Snelders Stephen
VU-University Medical Centre, Department of Metamedica (Medical Humanities), k. D-326, PO Box 7057, NL-1007 MB Amsterdam.
Gesnerus. 2008;65(1-2):42-55.
In the Third Reich hereditarian approaches and their eugenic implications seemed to offer possibilities for fundamental progress in the fight against cancer. This did not lead to an exclusive emphasis on genetics in theory or practice. The concept of a hereditary predisposition for cancer, the Krebs-disposition or Krebsbereitschaft, led to flexible multifactor approaches, including proposals for both eugenic and social-hygienic measures. These approaches were not typical of German medicine alone. In the Netherlands hereditarian approaches did not play a central role in the 1930s. They lacked institutional support in a country where health policies were characterised by indirect strategies working through intermediaries such as general practitioners and home nursing organisations. However, potentially the elements for similar anti-cancer policies as in Germany were present. The German occupation offered opportunities to develop these elements (concepts, institutions, personnel). This development was blocked because of the political radicalisation during the war and the German defeat.
在第三帝国,遗传论方法及其优生学含义似乎为抗击癌症取得根本性进展提供了可能性。这在理论或实践中并未导致对遗传学的排他性强调。癌症遗传易感性的概念,即“癌症易感性”或“癌症倾向性”,导致了灵活的多因素方法,包括优生学和社会卫生措施的提议。这些方法并非德国医学所特有。20世纪30年代,遗传论方法在荷兰并未发挥核心作用。在一个健康政策以通过全科医生和家庭护理组织等中介实施间接策略为特征的国家,它们缺乏制度支持。然而,潜在地存在着与德国类似的抗癌政策要素。德国的占领为发展这些要素(概念、机构、人员)提供了机会。由于战争期间的政治激进化和德国的战败,这一发展受阻。