A Debate on Forced Sterilization: Perspectives on Eugenics
Assignment Instructions: The Values, Ethics, and Social Responsibility of Eugenics
Learning Objectives
- Demonstrate ability to recognize the differences between original historical source material (primary sources) and later scholarly interpretations of those sources (secondary sources).
- Demonstrate ability to develop interpretive historical arguments drawing on primary and/or secondary sources.
- Identify the sources and functions of values that guide human practices in science and technology.
- Demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethics, values and social responsibility in science and technology for individuals and for societies through the history of science and technology.
Background:
Sir Francis Galton, a British statistician and first cousin of Charles Darwin, coined the term eugenics in 1883 before the discovery of genes. Eugenics means “good genes” or “born well.” As a field of scientific study, eugenics sought a means of improving society through selective breeding. In practice, eugenics meant that certain individuals who were considered “undesirable” by society, would have their reproductive capabilities taken away or severely limited in hopes that the “undesirables” would eventually become extinct within two generations.
Charles Davenport was the Director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and founder of the Eugenics Records Office. Working with Morris Steggerda, a Mesoamerican anthropologist, Davenport studied the interbreeding of races and found that the offspring of an interracial relationship were unfit for society.
Harry Laughlin was the Superintendent of the Eugenic Records Office at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island in New York. He wrote a model law calling for the forced sterilization of men and women who were deemed “undesirable” by society. The law was adopted in some fashion by 38 states prior to World War II.
Oliver Wendell Holmes was a Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States in 1927 when the case Buck v. Bell was brought before the court. Justice Holmes wrote the majority opinion in the case upholding the constitutionality of forced sterilization.
Dr. John Hendren Bell succeeded Dr. Albert Priddy as the Superintendent at the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded when Carrie Buck was admitted to the home. Bell, with the help of Irving Whitehead, an attorney appointed by the Court to represent Carrie Buck’s interests, tested the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced sterilization law.
Required Reading:
Primary Sources:
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell 274, US 200 (1927
Secondary Sources:
Margarita Tartakovsky, “Eugenics & The Story of Carrie Buck,” PsychCentral (January 24, 2011).
Allison White and Ina Hofland, “Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced Sterilization,” Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia, 2004
Essay Prompt:
Complete a close reading of the selected primary and secondary sources. Assume the historical persona of anti-eugenicist in the 1920s when Carrie Buck’s case is being heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. Write a dialogue (like a play) between your assumed historical persona and one of the four individuals listed above (Charles Davenport, Harry Laughlin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, or John Hendren Bell) where you advocate against the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck while the other individual argues in favor of Carrie Buck’s sterilization.
Some things to remember as your write your dialogue: In the 1920s, your viewpoint arguing against Carrie Buck’s forced sterilization is in the minority. Eugenics was seen as the correct ethical response to improving society and the human race. Eugenicists believed it was their social responsibility to improve society and the human race. Your dialogue needs to address the ethics and social responsibility beliefs of the eugenicists. Your dialogue should also address the community and personal values of society at the time. Your opponent will use the science of eugenics to discredit your arguments. If you chose to argue against Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, you will want to consider the legal values, ethics, and social responsibility of the Court’s decision.
A DEBATE ON FORCED STERILIZATION: PERSPECTIVES ON EUGENICS
Student’s Name
Course
Date
A Debate on Forced Sterilization: Perspectives on Eugenics
Characters
Dr. Emily Lawson
Is a passionate advocate for individual rights and human dignity who opposes forced sterilization and eugenics' limited perspective.
Charles Davenport
A well-known eugenicist; thinks that using selective breeding to eliminate "undesirable" traits can make society better.
In 1927, in a tiny office in Washington, D.C., intense debate was taking place between Dr. Emily Lawson, an anti-eugenicist, and Charles Davenport, a prominent eugenicist. They have gathered to discuss the case of Carrie Buck, whose forcible sterilization is under consideration by the United States Supreme Court.[Allison White and Hofland Ina, “‘Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced Sterilization,’ Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia,” 2004.]
Dr. Emily Lawson: Mr. Davenport, how are you today? I appreciate your willingness to meet with me today to discuss the issue.
Charles Davenport: How are you doing today, Doctor Lawson? I did not anticipate getting your request. Since you oppose eugenics, I want to hear why authorities should not sterilize Carrie Buck.
Dr. Emily Lawson: My position is motivated by a deep concern for the moral repercussions of coerced sterilization. We cannot dispute, Mr. Davenport, that the purpose of eugenics is to enhance society through selective breeding. Is it not our responsibility to respect every individual's uniqueness and intrinsic value, regardless of their evident "fitness"?[Steven A. Farber, “U.S. Scientists’ Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist’s Perspective,” Zebrafish 5, no. 4 (2008): 243.]
Charles Davenport: You must comprehend, Dr. Lawson, that a sincere desire to better humanity drives eugenics. We believe that our social responsibility eradicates negative characteristics and elevates the human race. We can prevent the spread of these undesirable characteristics by restricting the reproductive capacities of individuals deemed unfit.[]
Dr. Emily Lawson: I acknowledge the intentions behind eugenics, but our values as a society must include preserving individual rights and human dignity. To forcibly sterilize people strip them of their autonomy and fundamental human freedoms. Is it not our duty to protect these fundamental values?[Margarita Tartakovsky, M.S., “Eugenics & the Story of Carrie Buck,” 2011: 1.]
Charles Davenport: Dr. Lawson, your worries are justified, but we must favor the greater good over individual liberties. Eugenics eliminates genetic diseases and inadequacies, making society healthier and more productive. We must serve society. “These courts allowed a broad range of citizens to propose that an individual should be sterilized.”
Dr. Emily Lawson: But, Mr. Davenport, who decides what is an "undesirable" trait? Are we not at risk of reinforcing societal preconceptions and biases? In addition, science and technology are not perfect. Genetic understanding is still in its infancy, and we must approach it cautiously.[Allison White and Hofland Ina, “‘Eugenics in Virginia: Buck v. Bell and Forced Sterilization,’ Claude Moore Health Sciences Library, University of Virginia,” 2004.]
Charles Davenport: Science and research, Dr. Lawson, have shown patterns and relationships that society cannot ignore. According to the data, hereditary variables have a substantial part in defining an individual's potential. We want to influence human development toward a more desirable conclusion by applying eugenics.
Dr. Emily Lawson: I understand the scientific reasoning, Mr. Davenport, but science should not live in a vacuum. Our ethical beliefs must guide the implementation of scientific knowledge. Forced sterilization diminishes the worth of human life and ignores the complexities of human existence. We must examine the risk of misuse and the unexpected effects of such activities.[Steven A. Farber, “U.S. Scientists’ Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist’s Perspective,” Zebrafish 5, no. 4 (2008): 243.]
Charles Davenport: Dr. Lawson, I understand your fears, but you underestimate the capacity of science to enhance the human situation. We cannot let sentimentality stand in the way of development. It is not too much to say, I believe, that the idea of eugenics, based upon the science of eugenics, will work the most significant social revolution the world has yet known. “The potential societal advantages outweigh the dangers and uncertainties you mention.”[Margarita Tartakovsky, M.S., “Eugenics &...