholism, immoraliry) were heredirary di seases. Providing social or financial suppOrt for mese individuals and rheir famiue5 would only lead to an increase in the numbers of 'defectives.' The obvious answe.r to rhe problem of deJectiveness was to prevenr the procreati on of chese people. Nicole Hahn Rafter has brought togerher eleven family
June 2008
srudies in ker book White Trash, providing some
annotation and excdlem analysis of (he various
reporu. n Common across me srudies was [he use
of e.xrremcly negative language to describe mem
bers of the defecrive families. Language conveys
valued and devalued roles to me auruence.lS The
rides given (Q me srudies alone dearly indicah~ me
finaJ conclusion; for example, "The Smokey Pilgrims," "The Hill Folk " and "Dwellers in the Vale
of Siddem ."1~ None of these tides leave a positive
image of the families mey explote. Many family
pedigree studies carried photographs supporting
rhe negaeive labell.ing of parricular smdy subjectS
as defective. Classic among mese photographs was a picture of me 'family' home. The home of the al
leged 'degenerate' was always a run down shack,
while dle good family had a near, well mainrained, whirewashed home. 25 Along widl words,
piccures can shape positive or negative ideas and
expectations in rhe minds of me audience. The
phorographs of the Family Studies ponrayed rhe
targeted individuals in a negative lighL The obvi
ous biases and methodological flaws in me srudies seemed [0 escape most contemporary readers"lG
In Canada, Dr. Helen MacMurchy was one of
the main promorers of eugenic ideas and meth
ods to deal wim the pressing social problems of
poverty, intemperance. crime, immorality, feeblemjndedness and insaniryY Her book, The Abnosts: A study of the feebleminded, demooscrarcd [Q the
reader, through me review of rhe ficcional lives
of various characrers in works by authors such as
Shakespeare, Hawthorne, and Dickens, rhe hope
lessness and rhrear to society of people judged [Q
be nor normal.1'lI ]n (he final chapter, she advo
cared for the segregation and isolation of all fee
bleminded people. InsoturJonal.iz.ation, with me
separation of the males from females, wouJd pro~
vide [he safety bom me feebleminded and society
requi.red. I( would also ensure me prevention of
h.mher generations of undesirable people by pro
hibicing their procreation. MacMurchy [Oak her
message from coast [0 coase in Canada actempcing
to influence provinciallegislarors lO creare laws co
37
sl!lpporr her vi,ews.
Psychiarrist Charles K. Clarke also wrote and
spoke on the need lO prevem me people he la
belled 'defeccive' from reproducing. These indi
viduals included many of [he new immigranrs
from Easrern Europe who, he claimed, figured
prominenriy among the growing numbers of rhe
epilepric. me feeble-minded. me criminal and me insane.2? Imm.igrams received a good deal of at
tention from Canadian eugcnici,m. Social Gos
peller James S. Woodsworrh proclaimed mar rhe
immigram represented a mrear (0 every parr of
Canadian sociery due to the immigrams' inher
enr defecciveness.JIl Hjsroriaru Jean-Pierre I3eaud
and Jean-Guy Prevost found a clear associarion
berween the eugenic movement's concern over
me degenerarive influence of rhe immigrant on
Canadian sociery and effon.s [0 limir immigra
rion by government bureaucrars.31 In Bri[ish Co
lumbia the province [Ook marrers inco [heir own
hands, deporring immigranrs judged [0 be defee
tivc:Y The deporcarions are an extreme example
of physical disranriarionY I n some of these cases,
[he deponed devalued person had no one (0 assi:~t
chern on rheir rerum to their country of origin.
The 'casting om' by deporration in dlese circumseances meanr sending [he person inw severe de
privarion, if nor to (heir dearh.
Bur ir was nor only me Canadian physician or
government officiaJ mar advanced the idea of eu
genics. A R Kaufman, who owned and operated.
[he Kaufman Rubber Company in Kirchener,
Omario, also supponed eugenics. He belonged (Q the 'Eugenics Society of Canada' and was a key person in me local birth canuol movemenr. He
found thar many ofrus workers, when laid off, feU
iO£o poverry. Kaufman saw this as an indicarion of a hereditary weakness, so he insrrucred his faCtory nurses to discuss birrh control wim his employees.
During the 1930s Kaufman offered sterilization
ro his workers whom he regarded as inherenrly in
ferior in inrellect or character. As chis was me de
pression and work was scarce, the pressure he held
as an employer was significam. Between 1930 and
38
1969 he claimed 1,000 male sterilizations had occurred in his factory.})
~nle broader eugenic appeals to the public were less academic in their conrenr. Eugenic poseers and diagrams at coumy fairs and public health displays portrayed me ideal marriage mate as strong, call, healrhy. and above aU someone wirh whom you had "compatibility." The poster mighT warn men "nor [ro] gec married unless you are MAN enough.".l6 The ideal male and female we(e
porcrayed wim srereotypica1 mllsculariry for rhe man and buxom beauty for the female. ·The less than ideal male and female figures in the posters were small, noe well defined and given dialogue indicating a lack of self confidence as mey gazed at the perfece human forms. The message in such images was plain for all ro undewand . The Fiteer Family COntests held across North America in me firsr half of the rwemieth century allowed rhe eugenicists ro promote proper famUy breecling among the general public. Families would compere for the ride by performing physical feats of suengrh, providing a record of good healeh and presenting a flawless appearance . For Dr. John Kellogg ehe competidons were an important way ro get rhe average citizen aware of and working toward improving cheif family srock. Those who came to watch might have felt moved (0 copy or imitaee the eugenically good families .
FiJms also advanced the eugenic message. One such film was The Black Srork made by Dr. Ha.rry Haiselden and journalist: and writer Jack Laic. fn late 1915, Chicago docror Harry Haiselden encouraged Allen and Anna BoUinger, parents of a baby born with severe physical anomalies, ro lee the baby dieY While some of the anomalies could have been correceed with surgery and allowed me baby ro live, Haiselden's view that defecrive infams were bener dead directed his advice (0 ehe parenrs. Haiselden announced publicly char he had allowed orner 'defective' infanes to die in the previous ren years and cominucd his withholding of care from variOliS 'defective' infants through 1918Y The case garnered national news media :menrion as ques-
The SRV JOUR.!'\' AL
tions arose over the docror's actions. No legal action was taken against [he doctor as it was considered the parent's righr ro deny ue:mnenr for rneir chitd. The only medica.l organization [0 respond negatively to Haiseldcn's Stance was the Chicago Meclical Sociery which removed h.im from the society for his being roo public about rhe case, not for his withholding of (reannel)(.
Dr. Haiselden made The Black Stork for rheauica! release ro convey his eugenic message ro the public. In (he movie a doctor, played by Haiselden, in~mucrs a woman who marries a man from a family wirh a hereditary defect nor ro allow a newborn defective child to survive. Haiselden shows me woman aod the movie viewers a number of people with disablliries, each highlighring a negative aspect of living with a disabili()'. The woman men has a series of visions of the child's future, again all very negative. She elects nor to
save [he baby. As (he baby dies, Jesus appears and carries away the child's soul.
111e film shows (he other side of me hereditary debate as well. A woman refuses to marry her perfecdy healcby fiance because their children will inherit her mocher's epilepsy. In the end, they learn mar the 'moeher' is acruaUy only a step-mother. TIle woman marries and produces a very healthy child. The imagery in (he film cleady sends the message rhat defective children were an emorionaI bu.rden, ao unjusr social expense, led a painful life, contribUted nothing to society and should be killecL The film in several d.ifferent edited forms played in rhearres between 1916 and 1942. Haiseldon's pronouncements of killing babies born with disabilities and his film are examples of caseing the devalued person inca the roles of 'defective' and 'bener off dead.'5~
The eugenic movement offers a frighteningly vivid example of the power of images (borh pictorial and literary) (0 convince me public and the professional ill uaining of the validity of a particular theory. Eugenicists c.arefuJly used imagery to advance their cause. A consrant stream of nega[ive images reinforced the acceptance of me deviancy
June 2008
of me targeted group and me necessiry of llsing eugenic answers to solve me depicted eugenic problem. [mages of parents with disabled children
complying with the eugenic demands served ro reinforce the eugenic rnovemenr's amhoricy.
