In the mid-1930s, legislators in Alabama, like those in many other states, were debating a bill to allow forced sterilization of individuals with “undesirable” characteristics.
According to researcher Daniel J. Kevles, these efforts prompted a state Methodist newspaper to warn that “the ‘proposed sterilization bill is a step’ toward the ‘totalitarianism in Germany today.’” In the book “The Genomic Revolution: Unveiling the Unity of Life,” Kevles writes that the newspaper argued that by passing such a bill, the state was taking control of “ ‘matters of individual conscience and matters of family control.’”
Then Alabama Governor Bibb Graves opposed the law as well, saying that “The great rank and file of the country people of Alabama do not want this law; they do not want Alabama, as they term it, Hitlerized.”
While Alabama legislators ultimately refused to pass the sterilization bill, the state was not without controversy in the area of eugenics, or the idea that the human race could be improved through breeding.
According to Gregory Dorr, assistant professor of history at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, the medical community in Alabama was strongly in favor of eugenics, and the theory was applied most commonly in the mentally retarded and mentally ill population of Alabama.
“Alabama didn’t specifically pass a eugenic sterilization law as such,” Dorr said. “The enabling act for Partlow [one of Alabama’s state hospitals for the mentally ill], however, included language vague and broad enough to allow for sterilizations. Approximately 240 people were sterilized between 1919 and 1935, when the Legislature absolutely rejected a sterilization law.”
Infamous experiments
Dorr said sterilization abuse of the mentally retarded and poor, especially women of color, continued until the 1970s when a case from Montgomery brought these abuses to light.
The theory of eugenics also played a role in the infamous “Tuskegee Experiment,” which took place in Alabama between 1932 and 1972. As part of this secret government study on syphilis, more than 400 black men were denied penicillin treatment and were given placebos instead so doctors could study the disease’s progress. Dorr said eugenicists behind the study believed that following their theories would end racial and social strife in the United States.
As publicity surrounding medical abuses around the country grew, federal guidelines were issued in the 1970s to protect individuals who were incapable of making such health care decisions. Today, Alabama law allows an individual to designate a durable power of attorney to make health care decisions, but the law specifically prohibits the holder of the power of attorney to permit sterilization or abortion when not necessary to preserve the life of the patient.
But as new technologies emerge that give humans more control over the beginning and the end of life — and the quality of that life — the medical and faith communities may find themselves in conflict more and more.
Wayne Finley, a retired University of Alabama at Birmingham geneticist and a member of Dawson Memorial Baptist Church in Birmingham, said that medical ethics has become an important part of medical research today.
Finley believes participants from all areas of society — including religious leaders — should be involved in deciding the direction the country should take when it comes to medical research. He also believes that while ethical and moral issues must be addressed, biotechnology offers hope for many who are facing difficult health situations.
“Families are entitled to the latest information … and to explanations about the various options that are open to them,” he said. “Then they have to ask for divine guidance as to how that technology will be used.”
Share with others: