DOCSLIB.ORG

Yet Another Terrible Decision by the Supreme Court: This Time

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yet Another Terrible Decision by the Supreme Court: This Time 5 Dec./Jan./Feb. 2018 Federal Bar Council Quarterly with the young lawyers he trained Legal History throwing away their “biological and inspired. birthright for a mess of morons.” Judge Marrero also gave Yet Another Terrible Supporters of the eugenics move- thanks to members of his fam- ment included John D. Rock- ily – his wife and two sons – who Decision by the efeller, Jr., Alexander Graham always have supported him. He Supreme Court: This Bell, W.E.B. DuBois, Theodore then thanked his Chambers family, Time, Endorsing Roosevelt, and Margaret Sanger. including his assistant and many Eugenics! In 1896, Connecticut became law clerks, his judicial colleagues, the first state to enact a law pro- the chief judges under whom he By C. Evan Stewart hibiting marriage to anyone who has served and Second Circuit was “epileptic, imbecile or fee- Chief Judge Robert Katzmann. Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote ble-minded.” In 1907, Indiana Judge Marrero described Judge and said many famous things dur- became the first state to pass ster- Katzmann as a Buckner-type men- ing his long and illustrious judi- ilization legislation for “defec- tor to him, giving him the privilege cial career. One of my personal tive” people. of serving as Chair of the Second favorites is: “The life of the law The legislative efforts that Circuit Judicial Conference and as has not been logic, it has been followed in various states fed co-chair, with Judge Katzmann, of experience.” As I tell my law upon public enthusiasm for ensur- “Justice for All: Courts and the students, that gem can be trotted ing that America would continue Community.” out whenever one is in a jam for to be a nation of and for “high Judge Marrero encouraged something to say; and its elastic- grade” people. By the 1920s, lawyers in private practice to seek ity (and opaque meaning) will Congress was holding hearings opportunities for the professional usually suffice to end whatever at which the biological and ge- pleasure found in public service tough spot in which one finds netic differences between vari- and suggested several ways to do herself. ous national groups were openly so. First, mentor and nurture the Unfortunately, when Holmes vetted. Eugenics “expert” Harry careers of promising young law- penned his most infamous opin- H. Laughlin (a Princeton Ph.D. in yers. Second, work to improve ion in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 biology and head of the Eugenics fairness and eliminate excess and (1927), neither “logic” nor “ex- Record Office), who testified in inefficiency in court proceed- perience” carried the day. support of the Immigration Act ings. There is definitely public of 1924 (which barred immigra- interest in making the practice of Eugenics tion to southern and eastern Eu- law more amicable, less costly ropeans, “inferior stock,” while and more equitable and efficient. Although eugenics got its allowing immigration for north- Third, provide pro bono and pub- start in England in the 1880s, it ern Europeans, “old stock”), was lic interest service. Try to meet quickly took hold in America. strident in his advocacy that the the minimum aspirational stan- Proponents believed there were “lowest one-tenth” of Americans dard for provision of pro bono “genetically inferior” groups (15 million people) should be services in the Code of Profes- threatening the well-being and fu- sterilized. sional Responsibilities. There is ture of the country. By the 1920s, Also in 1924, based in large a vast unmet need for legal ser- eugenics was being taught at 376 part upon a “model” eugenics law vices for unrepresented litigants. leading colleges and universi- devised by Laughlin (in consulta- Judge Marrero concluded by ties – Professor Earnest Hooton, tion with legal experts), Virginia giving thanks to the Federal Bar Chairman of Harvard’s Anthro- adopted a statute that authorized Council for the honor of the Em- pology Department, opined that the compulsory sterilization of ory Buckner award. well-educated Americans were “mental defectives.” Aubrey E. Federal Bar Council Quarterly Dec./Jan./Feb. 2018 6 Strode – a prominent Virginia “parents” pulled her out of school ment of her; he had her moth- lawyer – was the principal drafter and relegated her to domestic er’s track record at the Colony; of the legislation; and he would chores, both at home and for hire. Carrie was an unwed, teenage also be its defender/advocate in When she was seventeen, Carrie mother (stoking the aforemen- the lower courts and before the was raped by her foster “moth- tioned fears); and she was young U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Albert er’s” nephew and became preg- – once sterilized, Carrie could be S. Priddy, the superintendent of nant. Faced with this most unfor- released back into society (free Virginia’s Colony for Epileptics tunate situation, Carrie’s foster from years