A warning from history

In 1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Buck v Bell, argued that the state may often call on the best of its citizens to sacrifice for the nation, up to and including their life. It therefore should be no surprise that it would “call upon those who already sap the strength of the State” to sacrifice through forced sterilization. Holmes infamously declared: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” To make his position clear, he stated unequivocally that the world would be better if “society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.”

We’d like to think that we have come a long way from the abhorrent and wicked position of Justice Holmes and the Buck v Bell decision. We’d like to think we are more progressive and enlightened as a society. And yet, the ideology of figures like Holmes lingers still.

This was highlighted recently when a Democratic Party leader in Massachusetts spoke to oppose pregnancy resource centers in his community. (His comments begin at the 10:48 minute mark in the link above.) Michael Hugo offered as one of his reasons for opposition that if a PRC worker misdiagnosed an unborn child and missed a congenital defect, then the school would have to absorb the cost of educating that child with special needs.

In a letter sent out to Framingham, Mass., City Council members, Hugo offered similar thoughts when he responded to the objection that this was really a “state issue” (an objection some have raised to the City Council taking up the question of the PRCs), asking “if the state is going to cover the medical costs for a fetus that had sound medical reason to be terminated?”

“Sound medical reason to be terminated.” Those are words that could have easily come from the pen of Oliver Wendell Holmes. They reflect a society that sees individuals as disposable and worthwhile only so long as they contribute to society, or at a minimum do not “sap the strength of the State.” We’re apparently not as enlightened as we would like to think.

Michael Hugo’s comments have been condemned, even by Democrats in his own community, which is a good sign. However, Hugo’s statements are part of a larger moral environment and are not as out of step with the times as we would hope. Consider the recent reports coming out of Canada about medically assisted death. The average recipient is over 76, and thus likely to be considered an expense to the state’s healthcare costs. Or think of the Yale professor who has suggested that mass suicide by Japan’s elderly may be necessary for economic stability of the country. Hugo referred to a child born Down Syndrome in the list of special needs he wished to prevent, echoing the sentiment of the nation of Iceland which has supposedly “eradicated” Down Syndrome, not through gene therapy or medical treatment, but through selective abortion.

The Christian ethic has consistently recognized the worth and dignity of all individuals, regardless of their ability to contribute. The Darwinian view of humanity that sees only the strong as worthy of protection and rights runs counter to every moral principle in creation.

In today’s discussions of human rights and notions of equality, we would never use the language of “imbeciles” or “degenerates” to describe those who might present society with real costs and difficult choices. No, we just use the opaque language of public burden and strained resources, conveniently avoiding the fact that some people are talking about the elimination of an entire class of human beings because they supposedly do not add to our economic output. We can’t be bothered to sacrifice for these people, and instead we would sacrifice them on an altar of personal freedom, economic scarcity, or commitment to “reproductive justice.” Justice Holmes would be proud. The Christian church must take its stand against this dehumanization and bear witness to the dignity of every human life.