NI of these effortS [0 convince the professionals, politicians and lay people of the co([ecmess of the eugenic movement's view of humans and the treatments they advanced had a pro~ound impact on Canadians and Americans. '(\ While (here were
people and organ izations who opposed rne eugenic movement , enough people were convinced of irs correctness to see social policy and practice swing ro support eugenics at various federal, state and provinciallevels. lI
The Eugenic Solutions
EUGENICISTS IN BOTH THE Unired Scares and Canada advanced three major solutions ro the perceived problem of degeneracy. First
was (he incarceradon of people assessed as defective, from the feebleminded, the epileptic, rhe in
sane, and the alcoholic, through to rhe immoral. Dr. Helen Mac.Murchy campaigned for more funding ro construct large institurions in Canada [0 eveneually house all the feebleminded. u The cosr of the insrirurions would be offset by the reduction of whar she termed wasted spending ro keep rhe feebleminded in (he community. Others suggested that many of rhe insrirurionalized could work ar producing a good or ar Farming, raising money to offset some of the cose of insrjrmionalizing them. 43 All provinces built more and larger inscitur.ions during the first half of the twenrierh
century co segregate labelled individuals from the larger communicy. J\hhough not created solely on the grounds of eugenics, rhese institutions did ar least SUppOT( the eugenic ideas of segregation and the inhibiting of procrea(ion. Some eugenicists rejected the long cerm feasibilicy of the institutions because of their ongoing costs. MacMurchy herself suggested that the only sure way ro eliminare the threat of the memally defecrive was rhrough mandatory sterilization programs.4-l
39
The second Line of arrack on (he 'problem' peo
ple was via laws dictating marriage resrrictions. Thircy states had passed marriage restriction laws by 1914 ro prevent peopk considered defecrive from marrying. The 'defective' label was applied
differelulyacross (he chircy srares, with some ban
ning marriages of people diagnosed as insane or as idiots, while ochers simply voided marriages of dlOse considered physically or memally incapable of understanding. 45 Lucien Howe, a leading American ophthalmologist and eugenicist, "led the charge [Q segregate, sterilize and ban marriages of blind people and cheir relatives" during the 1920s:16 By the end ofche 1930s, the eugenic
message on marriage restrictions had spread across America, producing forcy-one scares with laws
proh.ibiting menrally ill and feebleminded people from marrying.'-7 1hese laws denied the valued roles of hushand, wife, and in-law to people already subject ro devaluation through labeUing. lhis increased their devaluation and added further wounding in the person's experience of life. The laws carried various penalries for rhose who broke rhe law, ranging &om one ro three years in prison, fines and even exile from [he srare. In Canada, the
eugen ie concern over marriage did nor impacr on law makers uneil the eve of rhe First World War. In 1913, the Onrario government amended the Marriage Act ro fine or imprison for a year any minister or license issuer who aurhoriz.ed the marriage of '''an idiot or insane' or ... wno was 'u nder rhe influence of intoxicating liquor'."1S Eugeni
cists however were nor convinced thar marriage restrictions offered a sure guarantee for halting rhe procreation of degenerates.
1l1e third solurion concerned the lise of sterilization ro guaramee the absolure prevention of reproduction among those judged inferior. The first scare co pass a sterilization law was Indiana in 1907. Sterilizations occurred prio r ro this law, but in 1907 (he state felt a law was necessary ro facilitate s[Opping «the procrearion of 'confirmed criminals, idiots. imbeciles. and rapists' ."~9 By
1920, nineteen states had laws concerning steril-
40
ization, but many S(",HCS did not act on (heir laws
as a resulr of issues over meir consrirutionaliL),.
Harry Laugblin entered the fray, crearing a model
law char would srand a conscicU[ional chaUengc.
Virginja legislarors (Oak Laughlin's model and
creared a steru izarion law in 1923, chall enged in
[he Supreme Coun in 1927 (this story appears
below). After rhe Supreme Courc's decis ion, rhe
number of scares with srerilization laws rose co
rhirty, Almost aU of the smes with pre-1927 laws
re-WfOte theif laws to conform to the new !ega) standard . By 1975, when (he last m:ri I il.acion
law fd l in California, the number or Americans
subjeaed co state sanctioned eugenjc steriliurion
had climbed to over 65,000."" The numbers of
individuals sterilized outside of the scate sysrem,
th rough private arrangements wi rh consenting physicians, is unknown.
In Canada, only rwo provinces (AlbenJ in 1928,
and Brirish Columbia in 1933) passed eugenic sexua.l sterilization lawsY The eugenic movement
in Albena firmly established irseLF in rl\e years
following me First World \'<far. An investigation
of the rising numbers of feebleminded people
in Albcna, by the Canadian National Commit
tee on Memal Hygiene, poinred to the increase
in Eastern European immigrants as the calise. Comnti rree members believed Eastern Europeans
were more likely ro be feeblemjnded. ~~ 1n 1922,
the Unjted Women of Alberta adopted a eugenic
position towards 'rhe growing problem' of me
memaUy defeceive. The), worked to educate [he
public and [he pOllricians of Alberra on rhe need
to adapt the eugenic theory and use segregation in
inst.irutions or sreriliz.ation to prevent rhe reproduction of menraJly deficient indi\liduals.~·' The
United Farmers ofAIbena, who formed rhe pro
vincial governmem, passed a sexual sterilizarion
law in 1928 based on me eugeruc understanciin.g
of menral disorders and feeblemindedness. 111e Sexual Srerilizacion ACT. created a commission of
four people who reviewed the candidates' files and
decided on which people to scerwze.5-1 Inmates of
institurions were the rargeted group. At first the
The SRV JOURNAL
people selected had to give meir approval for Stef
j lization to occur, unless the}' WCJ:e considered
incompetem, in which case a family member Or
coun appointed guardian. cou.ld give permi.<;sion.
In 1937, an amendment co the law loosened the
neccssicy of gelling me inscicutionalized person's
permission, br allowing the compuJsofY steriliza
tion of anyone deemed menraJly efecr.ive." in 1942, rbe category of candidates was t:nhrged to
include mental patient'S wirh syphilis, epilepsy,
and Humington's Chorea (who had [Q give th eir
permission).~6 Duri ng its fo rry-four year s of opera
tion the commirree reviewed 4,785 cases . lr never
said no, bur beld judgement on forry-six C3S~ and
recommended 4,725 people for sterilization, Of
those recommended, srerilizarion was performed
on 2,tl22 people. Peter Lougheed's Cooservarive
government repealed rhe law in 1972.>'
British Columbia followed Albena's example in
1933 when it passed a Sexual SreriJizario n ActY A
commission of three people reviewed {he files of
rhose individuals pur forward for srerilization by
their insritution's direcror. The arguments for the
law included me suggescion jt would be cheaper
to srerilize and release people than keep chern insr-irucionalized during their period of fertility.
The eugenic posirions, thar m emal disorder and
deficiency were heredita ry, and rhe need ro keep
rbem from multiplying and thus desuoyi..ng !;oci
ery, were front and centre. Women's groups, the
medical community and inpur from American
eugenicists convinced the government to pass the law. The nwnbers acrually sterilized under the law
are unknown as the records have been destroyed.
The Stories of Ca rrie Buck & Lei Ian i M ui r
T HE STORJES OF TWO PEOPLE subjecred to
the eugenic theory and rreal1Tlenrs reveal
the impacc of the unconsciousness of de
viancy making and the creation of the suppon
ing mindset and expecrancies .59 Carrie Buck was
born inco the family of Emma and Frank Buck in
1906.60 After her husband left rhe bmil}', Emma
fell into hard rimes and frequent contact wich
June 2008
the local police. Emma lost cusrody of Cacrie in 1909. Carrie went to live wim John Dobbs (one of [he depury-sheriffs familiar with Emma Buck) and his wife. In 1920, Emma was com mined ro the Virginia Colony for me Epilepric and Feebleminded for life. The grounds for her comminal included prosururion (alrhough not selling sex) and rep eared lying. Her intelligence tesr reve... .. tled a men tal age of seven years or me label of low grade moron. 61 1ne Dobbs regarded Carrie as a hOllse maid for rhe family, kept her disrant from rhe Dobbs' children and even hired her our [0 clean houses for local neighbours. At age seventeen Carrie becan1e pregnan t. The farher of [he child was a nephew of me Dobbs. As the social mores of (he 1920s in Virginia did nor approve of single pregnant adolescents in rhe homes of , res pee rabIe' families, Carrie needed ro be gotten rid of. The answer was ro have her placed in me colony where her mother lived. The grounds for Carrie's commirral included "ourbreaks of temper," "peculiar actions" and "hallucinarions."~l Ar the rime of her entry into [he colony Carrie's intelligence measure indicated a mental age of a nine year old, a middle grade moron.") The Dobbs rook in Carrie's daughter, Vivian.