of tax-payer care, but and Feebleminded, did not want “parents” made the decision not not able to engage in immoral to proceed under the new law (for only to get her out of their home, activity leading to more feeble- which he had lobbied the state but also to institutionalize her. minded children). Following the legislature) until the courts had Petitioning the Virginia Com- procedures set forth in the new blessed it. Accordingly, it was mission of Feeblemindedness, law, Priddy initiated legal pro- decided there should be a test Carrie’s foster “parents” falsely ceedings to sterilize Carrie, and case. And Carrie Buck was cho- represented that she was both hired Strode as his counsel. A lo- sen to be the “testee.” feebleminded and epileptic. And cal court then appointed a lawyer at the time of the Commission’s (Robert G. Shelton) as Carrie’s Who Was Carrie Buck? hearing, Carrie was seven months guardian to protect her interests; pregnant. This latter fact – an un- his compensation: $5 a day (with Carrie Buck had been at the married and pregnant minor, who a cap of $15). Colony for only two months in was also purportedly feeblemind- Next came a hearing of the 1924, but in many ways she was ed – was a defining third strike, Colony’s Special Board of Direc- the perfect candidate for Priddy’s because it reinforced many public tors to obtain permission to pro- purposes. For one thing, her fears driving the eugenics move- ceed. At the hearing, Priddy was mother had been in the Colony ment: immoral young woman the principal witness, and much of for several years, having been carrying venereal diseases, and his testimony was false; the very declared a “moron” and being giving “birth to children who are worst part was his statement that someone who exhibited “a lack as defective as themselves.” (Dr. Carrie’s two month old daughter of moral sense and responsibil- Walker E. Fernald). The Com- Vivian was also feebleminded ity” (she had had two additional mission dutifully found Carrie to – something he could not possi- children out of wedlock, was be “feebleminded or epileptic” – bly have known. Unfortunately, “without means of support,” and without setting forth any criteria Shelton’s cross-examination was may have resorted to prostitution or evidence of either; and after pathetic and Priddy was actually to help support herself and her Carrie gave birth to a daughter able to bolster his case for steril- children). Carrie had been taken (Vivian), she was delivered to ization. At the end of the hearing, away from her mother at an early the Colony and Dr. Priddy’s care, Carrie was asked one question: age and had been living with a where she was promptly desig- “Do you care to say anything local family since she was four. nated a “Middle grade Moron.” about having this operation per- For a time, Carrie’s life with a formed on you?” Not surpris- new family seemed for the better: A Test Case ingly, no one had ever explained she attended school, had friends, to her what “this operation” was. and in her free time went fishing Dr. Priddy’s decision to pick Her answer was “No Sir, I have and hiking. After the sixth grade, Carrie for his test case was easy: not, it is up to my people.” There however (her last teacher’s com- he already had the determination was no follow-up, not even who ments were “very good – deport- by the Commission; he had the she believed to be her “people” ment and lessons”), her foster Colony’s own “medical” assess- (or why she thought they were 7 Dec./Jan./Feb. 2018 Federal Bar Council Quarterly looking out for her). Not surpris- Carrie an accredited medical test world gone topsy-turvy, and sunk ingly, the Special Board in short to determine her mental capacity, into the slough of despond.” order granted Priddy’s petition. he also gave the only testimony Virginia’s statute allowed Car- about Vivian’s mental capacity – Appeal of the Test Case rie a right to appeal to a court; and that testimony (about an eight Priddy wanted a test case, and month old baby) was on its face Notwithstanding the appall- Shelton willingly agreed to appeal absurd and went unchallenged by ing evidentiary record below, the matter. Shelton then hired an- Whitehead on cross-examination. Carrie Buck’s legal chances on other lawyer, Irving P. Whitehead, [This testimony would constitute appeal did not look so bad. Be- to handle the appeal. Unfortu- the sole “evidence” with respect tween 1913 and 1921, there had nately for Carrie, Whitehead – an to three generations of mental been eight challenges to state enthusiastic proponent of eugen- impairment in Carrie’s family.] sterilization laws (Indiana, Iowa, ics – had close ties to Strode, the At the conclusion of the “ex- Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, Colony, and Priddy (and Priddy pert” testimony, Strode rested his New York, Oregon, Washington), agreed to pay Whitehead’s legal case.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck V. Bell Kevin E
