Zylberman Patrick
Centre de Recherche Médecine, Sciences, Santé et Société, CNRS UMR 8169/INSERM U 750, Paris, F.
Med Secoli. 2008;20(3):937-64.
Late disclosure of the large scale of sterilization practices in the Nordic countries created an outburst of scandal: did these policies rely on coercion? To what extent? Who in the end was responsible? Sterilization practices targeted underprivileged people first. The mentally retarded and women were their first victims. Operations were very frequently determined by other people's manipulative or coercive influences. Should the blame be put on the Social-Democrats in power throughout the period (except in Finland and Estonia)? Apart from Denmark, perhaps, local physicians and local services, more than governments, seemed to have strongly supported sterilization practices. Teetotalers and feminists shared responsibilities. How can one explain that eugenics finally declined? Based on a sound application of the Hardy-Weinberg law, the science of the eugenicists was correct. Was it politics? But uncovering of the Nazi crimes had only a very small impact on eugenics. Some authors underline the fact that the Nordic scientific institutions were particularly suited to liberal values. Others point to the devastating effect on eugenics once hereditarist psychiatry fell from favor in the middle of the sixties.
这些政策是否依赖强制手段?程度如何?最终谁该为此负责?绝育行为首先针对弱势群体。智障者和女性是首批受害者。手术往往受到他人操纵或强制影响。责任该归咎于在此期间掌权的社会民主党人(芬兰和爱沙尼亚除外)吗?或许除丹麦外,地方医生和地方服务机构似乎比政府更强烈地支持绝育行为。禁酒主义者和女权主义者也负有责任。如何解释优生学最终走向衰落呢?基于对哈迪-温伯格定律的合理应用,优生学家的科学理论是正确的。是政治原因吗?但纳粹罪行曝光对优生学的影响微乎其微。一些作者强调北欧科学机构特别适合自由主义价值观这一事实。另一些人则指出,一旦遗传精神病学在60年代中期失宠,对优生学产生了毁灭性影响。