As noted above, in the eady 1920s man>' states with sexual sterilization laws did nor enforce them due to a concern over their vulnerabiliry ro constitutional challenge. Harry Laughlin. a self~p(O~ fessed expert and strong advocate of sterilization. wrote a model law for legislators to follow when re-wricing or crearing new sterilization legislation. Laughlin suggested mar sterilization laws needed four main elements to withstand constitutional cha.llenges. First, they needed to esrablish a rigid~ ly adllered to procedure that would be applied to
all candidares for steriliz.arion. Second, once chosen, norificarion of cheir selection and me process for an appeal had to be given to me parient in writing. Third, an appointed advocate would help wim the appeal process as i[ moved through (he couns, creating an adversarial system to protect clle person's rights. 1Yi Fourth, [he memod used to
41
srerilize clle person needed [0 be the leasr invasive technique available.
Dr. Alben Priddy, me direc(Or of the Virginia Colony for the Epilep[ic and Feebleminded where born Carrie and her mother resided, used Laughlin's ideas to help dra1i: a sterilization law for the state of Virginia, along with (he colony lawyer Aubrey Suode. 111e Virginia legislacure passed the act in June 1924. What eugenicists required was a resr case ro COntest me law all the 'Nay to
the Supreme Court of rhe United Scates. To do mis Priddy needed [0 seiect an inmate from (he colony who would perfeccly represent the eugeniciStS' norion of the hereditary progression of de~ generacy. Priddy selected Carrie Buck for r.h.is role when he put her name forward for srerilization in September 1924. A diagnosis of Carrie's seven moO[h old daughter Vivian as mentally defective would prove rhe hereditary namre of rhe case.
Carrie's assigned ad vocate was Robert Sheldon who hired a lawyer irving Whitehead ro defend Carrie through the courts. \Xi'hjrehead had had prior Involvemen[ with rhe colony's administration and was a supporter of eugenics a.nd sterilizarion. Aubrey Strode acted as me colony's lawyer chroughour rhe series of appeals. The Circu.ic Coun of Amherst County heard from a social worker who assessed Viviall as having an odd look abOUt het. It also had a deposition from Harry Laug/1lin arresri.ng to Carrie's umrllstworrhiness, her inability to support hersdfindependenrly and het potential inclination towards prostitution. Laughlin's deposition closely resembled portions of (he Ietrer Priddy had sent to him describing Carrie. Laughlin never saw Carrie, nor had access ro any family information other than whar Priddy wtote.h5 In courr, Priddy gave a damning description of Carrie and het family, calling her me lowest of low grade morons. Whirehead apparenrly did not nore the discrepancy between Priddy's diagnosis and [hat in Carrie's colony file. The COuf(
upheld che sterilization order.(,6111e [ower coun's decision was appealed to (he Supreme Coun of Appeals for Virginia, where once again me judge
42
ruled to upholJ (he steriliz..1.rion order. The stage
was ser for the Supreme Court. Whitehead argued th.roughout the appeal pro
cess for [he reversal of cbe order based on cwo acgumenrsY First, he offered chat rhe stare did not have me right to inftia any harm on a person's body \\ij(hout due process (a Founeemh Amend
ment co the US Constitution issue). Second, he questioned me stare's srcriJi7.3t:ion of only (he fee
blemi nded people in the colony on twO gwunds;
one, they were already unable to procreate by reason of segregat.ion and cwo, sterilization JiJ noc apply to me feeblemjnded in [he state not living
in an instirution. This last condicion nored mac
o1e law unfairly targeted a select group of cirizens con -ritUring a violation of the Eighrh Amend
ment to we US Constitution. Whitche'ld did not argue against ellgenics or slerili·,,;uion.
Aubrey Srrode, representing Dr. Bell and the colony, argued (har the srerili7..arion was correct and rhe law prope.r. He offered (.he evidence again
of (he inheritance of feeblemindedness, and thar arrie her mother and daughter were feeblemind
ed. As to Whirehead's objeccions, Strode noted the
new I:nv's process (0 inform and defend me persoo selecred for srerilization, and [hat sterilization was akin ro the "compulsory vaccination" laws. fu [0
[he Eighm Amendment issue, Strode noted that
any feebleminded person in the stare couJd be insdrutionalized and chen subject to sterilization.
On 2 May 1927, Supreme COUrt Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes read me coun's dcci ion.(·· The Supreme Court upheld [he order CO seerilize Car
rie Buck, claiming mat due process was served. and steriHzacion \Va..', noe ;) cruel or unusual request to make of a cirizen. (I) his statement Hol
mes said it was nor inappropriare for the country co call rhe weak members to sacrifice whar he felt they would nor miss, given rhe unsel.fish sacrifice
of good men in times of war. He concluded with Ole plea that, '"Three genef;ltions of imbeciles arc
enough." lr is u.nforrunate char me just.ice did nor listen to, or understand better, the labelling sysrem the eugenicists' advanced. Neither Emma or
The SRV JOlJR!\lAL
Carrie were labelled imbeciles. Emma and Carrie
were diagnosed as morons, which was indicative
of a higher level of functioning [han an imbecile. Vivian's 'defective' label hung on her having an odd look, for she was never diagnosed as moron or imbeciJe. This reveals how people, even justice.
Holmes, d.id not have to undersrand the eLlgenic meory and evidence. but only believe [he eugenic message wa.~ correct in order m ace. Holmes' in
ability ro rel:ue personally to Carrie Buck's life is
reRecrive of rhe natural tendency to reject and d.isr<llHiacc one's self from cbat which is perceived as an "W1pleasanr srimulus.""·) Ca.rrie's steriliza·
tion mok place at the Colony for the Epilepric and reebleminded in Lyn ... hburg Virginia on ]9 Ooober 1927. When Vivian died of measles, at
eigbt ycars of agc, her school cClChers claimed she \-vas a bright normal scudenr. 70
The scary of Leilani Nluir reveals rhe crush.ing
inAllence and Aawed narure of ellgeni.cs in a Canadian pro-sreriliz.arjon province in me years after rhe Second World War.71 Leilani was born in Cal
gary, AJberra on 15 july 1944. Wiili her mother in poverry, Leilani and her siblings frequendy lDoved.7.! Her mother cried ro 'dispose' of LeiJani
chrec limes before finally convinci.ng [he province to confine her in rhe Provincia.! Training School for Meneal Oefecrives in Red Deer, Alberta . 111e
early home life involved neglect and abuse, inc1udi.ng the refusal ro allow Leilani m car wirh me family and at rimes [0 eat a( 311. As. a result, Leilani
stOle food from ocher chUdren's lunches at school. ll1ese incideocs provided (he rationale for her mother's mird effof( [Q remove her daughrer from
rhe famil)' home. Lei Ian i enter·d the Provi DCjal
Training School in rhe summer of 1955 on the eve of her eleventh bi rrhday.
Her rnorher completed rhe application for admi~sion, forging rhe required signarure of [he man with whom she lived. -n1e legally required
home visir by a social worker never occurred. The required medica! and intellectual assessmclHS of
Leilani also did nor rake place before her entry inra rhe instirution. To (he question concerning
June 2008
any heredir.aJY problems in [he t~lInil)' rhe morher
wrote "ni!." LeiJ ani's mother used tbe 'prompting
words' on [he application form to describe her
daughter as "'indolenr,' 'bossy and impulsive' and
'bad tempered' ."n FinaJly she forged her parmer s
signarure for the consent to steri.lize Leilani if the
ProvinciaJ Eugenics Board deemed ir appropriate .
llis 1< r trike against her daugluer W:lS a require
me nt for admi.s ion [Q me instimrion.
Dr. Ie Vann, uperimcndenr of the Provincial
Training Sella I, recorded only [WO comments on
Leilanj's as e--mt'nr sheer, " Pleasant looking child.