    Georgia State University Law Review Volume 26 Article 6 Issue 4 Summer 2010 March 2012 A Review of Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell Kevin E. Grady Follow this and additional works at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin E. Grady, A Review of Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supreme Court, and Buck v. Bell, 26 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2012). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol26/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Publications at Reading Room. It has been accepted for inclusion in Georgia State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Reading Room. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Grady: A Review of Three Generations, No Imbeciles: Eugenics, the Supre A REVIEW OF THREE GENERATIONS, NO IMBECILES: EUGENICS, THE SUPREME COURT, AND BUCK V.V. BELL Kevin E. Grady*Grady· Professor Paul Lombardo has been a man on a mission since 1980, and he has culminated his quest by writing a wonderfully insightful book that should be required readingreading for any attorney practicing healthcare lawlaw or any attorney interestedinterested in reproductive freedom.freedom.' I Most of us have probably not thoughtthOUght much about the Supreme Court case of Buck v. BellBeZP2 since our first year Constitutional Law class when we read Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes's famous quotation: "Three generations of imbeciles are enough.,,3enough."3 In that case, the Supreme Court upheld
    [Show full text]
  • A Catholic Justice Dissents in Buck V. Bell
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 43 Number 1 Volume 43, Spring 2004, Number 1 Article 6 November 2017 Silent Protest: A Catholic Justice Dissents in Buck v. Bell Phillip Thompson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Catholic Studies Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Fourteenth Amendment Commons Recommended Citation Phillip Thompson (2004) "Silent Protest: A Catholic Justice Dissents in Buck v. Bell," The Catholic Lawyer: Vol. 43 : No. 1 , Article 6. Available at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl/vol43/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SILENT PROTEST: A CATHOLIC JUSTICE DISSENTS IN BUCK V. BELL PHILLIP THOMPSON* I believe that the wholesale social regeneration which so many now seem to expect, if it can be helped by conscious, co- ordinated human effort, cannot be affected appreciably by tinkering with the institution of property, but only by taking in hand life and trying to build a race. That would be my starting point for an ideal for the law.' The educated man.., whose conduct is not guided by religion or morality, is a danger to the State and his fellowmen.2 3 I. OVERVIEW OF BUCK V. BELL In 1927, the United States Supreme Court accepted a case involving the involuntary sterilization of a young, unwed woman named Carrie Buck.4 A tubal ligation was ordered on Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Eugenics in America by Anne Legge
    Torch Magazine • Fall 2018 Eugenics in America By Anne Legge In his wonderfully written D. Rockefeller, Alexander Graham book The Gene: An Intimate Bell, and Supreme Court Justice History, Pulitzer prize-winning Oliver Wendell Holmes. Not author Siddhartha Mukherjee himself a hard-core eugenicist, characterizes eugenics as a Charles Darwin acknowledged the “flirtation with the perfectibility need for altruism and aid for our of man” (12). An ingredient of weaker brothers and sisters, but the Progressive Movement in hard-core geneticists embraced the United States from 1890 to the thinking of Social Darwinism, The late Anne Legge was a retired 1930, eugenics was a response to questioning even vaccination and associate professor of English from Lord Fairfax Community College, the stresses of the time including philanthropy as factors that enable Middletown, Virginia. industrialization, immigration, the weaker to survive. and urbanization. Eugenics came She graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the College of William and in two varieties: positive eugenics Eugenics was inherently racist, Mary, where she was student encouraged breeding of desirable based on a belief in the superiority body president. She also earned a stock, and negative eugenics of Nordic stock and on preserving graduate degree from the University of Virginia. prevented reproduction of the unfit the purity of the “germ-plasm,” the (Cohen 47). The problem is who eugenicists’ term for the inheritance A member of the Winchester Torch decides who is “fit,” and by what package carried by individuals. The Club since 1983, she served as club president (1986-87) and received the criteria. By its very nature, eugenics national stock of germ-plasm was Silver Torch Award in 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Deposition in the Case Buck V. Bell
