rwagoner wrote: Kennedy, F. (1942). The problem of social control of the congenital defective - Education, sterilization, euthanasia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 99, 13-16.
Googling that, I found some interesting articles based on this information as provided by rwagoner...
Here's an interesting list of members of the Eugenics Society
I like to add some of my thoughts here. Let's say for the sake of the argument that one could say he or she has the right to die if they are facing a terminal illness with no hope of recovery.
Ok, let's say he or she is right for the moment. What if this type of thought becomes a purcursor to something else? Let's just say that a team of scientist evaluates and researches thousands and thousands of documents of patients who all said they rather die than suffer from a terminal illness. So this team of scientists gather their notes together and talk something like this.....
"As we can see, it's very common for all patients that prefers death than to suffer an end from a terminal disease. How about we have a talk with Congress about making a manitory law for doctors to pull the plug on patients who is facing a terminal disease? I mean, this is considered merciful, isn't it? I mean, who are we as human beings that would rather watch a patient waste away in bed knowing they're going to die a horrible death? It would be inhumane to allow them to suffer in such a matter as this.
So they would present arguments to Congress about better ways for patients to be put to death as a merciful and humane means than to allow the patient to suffer bedridden years in the hospital waiting for death to overtake them. Granted that the argument could take years before the thought becomes popular within Congress that it would be more preferable and merciful to hasten the death of the patient rather than allow them to spend years of suffering being bedridden while waiting to die.
It could also be argued in Congress that it would also be economically merciful for the patient as well as their families to hasten the death of the patient and save thousands of dollars, if not millions, being wasted on a patient who have no hope of recovery.
Congress, if this could ever happen, (never say it could never happen, because it happened before and it could happen again) could also take away the rights of the parents/guardian who is financially caring for the patient and hand the rights to the doctors to determine the life of the patient, whether or not the parent/guardian agrees with their decision. The doctor would have the right to terminate the life of the patient if he or she deemed the patient unfit for living and therefore should be hastened to death to make room for those that do have a better chance of recovery and living a better, healthy life.
Congress could also argue that it would be inhumane for a patient to suffer and charge against those who desire the patient to live as uncaring monsters simply because he or she wants the person to live simply because he or she loves them, refusing to treat the loved one as "unwanted" and "undesirable". Congress could also argue that the patient, wanting to live, is considered mentally unstable and unable to think rationally that the patient prefers to suffer a terminal disease rather than being hasten to death.
So, what if this become a purcursor to something else? Always, a thought of one becomes a purcursor to a thought of something else. It always has a domino effect.
So what if this thought starts heading into the direction of those that have a disability, in plain view or hidden from view?
I read sometime back that scientists are discovering ways to create and read a genetic map of the unborn child to find and discover whether or not the child will be born with a genetic "defect" or some type of disease that the child could develop in having either from the moment they are born or later in life.
This is quite scary to read this, because the moment a doctor discovers that the child could be born "malformed", as it were, that he or she could be born without legs, or be blind, or be deaf, or born with some type of deformity or disease that the doctor could consider "less than human". So what if the doctor presents their finding to the parent(s) that the child will be born with something other than what is considered a normal and healthy child?
This could lead to the determination of whether the child should be allowed to be born or aborted from the womb if the child is deemed "undesirable". Sure, every parent wants a normal and healthy child. But, by what right do the doctor and the parent have in determining what is "normal" by society's standard?
I am deaf, so if this genetic mapping technology existed in my time in 1963 before I was born in August 1964 and the doctor presented the finding to my parents that I will develop German Measles at the age of 3 which will result in a total hearing loss. Should I have been prevented from being born in order to prevent me from becoming deaf by the age of 3? Would it have been more preferable that I should be dead than living a life of deafness?
Folks, these kinds of things could lead to an awful lot of problems for the human race, not for the better of it IMHO, but it could create a society that no one with any kind of disability or disease should be allowed to live. Should we allow a society to create a "unwanted" and "undesirable" set of laws against those that is considered "unfit" to be part of society as a whole?
I like to introduce to you a woman who is now in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the neck down from a swimming accident years ago. Her name is Joni Eareckson-Tada. She's an amazing woman who learned to paint while holding a paint brush from her mouth. She is also a beautiful singer. She is also an advocate for the disability. Here is her website..........Joni and Friends
Yiz