Talks eas ily and volubly."74 Two years larer she ap
pea.red before the ProvinciaJ Eugenics Board for
::Ln order ro have her sterilit:.ed . While her ~Ie re
ve;'1lcd she was doing fine in school, able ro read
and do math well it recorded an inrdli,., nee quo·
[ient of 64, placLn g Leilani in the "defe rive car
egory."?> The file preclicred that she would require
long term strict supervision , 111e report also noted
her Irish· Polish and Carholic background. quick
remper, a trequency (0 be withour privileges due
to bad behaviour, and an interesr in boys.7C' The
board ordered rhe srerilizarion due co rhe "[dlan
ger of the ua.nsmjssion ro The ptogeny of Memal
Deficiency or Di abiLiry. also incapable of Intelli
gent parenrhood."77 Leilani Muir was srerilized on
19 January 1959 . .she was told mat she was baving
an appendectomy (which mey also performed)
and nor raid r.hal she bad been srerilized. She left:
me insriwrion in 1965, Fineen years Ia[er LeiJanj
finally learned why she could nor have children,
Her ::1dulr life was Eraugbt with difficulties. in
cluding failed mar riages, depression and me deep
wounding from the stigma ofinstirutionaliz...·uion.
labelling as a moron, and rhe loss ofber potential
to give birrh ?
The Nbena Eugenics Board passed more people
for sterilizarion prior (0 1945, bur saw more actUal
srcrilizalion of the people passed for sreriliz..'Hion
in the years from 1946 to 1972. In parr, this was
(he result of limired resources due to me depres
sion and rhe war, and rhe need to have rhe targeted
person's permission, 1n rhe POSt war ye3rs, wirh
43
consent no longer requi red from [hose labelled
menral defective, rhe Board rurn ed (0 Lhe steriliza
tion of me people living in Lh e Provincial Training
Schools. rhose who could not objecr.19 In 1996, Leilani Mlljr won a lawsuit against the Nberra
govemmem and received an award of . 740,780 in
damages and $230,000 for her legal fees. 1IU
Selected SRV Themes & the Eugenics Movement
THE EXPERIENCES OF BOTH Carrie BLick
and Leilani Muir are symbolic of rhe
impact on devalued individuals of the
course steered br the eugenic movemenr, Segre
garion, stigma and physical murilarion were the
prim:uy outcomes of the eugenicisr:,' Aawed ef
fore ro reach their warped sense ot uropia. Along
[his course the eugenicisrs creared a malicious im
age of people placed in the role of 'dcvianr.' ll1c
professionals whose [raining involved Lhe eugenic
rheory, and many among [he public exposed [Q
eugenics. absorbed rhe negarive images inra {heir
conscious and unconscious mind,~, ll1e frequcnrly
repeated evidence created a mind ser abour the
labelled individuals which produced negarivc ex
pecratio ns wimin rhe perceiver. The negarive ex
pectancies produced in the professionals casr their
und ersca_nding of rhe labeUed people wirh whom
rhey deale. Jus[ice Holme.s already believed before
he heard the Buck vs. Bell case of me worthless
ness of a defeccivc's life and the inappropriateness
of sociecy supporting anyone declared defective.
His pre-oricm;).tjon allowed only one hea ring of
[he evidence presemoo, [hac which conformed to
his mind ser. Laws which in o w rjo n.al.i zed , reri!
ized and/or resrricted the marriages of de ecrjve
people .1ppeared appropriare [Q legislarive mem
bers who had accepted rhe mind set created by the
eugenicists, The alleged 'devianr' indjvidual faced
insrirurionali7..arion, sreriliuLion or resuicrions to
relationship in order to prevent meir funher re
product:ion. In some cases (as wi[h me baby Bol
linger) they were killed at birth.
44
Images and (he resulcing mindsers established a set of expectarions for rhe rargeted group, leading people ro see omy the expected behaviours and to
act in ways ro elicir most: behaviours from rhe rargeced group members.~' This illusrrates rhe SRV theme of role expectancies and role circulariry.~l
Acceprance of the eugenic theory, along wim isolaring and manipulating people with techniques based on [he eugenic ideas, severely limited [he behaviours in which the devalued people could engage. This offered further false verification for me eugenic rheory, encour~lging deeper commlunenr (0 it by rhe believer. In their analysis of Albena's Provincial Eugenic Board's decisions, Deborah Park and John Radford found rhat poor "home environment" was JUSt a.s likely co appear as jusrification for sterilization as inhericance of the alleged defectiveness.~3 In their zeal LO fulfill me eugenic mission, board members looked for reasons co sterilize outside of the biological foundarions of the eugenic lheory. These theorericaUy incoherenr pieces of dara simViy reinforced me eugenicists' belief in their quest co save me middle class, Anglo-Saxon Albertans from the supposed onslaught of defectives. The fact rhat the Alberta Provinci31 Eugenics Board never sa.id "no" [0 srerilization, co even one of [he nearly 4,800 cases pur forward for meir perusal, indicaces rhe profoundly rigid eugenic mind sec they held .
The family pedigree scucUes served as a major piece of evidence in (he American eugenicists' effom to convince people of (he herecUtary nacure of defectiveness. Wirh melr repeated 'demonstration' of soci31 COSt, generarion after generation, rhe eugenic solucions appeared mandatory. These SOUJces of evidence rook the disposition31 perspective to irs uirimateend, disallowing any influence of rhe environmenr ro accouor for the behaviour and physical conditions thar the eugenicists deplored. No marrer what you were, if you were illiterace, poor, a single morher, and/or any other of the many cbaracterisrics they placed within {he influence of (he labels of feeblemindedness or insanity, the only explanation was hereditary. The devalued person held the entire bl.arne for their
The SRV JOURNAL
assigned place in society, as no acknowledgement of the social construcrion of devaluation ever occurred. Wich eugenic lenses nrmly in place, the eugenic researcher 'discovered' their dara supported the eugenic cheory. Their mind sers and expectancies did nOt allow for any other inrerpretation of (he conditions in which these families lived. In rhe process [hey wrote and displayed phorographic images in a way dur reinforced the readers' mind set of and expectations for people labelled deFec[ive or degenerate. The eugenic researcher casr the [argered person inro a vicious cycle of 'role circulariry,' resulting in me labelled person's devaluarioo a.nd abuse by rhe eugenicists. The believers in eugenics losr themselves in a closed cycle of 'belief Circularity,' unable to see that their mind setS interpreted the dara in front of [hem in a way to suppon their belieFs, which in rum served ro enhance [heir confidence in (he correctness of meir mind seu and expectancies.
Since eugenicists held the idea mar hereditary endowment explained 311 human developmenc, [be development31 model as understood within SRV did not apply. Furthermore, [he environment and especially modelling was nor (he behaviour shaping force chat Wolfensberger has clearly demonstraced it is.1IA Almough eugenic (heory was critically Aawed, me evidence manipulated and distorted, it persisred as a result of the deep unconsciousness among professionals and the public of [he deviancy role assigned ro people perceived as negatively cllfferenr or as pcoblemaric to sociery. Eugenicists could not see any competency whatsoever in me degenerate person. The labelled person would never develop any socially redeeming or economically valuable qua/ities, 31though many eugenicists advanced the idea rhat they could work ro offset the cosrs of the instirutions in which they lived. Eugenicisrs repeatedly stressed the inabLliry co enhance defective people. In rhis way tbey worked directly against what SRV would offer within rhe theme of person31 compc(ency enhancement.
In both Cmada and me United States, eugenic approaches [0 dealing with individuals with inre]lecrual, physical or ment31 problems squashed any
June 2008
possibilicy for social imegration and rhe holding of
\ralued social roles. Insrirucionalization of people
completely denied rhem social imegration and severely reduced rhe opporrunities for holding a val
ued role. Marriage resrrictlons socially isolared rhe
individual in rhe communicy, by denying them the
valued role of spouse and in-law. Srerilization so
cially isolated the individual within the fabric of 50-
ciecy in rhe twentieth century, as mother and father
were esceemed social roles sought by mosr people.
All (hese interventions created a profound wound
ing of those who fdl under che eugenicists' glare.
Conclusion
THE STORT£S OF THE Can:ldian :lnd Ameri
can eugenics movements' efforrs co he
come the aurhoriries for the understand
ing and trearrnem of people with a wide variety of devalued qualiries and conditions demonstrate
(he processes fot creating negative images and
experiences for devalued people. This lesson illustrates rhe power and miliry of SRV, and how
the ideas described by SRV can be used to crc
ate either posirive or, sadly, negative outcomes
for people (a poim made earlier). The eugenic
movemem in botb countries was predicared on middle class values and me false assumpcion fhat
the so-called science of eugenics could solve rhe
perceived problems thac both countries faced at
me cum of che rwenriech century.