    2. Appeal of Carrie Buck to Circuit Court of Amherst County, by R. G. Shelton, Guardian. 3. Notice of Appeal from the Sterilization Order of the Special Board of Directors of the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded. 4. Order Continuing the Case. 5. Short Analysis of the Hereditary Nature of Carrie Buck. (From Deposition of H. H. Laughlin in the Circuit Court Proceedings.) 6. Abstract from the Testimony of Witnesses. (From the Brief of Appellee in the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.) 7. Opinion of Judge Bennett T. Gordon. 1. Analysis of the Hereditary Nature of Carrie Buck. {From Deposition of H. H. Laughlin in Circuit Court Proceedings.) 1. Facts: Granting the truth of the following facts which were supplied by Superintendent A. S. Priddy of the State Colony for Epilep- tics and Feeble-Minded, Lynchburg, Va.: (a) Propositus: "Carrie Buck: Mental defectiveness evidenced by failure of mental development, having a chronological age of 18 years, with a mental age of 9 years, according to Stanford Revision of Binet- Simon Test; and of social and economic inadequacy; has record during life of immorality, prostitution, and untruthfulness; has never been self- sustaining; has had one illegitimate child, now about six months old and supposed to be mental defective. Carrie Buck has been duly and legally 1. Analysis of the Hereditary Nature of Carrie Buck. declared to be feeble-minded within the meaning of the laws of Virginia and was committed to the State Colony for Epileptics and Feeble-Minded, (From Deposition of H. H. Laughlin in Circuit C01-t.rt Proceedings.
    [Show full text]
  • A BRAVE NEW WORLD of DESIGNER BABIES? by Sonia M
    A BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DESIGNER BABIES? By Sonia M. Sutert TABLE OF CONTENTS I. IN T R OD U C T IO N .................................................................................... 898 II. THE RISE AND FALL OF THE EUGENICS MOVEMENT ............. 901 A . THE O RIGINS OF EUGENICS .................................................................. 902 B. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT AND EUGENICS LAWS .......................... 906 C. CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO EUGENICS: BUCK V. BELL .............. 909 D. WORLD WAR II AND THE DECLINE OF EUGENICS ................................ 914 III. PROPHYLAXIS AGAINST CLASSIC EUGENICS ............................ 916 IV. TOW ARD NEOEUGENICS ................................................................... 922 A. PRENATAL TESTING AND CURRENT GENETIC REPRODUCTIVE T ECHN OLOG IES .................................................................................... 923 B. ADVANCING TECHNOLOGIES: TOWARDS "DESIGNER BABIES" .......... 929 C. CULTURAL NORMS AND ACCEPTANCE OF NON-THERAPEUTIC REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGIES .......................................................... 934 D. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN OLD AND NEW EUGENICS? .......................... 937 1. Presence or Absence of State Coercion ....................................... 937 2. Improvem ents in Science .............................................................. 939 3. E thnic and RacialBias ................................................................. 940 4. Societal Versus IndividualBenefit ............................................... 946
    [Show full text]
  • Buck V. Bell (1927) [1]
    Published on The Embryo Project Encyclopedia (https://embryo.asu.edu) Buck v. Bell (1927) [1] By: Antonios, Nathalie Raup, Christina Keywords: Eugenics [2] US Supreme Court [3] Reproductive rights [4] In 1927, the US Supreme Court case Buck v. Bell set a legal precedent that states may sterilize inmates of public institutions. The court argued that imbecility, epilepsy, and feeblemindedness are hereditary, and that inmates should be prevented from passing these defects to the next generation. On 2 May 1927, in an eight to one decision, the US Supreme Court ordered that Carrie Buck [6], whom it called a feebleminded daughter of a feebleminded mother and herself the mother of a feebleminded child, be sterilized under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act. Buck v. Bell determined that compulsory sterilization [7] laws did not violate due process awarded by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It also bolstered the American eugenics movement [8] and established legal authority for sterilizing more than 60,000 US citizens in more than thirty states, until most of the practices ended in the 1970s. The US compulsory sterilization [7] movement gained momentum in the 1890s, when eugenics [9] became increasingly influential in politics and sterilization [7] operations began to replace castration and other forms of mutilation. Vasectomies could sever a man’s vasa deferentia, while salpingectomies could sever a woman’s Fallopian tubes, although surgical procedures posed their own problems. The eugenics movement [8] held that hereditary defects weaken society and should be eliminated from the population. Positive eugenics [9] encouraged reproduction among individuals with hereditary advantages, whereas negative eugenics [9] sought to prevent people deemed disabled or socially inferior from reproducing by restricting immigration, banning interracial marriages, and sterilization [7].
    [Show full text]
  • The Unsettled Legacy of Buck V. Bell, 12 Notre Dame J.L
    Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy Volume 12 Article 3 Issue 2 Symposium on the Beginning and End of Life 1-1-2012 From Involuntary Sterilization to Genetic Enhancement: The nsettledU Legacy of Buck v. Bell Roberta M. Berry Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp Recommended Citation Roberta M. Berry, From Involuntary Sterilization to Genetic Enhancement: The Unsettled Legacy of Buck v. Bell, 12 Notre Dame J.L. Ethics & Pub. Pol'y 401 (1998). Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/ndjlepp/vol12/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ARTICLES FROM INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION TO GENETIC ENHANCEMENT: THE UNSETTLED LEGACY OF BUCK v. BELL ROBERTA M. BERRY* I. INTRODUCTION Some judicial decisions are so horrendously wrong that they leave us dumbstruck on first encounter. Like survivors of natural disasters first surveying the scene, we must struggle at first to comprehend what has happened. Next begins the long mourn- ing for the victims, mourning sharpened by our feelings of anger and betrayal at injustice done by the very ones charged as our guardians against injustice. Eventually we turn to constructing the legacies of these deci- sions-our shared public understanding of their wrongfulness and our shared public commitment to preventing recurrence of the wrongdoing. By our efforts to construct these legacies we hope both to safeguard future generations and to win some mea- sure of belated justice for past victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Download This Play (PDF Format)
    “Wonderful! Kin is a powerful interpretation of the events, people and issues associated with Carrie's life.” Dr. J. David Smith, author and expert on Carrie Buck Kin the trial of Carrie Buck ___________________ a two act drama by Jeff Barker 321 Albany Avenue NE Orange City, IA 51041 712-737-8090 (home) 712-707-7093 (office) 712-441-3231 (cell) [email protected] It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court Writing for the Court in the decision of Buck v. Bell, 1927 …the [United States] courts have more than once ordered compulsory sterilizations. In a judgment of the Supreme Court of [1927]…it says, among other things, “It is better for everybody if society, instead of waiting until it has to execute degenerate offspring or leave them to starve because of feeble-mindedness can prevent obviously inferior individuals from propagating their own kind.” From Nazi defense documents submitted on behalf of Otto Hofmann, head of Race and Settlement Main Office of the Reichsfuehrer – SS Fourth volume of records of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1946 I would compare it to the Scope’s trial…. Yet while books, not to mention television dramas abound about the Scope’s trial, no one has yet properly presented Carrie’s story to a mass audience. Stephen Jay Gould, author of ―Carrie Buck‘s Daughter,‖ in a letter to J.
    [Show full text]
  • Buck V. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21St Century
    Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality Volume 38 Issue 1 Article 5 January 2020 Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century Alessandra Suuberg Follow this and additional works at: https://lawandinequality.org/ Recommended Citation Alessandra Suuberg, Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century, 38(1) LAW & INEQ. (2020). Available at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq/vol38/iss1/5 Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality is published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing. 115 Buck v. Bell, American Eugenics, and the Bad Man Test: Putting Limits on Newgenics in the 21st Century Alessandra Suuberg† “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” –Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., 19271 “Assume that the science relied upon in Buck v. Bell was right— that is, assume that Carrie Buck was mentally handicapped due to a genetic condition and that her condition was heritable. Would Buck v. Bell, under these circumstances, have been rightly decided? This is not an idle question.” –Roberta M. Berry, 19982 Abstract: With its 1927 decision in Buck v. Bell (“Buck”), the Supreme Court embraced the American eugenics program, which was then at its peak. An association with National Socialism and a discredited genetic pseudoscience was one reason why Buck would later become infamous. Another was that critics saw the case as contrived: strategically designed to validate a particular Virginia law and ensure the success of the eugenics movement, rather than resolve a controversy. Because the strategists behind the constitutional challenge were a close-knit group of elites and eugenics proponents, and the test subject at the center of the case was disadvantaged, Buck provided a striking example of the way that a legal system intended to protect the most vulnerable members of society can instead be manipulated and used against them in the name of reform.
