|
|
 |
| Dr Robert Jay Lifton |
THE NAZI DOCTORS:
Medical
Killing and
the
Psychology
of Genocide © |
|
|
| Page
84 |
Back |
|
Contents |
Index |
Home
Page |
|
Forward |
|
| |
| “LIFE UNWORTHY OF LIFE”: THE
GENETIC CURE |
| |
He went on to argue that all people, not just the sick,
should be willing to put their own lives and those of close family members
“at the disposal of the State,” especially during wartime, since
“the goal for which we strive ... [is] the greatest that we know
... freedom, greatness and happiness of the people.” He acknowledged the
“higher medical and general goal” of ending life unworthy of life as
compared with nursing it, but wanted to limit that concept to such situations
as that in which a doctor would hasten the death of a terminal cancer patient
who longed for it “for healthy [gesund] reasons.” In that
sense, Ewald sought to return to the true meaning of euthanasia. And he
stressed the “biological bond of blood” that exists “even
between a mother and her idiotic child — and demands respect.”
Should a family, because of the economic burden created by such a child,
consent to its elimination, the state would do better to offer aid to the
family, “in order ... not to differentiate between our countrymen who are
in a better or worse economic position.”10
Only then did Ewald raise “certain
medical objections.” He asked with italicized emphasis: “Do we
really know that all the patients who fall under this law are
incurable?” Here, focusing on schizophrenia, he pointed out that it
contains no clearly recognized histopathology (tissue change) and that new
therapies have resulted in “astonishing” recoveries. Going on to
explore the psychological consequences for relatives and the general
population, he noted that many will be “tortured" by self-blame, whether
or not they actually gave consent; that there will be terrible conflict and
reproaches within families; and that fear and distrust will be rampant,
especially toward doctors, "because one knows that admission to a mental clinic
or institution can lead to death.” Not only would medical care for the
entire population suffer, but the medical profession would lose its general
standing, and people would associate it with everything that is “sinister,
monstrous, and terrible.” He boldly invoked the finality of killing:
“One can live and even enjoy life without Fallopian tubes or a vas
deferens (although most have suffered bitterly under the sterilization
procedure), but death puts an end to everything.”11
Ewald was at his most eloquent in
affirming the integrity of the medical profession — but again within a
Nazi context: |
| |
Physicianship is built on the urge to help
another, and comfort and not harm him. The psychiatrist in particular has
learned to promote a higher good . . . the good of all .... Every sensible
doctor will also approve euthanasia. Who, however, aspiring to become a doctor,
will want to be put in the position of eliminating hopeless cases against the
wish of their relatives, and, without the most compelling need, taking
upon oneself the odium of killing? ... I can certainly kill any time if it is a
matter of saving the Volk; ... I would also ... approve the elimination
of serious criminals and common vermin. But I cannot choose a profession whose
daily business it is to eliminate a sick person because of his sickness after
he or his relatives have come to me, trusting and looking for
help. |
|
| |
THE NAZI DOCTORS:
Medical Killing and the
Psychology of
Genocide
Robert J. Lifton
ISBN 0-465-09094
©
1986 |
|
Back |
Page 84 |
Forward |
|
|