The dominant middle class thac led (he eugenic
movement claimed professional concrol over chose
with i.nrelleccual and physical disabiliries, addic
rions, behaviour considered immoral and rhose
experiencing economic difficulties. Their use of
imagery, boch wriuen and visua.l, presented rhe targered groups of individuals in the most negarive
lighr possible for the general pubUc and their fellow social reformers. Thei.r rhetoric of impendjng
national doom ;u the hands of an Out-ot-concrol
degenerare class of'others' was meant to raise fear
and hurry me eugenic rechniques into pracrice.
1he singularity of direction, taken by rhe insri
rurionalized eugenic mindset, placed all who came
45
under their ga1.e imo th~ same rrearmems: segrega
tion, isolarion, and physical mutilation (insti[Ulion
aiiurion, resuicrions on marriage, sreri I iucion).
The decision of rhe Supreme Court of rhe United
Scates, in Buck vs. Bell, Jnd the Alberta Eugenics
Board's failure to say "no" [0 any or the cases put
berore ie, demons((ates rhis single minded ness.
Eugen ics' assau Iron. th.e lives of Carrie Buck and
Leilani Muir provides a small window of insight
into [he profound \,\founding of those individu
als subjecced co (he rheory and technology ofthe
movcmenr. Baby Bollinger experienced the ex
treme of eugenics, the desire co kill those born
\,vith supposed dysgenic qualities, Yet rhose eu
genicists who promoced i n.~tirutiona.l i7Jation and/
or sreriliz3rion also worked co make rhe ra.rgeted
individuals dead, through isolation and deperson
alization, and cbe desrruction of their abiliry co
parricipate in the crearion oflife.
Afterword
MUCH OF TI-TIS ARTICLE has been 'hiswr
ic' in orientation. Some of the stories,
l.ike Carrie Buck's, occurred over eigh ry
years ago. Leilani Muir's experience with eugenics
appears finished, as she received compensarion for
what happened co her. There mighr be a tendency for rhe reader to min.k rhar chis is all behind us
and tha( this piece was an academic exercise in
applying SRV themes (0 pasc devaluacion; buc this
would be a mistake.
Eugenics is alive and proliferacing. The 'new'
eugenics distances irself from the 'old' eugenics
LIse or family pedigree and irs failure co comprehend rhe complexiry of generics. 8
) The 'new' eu
genics suggesrs thac it wil.l serve our socicry well if we remove. people ic declares are unwanted. The
unwanred are chose born with intellectual, emo
rional or physical disabilities, whose lives [he 'new'
eugenicisrs porrray as filled with pain and suffer
ing, as a burden to others, and/or as an economic
drain on sociery.~ 11ms, the people rargeced by
me 'new' eugenic movemenr are rhe same as were [argered by [he 'old' one. The reasons for rheir
46
diminaeion are also che same. So wlur is diA"c.renr [0 warranr [he tirle of 'new'? The science offered
to explain and justifY the presellt eugenic effon. [he expens claim, is far more ac uraee rhan the
science of (he old eugenics. The new science is rhe science of genetics.
1b e mappIng of the human genome has been heralded as me beginning of a new era in under
standing human behaviour and disease. Newspaper and popuhr magazi n.e arricles have informed the public [har rhe gene(s) involved in various 'rerrifying' cond.ir.iom from c.::mcer ro Alzheimer\ .<;chi7.0-
phrcllia, manic-depression, through the speC[JUJll o r autism. have been located.~7 Rep o rrers suggeSt rhat eradiotion of the disease is [he nex.c goal for researchers. The materiaJism of the genetic orienta[ion mJkcs :1[1 aspects of humanness biological and
thus open (Q physical alteration or eliminarion. The orher shifr in the 'new' eugenics from rhe
'old' is the supposed removal of the scace in direct
ing eugenic acriviry. The individual IS said ro be in charge of the decision, of whether or nor [Q
take eugenic choices offered by the professionals. 8B
The invocation of the individual right to decide ro prevenr people being born with [he targeted devaJued condition is an effof[ [0 keep the discussion of the 'new' eugen.ic approach from me public forum, :1.$ j( is said to be a private maHer. This
stance appeals to people holding the current belief t1Ut individual rights will provide chern with a !.ife free of aoy 'unwanted burden.'
The 'private mauer' argtunent is voided however wirh rhe United Sra[E:.S government fundi.ng
research (0 prevent children from being born wirh a 'devalued condition: such as is the case with the
funding for research, treatment and prevemioi7 of aueism.'C, With government fundin a , eugenic
decisions are a marrer of srare policy and thereby
of public concern. The public pronouncemenr of the Canadian Sociery of Obsterricians and Gynecologists calling for the resting of all foeruses for Down's syndrome, followed with rhe 'oprion'
of abonion if diagnosed. [lm.her erodes the argumenr rhac [he 'new' eugenics is privare not pub-
Tbe SRV JOURNAL
lic.')U Since the group has appealed·ro me public,
to hear and accept meir stance, the issue is open
to public debate. It is also an example of a professional group claiming the place of determining ehe devalued characteris ric rhar requires denial ro
be born and (he ones to perform the technique (0
carry our rhe denial. lbe eugenic movemelH has nor ended. Instead,
ie has raken on a new guise, under (he name of
genetics, and cont.inues it,S am::mpr ro elimina[e people through 'prevenrarive' mClsures. The same merhod.~ employed in rh e I:IH Cen n lr) a rt" heine
redeployed in this one, ro convince the public. [he relevant professional groups and rhe politicians of the nece~ity [0 follow (he eugenic mandate, as are the me mods (0 address rhe: 'perceived problems.' Using Social Role Valorizacion to enhance the perceived value of individu<l.1s at risk for devalua
cion seems ever more criric'll in li.ght of the his(Of)' and the continued srory of eugenics.
ENDNOTES
1. This article will deal with sevm of d Ie SRV themes, noc
includin g the conservatism coroliary, model coherency. and
the power o fimirar.i o n.
2. rOf a more detailed exploration of [he eugenic movc:mcnr liIe reader is referred [Q [he fall wing: M Laren, A. (1990). Ollr own TrUJStn- met': Eugmic! ill Canada, 188 --15)45. To
ramo: Oxford Unive rsiry Press; Kevles. 0. (1 985). in Ill" flame of t ugofics: Gt!71f!lics arId thl! //Si!S 0/ human beredity. Berkeley: Un iversiry o FCal ifo rnia Press: Per kins, D. (968). ElIgmiu and tilt· progres.riva . Nashville , Ten n: Va nderbilt
Universi ry Press' Rose, C. (2004) . Prt"achiJJg eugenic : Re/igiow I~'a.d,-,"s and ,I,,: Americon l'IIgimicr movmuml. Oxford: Oxtord Un ivt'r iry Prt'SS; Allen , G. (1989). Eugen ic;
"3.nd Ame rican social h i ·co r)'. 1880-1 950. Gmo111e, 3(2). 885·889; Selden , S. (1 999) . Inheriring shame: "]hI' JUJry of i!ugc71ics and racism ill Amn-iCf] .. Nc\v York: Teachers College, Columbia U(liversilY; Weibel, R, (2004). Frum D rlYluiTI !·o
/-lirlcr: Evolu tJ.oJ1 fl.1)' t'lhicf, cIJgt'llic.' . Ilnd rflri;m in Gen>J.flYlY
'ew York: Palgravc MadvWlan; Friedlander, 1-1. (1995). Thc origin.' 0/ No:zi genocidE: From ellthanasia fO :hc finlll JoLl/lion.
Chapel HiJI, NC: Uni\'crsiry of North CaroHna Press.
3. For a significandy more detai led exploration of (he pe
riod n:.ferted to as the' Progressive Era: see Perkins (968): Chamberlin. E. 6- Gliman, S. (Eds .) (1985). Degenermion:
June 2008
The dark side of prOgl·US. New York: Columbia Universiry
Press; Drlvis, A. (1967). Sperirhtud.< of rtfonn: tbt socirtl
sttt1cmmrs and the progressive movement, 1890-1911. New
York: Oxford Un ivcrsiry Press .
4. Riis, J. (1901; 1971). How the ot},l'" halflive;: Studie, amnng
the tenemmrs of New York. New York: Dover Publlcarions.
