V Weichbold1, P Zorowka. 1. Universitätsklinik für Hör-, Stimm- und Sprachstörungen, Medizinische Universität Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Osterreich, viktor.weichbold@i-med.ac.at.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (enacted in Germany in 1934 and in Austria in 1940) allowed the forced sterilisation of people with hereditary disorders, including hereditary deafness. Doctors were required to register their patients who qualified under the Law and to cooperate in establishing the diagnosis. METHOD: This study investigated how the questions and problems related to this topic were discussed in three German-language scientific ENT journals published between 1934 and 1944. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A few ENT specialists appeared as "protagonists" of the eugenics programme and supported its implementation. Others seemed to be "sceptics" of the programme who, though not overtly objecting to it, warned against its uncritical application. The scientific discussion was nevertheless objective and not distorted by ideological motives. Apparently, the "sceptics" were influential enough to widely establish a restrictive practice of diagnosing hereditary deafness. Nevertheless, the physicians failed to comply with their professional obligation to advocate the welfare of the patient rather than that of "the nation".
BACKGROUND: The Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (enacted in Germany in 1934 and in Austria in 1940) allowed the forced sterilisation of people with hereditary disorders, including hereditary deafness. Doctors were required to register their patients who qualified under the Law and to cooperate in establishing the diagnosis. METHOD: This study investigated how the questions and problems related to this topic were discussed in three German-language scientific ENT journals published between 1934 and 1944. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A few ENT specialists appeared as "protagonists" of the eugenics programme and supported its implementation. Others seemed to be "sceptics" of the programme who, though not overtly objecting to it, warned against its uncritical application. The scientific discussion was nevertheless objective and not distorted by ideological motives. Apparently, the "sceptics" were influential enough to widely establish a restrictive practice of diagnosing hereditary deafness. Nevertheless, the physicians failed to comply with their professional obligation to advocate the welfare of the patient rather than that of "the nation".