Investigations compel the conclusion that are numbers of mentally defective persons whose training is neglected, over whom no sufficient control is exercised, and whose wayward and irresponsible lives are productive of crime and misery … and of much continuous expenditure wasteful to the community and to individual families feeblemindedness is largely inherited consequently there are strong … … grounds for placing mental defectives of each sex in institutions where they will be retained and kept under effectual supervision as long as may be necessary to … make procreation impossible. (Quoted by Ryan & Thomas, 1980) Box 2.2 The eugenics movement Francis Galton, a psychologist, suggested in the early 1900s that society would gradually deteriorate because of procreation among people with learning “dysgenic” disabilities. Galton believed that a scheme of for family merit (taking into “marks” account factors such as occupation) should be given and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged through monetary incentives. This, Galton stated, would encourage marriages and, subsequently, children with more “eugenic” favourable genes. Although the eugenics movement was discredited as scientists rejected and argued against the simplistic theories of inheritance proposed by eugenecists, programmes that included (in some cases) forced sterilisation continued into the 1970s, particularly in Scandinavian countries. Sterilisation was often carried out not for medical reasons or due to risks to the individual, but because of concerns that people with learning disabilities might produce children. Further reading Dikotter, F. (1998). Race culture: recent perspectives on the history of eugenics. The American Historical Review, 103, 467 478. – Ryan, I. & Thomas, F. (1980). The Politics of Mental Handicap. London: Penguin.
Investigations compel the conclusion that are numbers of mentally defective persons whose training is neglected, over whom no sufficient control is exercised, and whose wayward and irresponsible lives are productive of crime and misery … and of much continuous expenditure wasteful to the community and to individual families … feeblemindedness is largely inherited … consequently there are strong grounds for placing mental defectives of each sex in institutions where they will be retained and kept under effectual supervision as long as may be necessary … to make procreation impossible. (Quoted by Ryan & Thomas, 1980) Box 2.2 The eugenics movement Francis Galton, a psychologist, suggested in the early 1900s that society would gradually deteriorate because of “dysgenic” procreation among people with learning disabilities. Galton believed that a scheme of “marks” for family merit (taking into account factors such as occupation) should be given and early marriage between families of high rank be encouraged through monetary incentives. This, Galton stated, would encourage “eugenic” marriages and, subsequently, children with more favourable genes. Although the eugenics movement was discredited as scientists rejected and argued against the simplistic theories of inheritance proposed by eugenecists, programmes that included (in some cases) forced sterilisation continued into the 1970s, particularly in Scandinavian countries. Sterilisation was often carried out not for medical reasons or due to risks to the individual, but because of concerns that people with learning disabilities might produce children. Further reading Dikotter, F. (1998). Race culture: recent perspectives on the history of eugenics. The American Historical Review, 103, 467 – 478. Ryan, I. & Thomas, F. (1980). The Politics of Mental Handicap. London: Penguin.
thinking_about_me__accessible_version_.docx