5. Darwin. C. (1859). Origin of Jpecies. London: J. Murray. Ga[lOn applied his u nders t<U\d ing of Darwin's work [Q
srudy (he genius and abiliry mac was found in Families of
400 men deemed [0 luve made significant coorriburions TO
B ri rish pol i c ics. mil i cary, science and [he am, in [he I 869
book. Hertditary g,;nitiJ. London: MacmiUan 6- Co. Darwin
published his own ideas on rhe hereJilary nature ofhumans
in 1871, Tht dtscent of man. London: J. Murray.
6. G;;![wn. F. (1883/1907). Inquiries into human focl/lIY and its development. London: J. M. Denr &Co., p. 17, footnote l. llle 200 I eiecrrollic copy or the full rexr in the online Gahon archives was Ilsed in lhis arricle; availab[e al hup://galwn.ocg.
7. Galwn, F. (J 909). &says in ettgenics. London: 1he Eugen
ics Education Sociery.
8. For a fuller ruscussion of [he Brifish eugenic move
men[ see Kevles (1985); Mackenzie, D. (1976). Eugenics
in Brirain. Social Stud its of Scima:, 6. 499-532; Soloway,
R. (1990). Demography and degmeration: Eugenics and the declining birthrate in lWeJJlit-tlJ-Cenfury Britain. Chapd Hill, N.C.: Universiry o(Norrh Carolina Press.
9. Galwn (1909), Essays in mgeJJics, p. 42.
10. Sebasri:m Normandin arrribures rhe hrsr lecture on eu
genics in Canada w Dr. Alexander Reid, Jnnuary 1890, in
Halifux, Nova Scmia. See Normandin, S. (1998). Eugellics, McGill. and rhe Ca[holic OlUrch in Monueal and Quebec.
Canadian Bulletin of Medical History, 15, 59-86.
I I. Researchers have focused exclusively on srudying rhe
national and slare or provincial eugenics socieries. We have
no reSe;Jrch on eugenic soderies wi rh a more local commu
niry focus.
12. Thomas, S. 6- Woll:ensbcrgcr, W. (999). An oveIView
of Social Role Valorizarion. In Flynn, R.J. 6- Lemay, R. (£cis.). A quarter-century of Normalization and Soda! RoLe
Valorization: Evolur/rm and impact. Ottawa; Universiry of
Onawa Press, 125-159. Thomas and Wolfensberger dem
onsrrare mis poinr ar me end of me aniclc by posing a series of "if-rhen" sraremenrs predicring devalued roles and nega
rive outcomes; see 156-157.
47
13. These seven SRV rhcmes can be reviewed in Wolfcnsberg
er, W (1998). A briefincrodllction to Social Role Valom:.prion: A high-order conccpl for ttddressi rig thc pligb of societally devalued people, and for strllCf'lIritJg !;uman serviw (3rd cd.). Syra
CU5e. NY: Symcuse Universicy Training iJ1Scicurc for Human
Service Plan ning, Le;Jdership & Change Agemry, 103-127.
14. Numerous pieces are available for view on the websiccs
of me Disabiliry HislOry Museum foulld at hrrp:/ /lVww.dis
abilirymuseum.org and rhe lmage Archive 011 rhe American
Euge nics Movemen r loeared ar h rIp:/ /www.eugenicsarchive.
org/eugcnics/lisd.pl operared by rhe Dolan DNA Learning
Cenrer:tr Cold Spring Harbor New York, which is rhe S-lme
loalioll as rhe former American eugenic laborarory.
15. Kellogg, J. H. (1897). Are we a dyilzg race? Imp:/ /www.
disabilirymLlscLlm .org/lib/docs./797c.lrd.hrm. Accessed 12
January 2008.
16. Sharp. H.C. (n.d .. probably early 1900s). Tlu steriliZtZ
n'on of degenerates. I UPUI Digiral Archive http://hdJ.hancUe.
nerl180511 058. Accessed 12 January 2008.
t 7. Wembridge, E. (I 927). Dwellers in Neurorica. "flJe
AmeriCtln Mercury. 10, 460-465. hup://www.disabiliry
museum.org/lib/docs/1746card.hcm. Accessed 12 Janu
ary 2008.
18. Do[an, D. (2007). Psychiarry, psychology, and human
sreri.lization cl,en and now: "Therapeuric~ or in rhe social
inrcresr? Ethicaj HI/man Psychology and Psychi~tl"y, 9(2), 99- L08. See 100.
19. The Carnegie Insritute financed (he Cold Harbor faciliry
after! 921 ~[ld reviewed rhe Eugenic Record Office's (ERa) work in 1935. This review resulted in rhe wirhdraw:J.1 of financial suppon and cllC closure of che ERO in 1939.
20. Danielson, F. 6- Davenporr, C. (1912). the Hill Folk: Reporr OJ) fI ruml community of hemiJtary defectirm. Cold
Spring H~rbor, N.V.: Eugenics Record Office; and Esrabrook, A. 6- Davenport, C. (1912). !he NarI'J Family: A
study in cacogmiu. Cold Spring Harbor, N.V.: Eugenics Re
cord Office, deal wirh feeblemindedness, while Davenporr,
C. (Sepr. 1928), Race crossing in Jamaica. 1he Scirntijic MomMy, 27(3), 125-238, deals with 'problems reswring
from interracial pcocrcarion.'
21. uJ mmigrauon Act of May 26, 1924" (Srarures-ad .. arge
92.1: 153-169). Known as the Johnson-Reed Aer, rhis law
restricred European immigration from countries, after 1924,
ro a limit of two percent of the number at that nationality
living in rhe Uniced Scares in 1890. This sysrem favoured
48
British and other Nonhern European immigr:mrs. Ie banned most Asians from immigrating inro (he Unired Sca(c..~.
22. RafTer, N. (Ed.). (19RR). Whitt'trmh: Thi' eugenic fomi/y studies, 1877-1919. Boston: Norrhcasrern Universiry Press.
23. Wolfensberger (998). A brie/illtroduction. 66-67 .
24. In Rafrer (998). sec The Smokey Pilgrims. 55-65; -I he Hill Folk, 81-163; and Dwellers in the Yak of Siddem. 341-378.
25. See Elks, M. (2005). Visual indiCtmenr: A conrexcual analysis of the Kallikak family photographs. Mrn!/ll &raTdntiorz, 43(1), 268-280.
26. When criricism of Davenporr's papers and books occurred, he was quick to reacl. A case in poinr is wirh \VE. Castle's criticism of the "Race crossing in Jam~iCl" article (and subsC()ucnc book) (see Casde. WE. Gune 1930). Race mixru re and physical disharmonies. Science. 71 (1850). 603-606J. Davenport's respOnse (() Castle's comments (and apparently some by Bri(ish eugenicisl Karl P~.'arson) atLacked his critics' research abiliries and findings. and offered other rese.l rcher's evidence to prove ills own C4.!iC. Sec Oavenporr. C. (Nov. 1930). Some criticisms of "race crossing in ]amaic.l." Science, 72 (1872), 501-502. Edwin Black slales tbat D,wenpon reacled quickly [Q any crieicism, firsc assuring his financial backers (har the critic could be dismissed; see Black. E. (2003). The wl1Ttlgninst the weak: £lIgCTIieJ and Americdr campaign to creare a rn/1.Jur mce. New York: bOUJ Walb Eighr Windows, pp. l02-104.
27. Dr. Helen MacMurchy was an inspector of inscitutions (or (he feeblem i oded in 0 rllarlu frurn 1906 to 1916; SL'C Mclaren (I990). Our own master race, 30.
28. MacMurchy, H. (1920). The almost.s: A study of the feebleminded. Boston: Houghron Mifflin Company. In (his book. M.acMurchy relied on her power of persuasion without the aid of any statistics or real case srudies.
29. McLaren (1990). Our own mo.ster mce. 56-57; aDd Dowbiggin, 1. (1997). Keeping AmcriCfJ. sal1e: Psychiatry and eugrnics in ,he Unired Stam lind Car/ada, J 880-/940. Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University Press. 140-158.
30. Chapman. T (Aucumn 1977). E1rly Eugenics Movemt:nc in Wesrern Canada. Alherta History. 25(4), 9-17. Chapman suggests that Woodswonh's 1909 book. SlTangers within our g0tes. Toronto: Toconto Universiry Press, W:lS a eugenic diatribe espousing segregation and possible Slerilit.arion of new comers; see p. I I.