    [Show full text]
  • From the Instructor
    From the Instructor In my WR 100 class “Ethical Missteps in Public Health,” students explore key events in public health history—and, more specifically, the Progressive Era—that spurred the development of codes of ethics that continue to inform public health research and policy to this day. Prior to such codes, the conduct of doctors acting as researchers was guided pri- marily by subjective judgment, a model borrowed from the doctor-patient relationship and characterized by so-called “medical beneficence.” Not sur- prisingly, doctor reliance on subjective judgment was tainted with personal prejudice and misconceptions, including the belief that race, ethnicity and social status were confirmations of biological difference. Two public health milestones, the now notorious Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis and the 1927 Supreme Court Case Buck v. Bell, starkly illustrate the kinds of abuses that arise in the absence of stringent protections for human sub- jects. It may be tempting for practitioners and students of public health to harshly judge the conduct of physicians whose research and social poli- cies left a legacy of such profound human suffering. In her compelling and thorough exploration of these missteps, however, Jamie Tam argues for a more nuanced approach, cautioning that a perhaps more forgiving understanding of these events, informed by the context of their time, better serves the prevention of such missteps in the future. — Melanie Smith WR 100: Ethical Missteps in Public Health 35 From the Writer My paper reflects upon the questionable decisions of American physicians during the Progressive Era. Since not everyone may under- stand medical beneficence, I began my essay by explaining how education fostered the “doctor knows best” mentality before delving into the more complex topics of racism, political implications, and public health.
    [Show full text]
  • An Appointment with Dr. Joseph Dejarnette
    James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2016 An appointment with Dr. Joseph DeJarnette: An analysis of a leading eugenics advocate and how his legacy has been rewritten, 1906-1943 Brianna Melchione James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Medicine and Health Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Melchione, Brianna, "An appointment with Dr. Joseph DeJarnette: An analysis of a leading eugenics advocate and how his legacy has been rewritten, 1906-1943" (2016). Masters Theses. 119. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/119 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. An Appointment with Dr. Joseph DeJarnette: An Analysis of a Leading Eugenics Advocate and How His Legacy has been Rewritten, 1906-1943. Brianna Melchione A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History May 2016 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Dr. Gabrielle Lanier Committee Members/ Readers: Dr. Steven Reich Dr. Maria Galmarini Acknowledgements I would like to thank my Thesis Director, Dr. Gabrielle Lanier, for her continuing guidance and advice during the process of constructing my thesis. I would not have reached the level of analysis I did if it were not for her encouragement and constant challenging of my role as a historian.
    [Show full text]
  • Cited at Nuremberg: the American Eugenics Movement, Its Influence Abroad, the Buck V
    Bound Away: The Liberty Journal of History Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 1 February 2021 Cited at Nuremberg: The American Eugenics Movement, its Influence Abroad, the Buck v. Bell Decision, and the Subsequent Bioethical Implications of the Holocaust Bessie Blackburn Liberty University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ljh Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, European History Commons, Holocaust and Genocide Studies Commons, Social History Commons, and the United States History Commons Recommended Citation Blackburn, Bessie (2021) "Cited at Nuremberg: The American Eugenics Movement, its Influence Abroad, the Buck v. Bell Decision, and the Subsequent Bioethical Implications of the Holocaust," Bound Away: The Liberty Journal of History: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/ljh/vol4/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bound Away: The Liberty Journal of History by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Cited at Nuremberg: The American Eugenics Movement, its Influence Abroad, the Buck v. Bell Decision, and the Subsequent Bioethical Implications of the Holocaust Abstract Eugenics was a bioethical movement that captivated many Americans at the turn of the nineteenth century and even into the Progressive era. No event in American history better encapsulates the American eugenics movement than the trial of Carrie Buck and her later forced sterilization. This trial is monumental not only to understanding American eugenic policy, but also international reactions and Nazi Germany’s chilling use of this pseudoscience in the Holocaust.
    [Show full text]