This site requires Javascript to be turned on. Please enable Javascript and reload the page.

Eugenic States

Woodside Excerpt Transcript

[Section Title] IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND SUPERSTITION
            Under North Carolina law, eugenic sterilization is not offered to normal individuals but applies exclusively to the feeble-minded and mentally afflicted. The understanding of thse4 people is limited, many of them are illiterate, and lacking any consistent sense of purpose, they can be easily influenced. Their relatives, drawn from similar social groups, if not themselves defective (as often happens) are unlikely to be more than dull normal in intelligence, slow to accept new ideas, and incapable of viewing a situation except in immediate personal terms.
            It is extremely difficult for case workers to explain eugenic sterilization to such clients, allay their fears, and convince them of its value; and we note that of the 85 county welfare departments who had handled sterilization cases, 71 of them check “resistance of client and relatives” as a major problem. (See Appendix C, analysis of questionnaire returns.) Ignorance and superstition were mentioned again and again by workers with practical experience of interpreting the program; and the mental limitations of their cli9ents apart, we must remember that such characteristics are common to uneducated country people all over the world. One public health nurse who had undertaken a special sterilization project in a rural county described her difficulties as follows: Ignorance and lack of education were the biggest obstacles, not only where sterilization was concerned but in relation to all sorts of things such as child welfare and personal health. Men and women will agree to the operation, then back out later. “They believe you when you are talking to them” but then they get confused through talking to friends and relatives. This occurs especially in the case of men, who don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between vasectomy and castration even though they may apparently be convinced after you have explained it to them. Women are more receptive to the idea, but dislike going to the hospital and put off making arrangements; or their husbands may object on religious or selfish grounds. (Some notes on a visit made with this worker to the home of one of her clients will be found in Appendix D.)
            Confusion exists as to the exact nature of the operation, and analogies are drawn with familiar veterinary procedures on farm animals or with the effects of hysterectomy. Men are fearful that their sexual capacities may be impaired, women give heed to old wives’ tales about the dire results of interference with nature, and many of them are understandably reluctant to submit to a surgical operation which they cannot regard as urgent. The following extract from a social agency case record shows how firmly ingrained an irrational idea may become:
            Mrs. J., a white woman, wife of a butcher, has seven living and five dead children. One child was born with a deformed foot, another has a speech defect and is feeble-minded (I.Q. 60). Mrs. J. has been attending a psychiatric clinic for treatment of anxiety and depression and is considered of borderline intelligence. She also suffers from kidney trouble, backache, and hemorrhoids.
            The agency is trying to get her sterilized either on mental or physical grounds, but she will not agree to the operation because of what it may do to her. She has a sister who has been in the State mental hospital for about ten years. When this sister was 25 she had an operation and soon thereafter “lost her mind.” The doctor denied that he had removed the sister’s womb and the doctors at the State hospital say that the operation could not have affected the sister’s mind, but Mrs. J. and her relatives know better. They have asked “plenty of doctors” and they all say that the womb must have been removed. Mrs. J. is obviously convinced that this caused her sister’s mental condition.
            The case of Ada T. reported at length in the appendix, provides another example of ignorance, fear, and confused thinking on the part of a mentally defective unmarried mother, and the attempt to interpret sterilization to such people is indeed a discouraging and disappointing task. One welfare superintendent says: “There is still so much ignorance and superstition and fear among feeble-minded clients and relatives where any mention is made of sterilization that it is next to impossible to help them dispel these reactions.” Another, less pessimistic, says: “Clients and relatives require understanding, persuasion and encouragement. It takes plenty of time.”

Contents of this annotation:

[Section Title] IGNORANCE, PREJUDICE, AND SUPERSTITION Under North Carolina law, eugenic sterilization is not offered to normal individuals but applies exclusively to the feeble-minded and mentally afflicted. The understanding of thse4 people is limited, many of them are illiterate, and lacking any consistent sense of purpose, they can be easily influenced. Their relatives, drawn from similar social groups, if not themselves defective (as often happens) are unlikely to be more than dull normal in intelligence, slow to accept new ideas, and incapable of viewing a situation except in immediate personal terms. It is extremely difficult for case workers to explain eugenic sterilization to such clients, allay their fears, and convince them of its value; and we note that of the 85 county welfare departments who had handled sterilization cases, 71 of them check “resistance of client and relatives” as a major problem. (See Appendix C, analysis of questionnaire returns.) Ignorance and superstition were mentioned again and again by workers with practical experience of interpreting the program; and the mental limitations of their cli9ents apart, we must remember that such characteristics are common to uneducated country people all over the world. One public health nurse who had undertaken a special sterilization project in a rural county described her difficulties as follows: Ignorance and lack of education were the biggest obstacles, not only where sterilization was concerned but in relation to all sorts of things such as child welfare and personal health. Men and women will agree to the operation, then back out later. “They believe you when you are talking to them” but then they get confused through talking to friends and relatives. This occurs especially in the case of men, who don’t seem to be able to grasp the difference between vasectomy and castration even though they may apparently be convinced after you have explained it to them. Women are more receptive to the idea, but dislike going to the hospital and put off making arrangements; or their husbands may object on religious or selfish grounds. (Some notes on a visit made with this worker to the home of one of her clients will be found in Appendix D.) Confusion exists as to the exact nature of the operation, and analogies are drawn with familiar veterinary procedures on farm animals or with the effects of hysterectomy. Men are fearful that their sexual capacities may be impaired, women give heed to old wives’ tales about the dire results of interference with nature, and many of them are understandably reluctant to submit to a surgical operation which they cannot regard as urgent. The following extract from a social agency case record shows how firmly ingrained an irrational idea may become: Mrs. J., a white woman, wife of a butcher, has seven living and five dead children. One child was born with a deformed foot, another has a speech defect and is feeble-minded (I.Q. 60). Mrs. J. has been attending a psychiatric clinic for treatment of anxiety and depression and is considered of borderline intelligence. She also suffers from kidney trouble, backache, and hemorrhoids. The agency is trying to get her sterilized either on mental or physical grounds, but she will not agree to the operation because of what it may do to her. She has a sister who has been in the State mental hospital for about ten years. When this sister was 25 she had an operation and soon thereafter “lost her mind.” The doctor denied that he had removed the sister’s womb and the doctors at the State hospital say that the operation could not have affected the sister’s mind, but Mrs. J. and her relatives know better. They have asked “plenty of doctors” and they all say that the womb must have been removed. Mrs. J. is obviously convinced that this caused her sister’s mental condition. The case of Ada T. reported at length in the appendix, provides another example of ignorance, fear, and confused thinking on the part of a mentally defective unmarried mother, and the attempt to interpret sterilization to such people is indeed a discouraging and disappointing task. One welfare superintendent says: “There is still so much ignorance and superstition and fear among feeble-minded clients and relatives where any mention is made of sterilization that it is next to impossible to help them dispel these reactions.” Another, less pessimistic, says: “Clients and relatives require understanding, persuasion and encouragement. It takes plenty of time.”