31. Beaud. r. 6- Prevost, ,. {I 996) . I m migration. eugen-
The SRV JOURNAL
ics :lnd st:lmw.:s; Mc:.uuriog racial origins in Cal\~.da
(1912-1941). ClZI1l1rii.an £dmic Srudics, 28(2). 1-24. T,'Io key governnlcnr bure:lUcrars involved io advancing a eugenic agenru were Roherr H. l.()~r<;. Dirt'nor of rhe: Oomi nion
Bu reau of Scat iSlics from 1915 co 1942. a.nd Pecer I3ryce. Chief Medic:al Officer of the Deparrmenr of Immigration during rhe same period.
32. Robert Menzies examined the deportation of people Iabeiled insane: and feebleminded from rhe province of British Columbia prior CO World War IIj see Menzies, R. (Fall 1998). Goverrung mentaljries: The deportation of , insane'
and 'feebleminded' immigrants oue of British Columbia from Confederation [0 World War II. CaJ1fJdiPn/oumIlL of Law and Society, 13(2), 135- I 73.
33. Wolfensberger (1998). A brie/introducrion, 18.
34. Weber. L. (2006). More than JUSt booes! The eugenic and COIl1.mcrcial concerns behind A.. R. Kaufman'5 birth conrrolling activities. UztUJdiLJ11 BuLletin of lYfedicaL HiJl.(}JJ'. 23(1), 119-143.
35. Weber (2006), 129. The majority occurred in 1969. me S3me year he offered co provide free sterilization [0 any parems on welfare in the K.irchener area. Weber reporE'S 700 vasecromies were "performed in rhe (aerot)' between Sep(ember md December 1969."
36. Boul m.:.~~cs ;!ppear 011 a 1942 poster en ti lied "If You :Ire Fir [0 Marrl reminding Californians char [he law requ.ired they h~ve a certihcue of health prior to marriage. The poster can be viewed ar lhe Disability His[Qry Museum website [htrp:/lwww.disabilirymusc:um.orgl and is held by tht: Lilmny uf Congrt::;S, Washington. D.C., LC II USF/33/13256-M3.
37. For a complete anruysis of "Th<;; Black Swrko and other eugenic fi] ms sec PCrIl ick, M. (I 996). The block stork: Eugenics and the de/Uh of "difectiv£" babies in American mcdici71t' and motion pictures Jince 1915. New York: Oxford Univer-5iry Press. Pcrnick discusses both anri-eug.::nic and pro-eugenic films berwccn 1904 and 1930 in chapter 7, "Eugenics on Film,n 129-141.
38. In 1919 I-Iaiselden went to Cuba, where he died rwo and half months later, see Pemick, I 1-12.
39. cr. Wolfensberger (J 998). A brief illtYoalJctiolJ. 16.
40. Lombardo, 1'. & DOff. G. (Summer 2006). Eugenics, medical educarion, and (he public he:a.lth sc:rvice: Another perspective on the: Tuskegee syphilis experiment. BlllJuin of thL' HistIJry 0/ Medicine. 80(2). 291-316. These author5 argue rhat the medic.aJ rra.ining of three of the central doctors
June 2008
in these experiments ifwolv d a slrong eugenic comp iltflt ,
linking race with various diseases. including syphilis. Don, G . (May :WOO). Assuring America's placc in the sLln:
Ivey Foreman Lewis and the teaching of eugenics ole (he Un iversity of Virginia. 1915- 1953. jOUrntlJ of 5quthern HistDlJ\ 66(2).257-296. Dorr suggesrs that a combination of condi tions m~de Vi rginia readily accepT eugenics and its incegration inro the university curriculum. Vi rgi nia was a mo re fertile ground for eugenics Ihan other soumern slales; see 275 ..
Boz.eman, J. (December 200 ). Eugen ics and Ihe clergy io Lhe early rwcntierh cco mry Uniled Sr:He5. j ournal 0/ Ammcan Culnm. 27(4), 4.22-431 . Bozeman e.x.plorc:s [be varied
involvement of Christian and Jewish religious sects in (he Am~ri alll eugc.nic movement. See also Rosen, C. (200 ). PreadJing eugenics: Religious I,,{/d~rs {wd [h I: AmerictlJ7 I1lJgenjl'
mOlJemmr. New York: O xford University Press.
41. For rhee.xploration (If the conr.cmporary crilics of eugenics. see. Rosen (2004) 139-164: and Leon, S. Qune 2004). uA human being, and not a mere social facror": Catholic strategies for dealing with sterilizarion sratutes in rhe 1920.~. Church History, 73(2), 38 .3 -411.
42. Mclaren (1990), Our OW/I tt/Il$t" rIIet:. 39-40.
43. Smith, J. (Sepr. 1914). Marriage, seerilizaejon and CDIll
mirmcOl laws aimed al decreasi ng memal deficiency. jounwl of 'hr /lm erican Institute of Crimi1Ul/ Law l1nd Cn'mi,,<J!og;\ 5(3), 364-370, 368.
44. Mclaren (1990), Ollr own ImiSft'I' I"I1U, 42.
45. Smilh (914).364-365. Seeaiso Kcvles (985), 99-100.
46. Black (2003). 146.
47. Dowbiggin (1 997), 75-76. Some sr;IJes also bannt:d me:
marriages of epileptics and coollned alcoholics. Christine Rosen suggests thaI Rev. Walter Sumner's caU in 1913 for eug¢.nic health ccrtiJione decrees before marriages could take plac.e sil>nificantly helped { O fuel the movement fo r restTictive ma.rri-age legislat ion in (he Uniled t:ltes; See Rosen (2004) , 53-83.
48. Snell. J. 6- Abede, C. (J 988). Regularing nupli::lliry: Restricti ng;lcccss (0 ma rri:lge in ea.rly rwentierh-cenwry English-speaking Canada. UJl(u/iall HiSliJricllL Rt'vUt1l, 6.9(4), 466-'i89; . . ee p. 472.
49. Landman. J. H. (1932). HUmlln sterilizmion: The hi,rUJY]
of the Jo,',.uzJ Jr.er·ili2illioJl /IIovemt:lu. New York: MacJv1jUnn. 55, as quoeed in Wehmeyer, M. (February 2003). Eugenics and Slerili7~lion in rhe hearcland. LY/':11I01 Rnard,7tion, 41(1).57-60.
49
50. Bruinius, H . (2006). Bnter for illl the ularld: The sure! hiJlory affo rced suri1ization and A mnican's q1lm for roao! purity. New York: Knopf, p. 9.
51 . Cbapman. T. (A1Irumn 1977). Early ellgenic.~ movement in weslern Canada. ALba1A History, 25(4), 9-17; G rekul. J .. Krahn, H., 6~ Od)'nak. D. (December 200 ). Stcrilizing the "Feeble-minded": Eugeni :S in A.thena, Canada. 1929-1972. journal of Hisrorieal Socioklgy, 17(4). 358-384 ; Caulfield, T. d- Roberrson , G . (\996) . Eugenic policies in Alberta: From the SYSle.m'llie [Q the systemic? Albertl1uw Rrviav 35(1), 59-79; am! McLaren, A.. (1986). 11,c= creatio n of a haven for 'hum:ln rhoroughbre.ds': The sterilization of the reebJcminded and the men taJly iJl In British Columbia. V JJJodiaJI
Historical Rellkw, 67(2), 127-1 50 . . Ibni toba r jec(cd a srcr
il j 7~l tion Bill in 1933.
52. Grekul et a1 (2004) , 362.
53. GrckuJ era! (2004),362; Chapman, Aurumn 1977, 15. Sec also Park. O. 6- Radford, J. (998). From I he case filcs: Reconstructing a history o( involu.ntary slcrilis'ltci on. Di!
nbi/fry &SocitfJ\ 13(3),317-342; scc 318-321.
54. Se.~ual Sterilization Acr, S.A. 1928, c. 37.
55. Grekul e:t al (2004), 363; Sexual Scerilization Ace, S.A. 1937. c. 47.
56. Saual Sterilization Act, SA 1942, c. 48.
57. See Grckul ee al (2004),364 ; and [or a discussion of lhe law itself see Caulfield, T. & RobensOIl . G . (1 996) . Eugenic poli cies in Albcr ra: From the systematic 10 the SYSTemiC? AlberMUw ReviroJ, 35(1). 59-79.
58. McLaren (1986). A haven (or 'human thoroughbreds.' McLaren gives the on I)· detailed overvi ew of the sterilizatio n movement in Bril ish Columbi~.
59. Wolfenslxrger{ 1998), A briifimrodllClion, 105-106.
60. The Story of Carrie Buck is d rawn fro m Black (2003), 108-123; Bruiniu5 (2006) 58-77: and Cynkl r, R. ovembcr 1981). Buck vs. Bell: -Felt neces5iacs" vs. fundamenral values? C>/ulllbin Ut//) Revieill, 81(7). 14l8-l461.
61. Bruinills (2006), 44. The sc.'!le for the labels assigned to
individua.ls scoring lower men ral ages th;Ul (heir chronologi
cal age would predicr was created by American psychologisl Goddard and stipulared the following: an Idiol had a menta I age from one to rwo Ye:.lrs. an I nl bed le from r h rec to
seven years, and a Moron from cighr ro rwelve years.
50 The SRV JQUR.l"lAL
61. Black (2003) , 109. 76. Iri h-Polish and C ltholic worked ~aain5r Leilani as many eugenicists in Alberra and dsewhere in Canada hdd
63. Bruinius (2006), 59. imm..igm.nr.s as mosr responsible for an increase in ra tes of menIal def'CCtivencs5 in (he Anglo-Saxon Pror(,;s[3rH-dorn-
64 . Black (2003), 113. inam province.
65. Bruinius (2006), 62; Black (2003), 116. 77. WahJ$[Cn (I9~7), 194; Muir vs. [be Queen ill Righr of
Alberra, 707. 66. Priddy dioo before Ihe ruling came down and Dr. Bell be-came rhe acting DirectOr of the colon), mus hi~ n;ulIc appears 78 . \\Inhlsccn (1997), \95. Oil rhe infa rnol . Supreme Coun decision, Buck \IS. Bell.
79. Grekul cr al (2004). 368-369. 67. For a summary of \'(Thitehead 's posit'lon set C)'n.kar (1981) , 1447-14 8, and (or Sn'ode', ~rgument see Cynkar 80. Muir v . 'nlC Queen in Righr ofAlberra, 69 -698. (198 1), 1448-1450.
68. Holmes was reg;lcdcd as a brilliant jurisr. with .1 liberal leaning. He held lha[ the L'iw should reAc:.'c [ rhe \'iews • nd concern$ of the "dominanr group:" Sec Cynkar (1981), 1444. H olmes fcl t lIlar do-gooders wasted their elfom on [hose rhey h :lped, and chac me universe W;tS a predatory place. 'nle Buck vs. !3ell Supreme C Ollt'{ decis ion cw be found at [he Eugenics Archive website: hnp:llwww.eugenicsarch i ve. 0 rg/b rm II eugenicsl St ll ticl i magesl260. hrm!
69. Wolfensbc.rgcr (199::\), A brie/inlroductioJl, 122 .
70. Cynbr (1981) , 1458; Bruin ius (2006) , 76-77, notes lha t on he r chool repo rt cards . the third-genera rion imbecO no{t-d by JUS[jcc Holmes had made rhl' honor roll," 77 .
7 1. Unlike C arrie Buck, and in pan by i~ more reGel)r oc.curreJlce. lhc story of Leijan i M uir has not receivc:.-d 3S
much an uclo n. TIle story of Leilan i Muir is drawn from Wah lsren, D. (1997). l.cil~[li Muir versus [he Philosopher King: EugeniCS on trial in Albena . Gml!tica, 99. 185-198; and Muir vs. The Queen in Right of Albena, Dominion Law Rn/;,'W /32.4 (25 January 1996): iiI<: flo.. 890320759: 695-762. A film h:ls also been made cnrid d "The Srerili",ation ofLeUani Muir." Produced by the No rth Wesr Center. N!ltiooal Film Bo;ud ofGnada, 1996.
72. A.r [he time of Leilani's birrh bel' mother's husband v,as serving ovc r5Cas in the mil i(;I.!,),; see Wa.hlstcn (1997). 193
73. Wahlsten (1997), 193.
74. Wahls[cn , 193. Wahlsten suggests war Dr. Ie: Vann preferred uhigh gpcie morons . . . [who] . . . subsoquently served as subject's in his drug studies; , see 194.
75. Muir vs. the Queen in Right of Alberta, 695-762, 70C;.
81. Wol fensberger (1998), A briej'i fllyodliclio lJ. 104-106.
82. Wolfensberger (1 998). A briifintr{)t/IJcriol1 , 106-IOR .
83. Park & Radford (1998), 3.~4-335.
84. Wolfensherger (1998). A bri~rintroduCliol}, 120-121 .
8 ~ . See: Li, C. C. Uan/h:b. 2000) . Progressing from c:ugcnics rl.) human gc:netics. Human Heredity. 500), 22-33; Prusak, B. (2005). Rcdlinking "libe ral eugen ics." !he Hlutingr emur Report, 3 5 (6), 3 1-42. Prusak sugg(' 1.$ rhat genetics will allow people the full moge of possible imp rovemcnrs [Q
the natu re of their children and r.hcrcfore the new eugenics is nor lhe same as the old and should be practiced.
86. Sec RifKin, J. (Spring 2005) . Ulti mate the.rapy: Commerc.i:tl eugeni.cs in the _1* century. Harvard InurnatiolJal Rcvicw, 27(1), 44 -48; King, D. (Apr. 1999) . Preimplanra
rion genetic djagnosis and rhe 'new' eugenics. Journal of M edical Et!Jicj, 25(2),1 76-182; Hume, ]. (1996). " Disabili
ty, reminism and eugenics: Who has rh e right ro d ecide who should or should nOt inhabit the world?" (p~per prcsented ar the Women'5 Electoral lobby National C onference, University o f Technology, Sydney, Australia, 26 January 1996 [paper is :lVailablc for reading ar hup:/lwww.wwda .org.aul c:ugcn . .btmJ); SiLls, E. 6- Palermo, G. (Sept. 2002). Prcimplantarion generic diagnosis (or elective sex selec[io n, the
rVF marker economy, and the child-Another long da.y's journey intO n.igh t? Journal of Amsud Rt!prodt,cr-ion lind Gen~lics, £9(9),433 ... 437.
87. For aamplc see He rpc r, M. &- Langredl, R. (I8 June 2007) . Will you gel cancer? Forb~. J 79(13), 52-58; Home t.CSt fo r scl1izophren.ia opens [he door on gene-Lic testing. TIlt' J(jtchcnl'r- l'0t.url.oo Record. 4 Aug. 2006. Life ~ecrion F3; Rubin, R. Want to know if you're dcstined for A17.heimer's? USA Today, 6 March 2008, Life Secrion 5; Kirkey, S. Gene
June 2008
r looks ~t prostat~ caI1ccr risk . WInnipeg Free PYC'SS, 17
Jan. 2008, Health Section AS; Hyman, S. (Sept. 2003). Oi:tgnosing disorders. Scientific Amrrical1, 289(3), 96-103.
88. Li (2000) claims mar benNie counsdling is never clirecrive but always allows parents [0 decide the course of
~ction, as individual rights must be held su preme ro stare inre.res(, see 32-33. The realiry oC hls STaremCnts concerniJlg
genetjc counsell ors is subjccr to deba[e. [-or parr of mis debare see Shrive r T. (9 Nov. 2007). Silent eu en ics: Abonion & Do~ n syndrome .. Commofl1oNJL, 10-11. See also Hume' (1996) presentation referen ced above.
89. Snow, [(. (2007). 21') cmlmy (ugmics. hrtp:llwww.disabili ryisnaturJl.com/anicles/21 sU:ug.hrm. Accesscd 24 Mud, 2008. 90. Docrors say all women who want prenJ[;lJ generic [esc
ing houJd get ir. The Colllulian PmJ, 6 reb. 2007. Accessed
51
19 March 2008 from EBSCOhosc Can~di3n reference centre (brabase.; Prenatal generic screening. Canadian Mrriic,,1 A$$Ociation jOllrntd, 176(8), 1074. See also Shriver (2007) noted above, 6- Bauer. I~ Gen~tic rcsl i ng am plifyi ng scigma of Down syndrome. Gu.elph Mercury, 19 Nov. 2007, Opinions A9.
THOMAS M ALCOM ON, PHD, is a professor at George Brown College in Toronto. Co...rutbor of liJe textbook Life-Span Development, hI! teaches tl couru on the history of eugmics.
THE CITATION FOil. THIS ARTICLE IS
M:llcomson. T. (2008). Applying selected SRV rhemes ro rhe eugenic movemen[ in Canada 6- rhe Unired Stares,
1890-l972. lhe SRVjoumnl. 3(1).34-51.
top related