The National Socialist Medical Welfare State
by
David Gordon
by David Gordon
DIGG THIS
The
following is a talk given at the LRC Health and Wealth Conference
in Foster City, California, December 2, 2006. Almost all the information
in the talk, though not my libertarian theme, comes from two books
by Robert Proctor: Racial
Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis (Harvard, 1988) and The
Nazi War on Cancer (Princeton, 1999).
Every society
must answer a fundamental question about its medical system. Does
each person control his own body? If he does, he has the right to
decide what type of medical treatment he wants. If people do not
own their own bodies, then medical policy need not respect individual
decisions, and individuals can be ruthlessly cast aside for the
supposed general welfare.
There is no
doubt about how the Nazis answered our question. Paul Diepgen, the
leading historian of medicine in the Third Reich and also during
the preceding Weimar Republic, said in a book that appeared in 1938:
"National Socialism means something fundamentally new for medical
life. It has overcome an idea that was central to medicine of the
recent past: the idea of the right to one’s own body." A key
Nazi slogan was "The common good is higher than the individual
good."
If individuals
do not make the key medical decisions, who does? Inevitably, it
is those who control the state. The Nazis denied that they subordinated
everything to the state; in contrast to Italian fascism, their propaganda
stressed the party rather than the state. But in practice, this
did not matter. To them, the welfare of the German people, the Deutsche
Volk, was the supreme good; and Hitler, as the Leader of the
German people, claimed the right to be the final judge of what best
promoted this. In his Berlin Sportspalast speech of January 30,
1941, he declared that he had a democratic mandate and had come
to power legally. His will, and the decisions of his chosen subordinates,
thus determined medical policy, as it did everything else of significance.
Our
conference is concerned with alternative medicine, and so a question
naturally arises: How did the Nazis view unorthodox medical systems?
One might have expected them to be sympathetic. After all, the Nazi
ideology claimed that modern society had become too dominated by
urban values. Life was too technologized, and the Nazis said they
wanted to return to peasant wisdom. A characteristic book of this
period was the novelist and philosopher Erwin Guido Kolbenheyer’s
The Philosophy of the Hunting Lodge. Wouldn’t people with
such views have an affinity for therapies that promoted natural
methods of healing and opposed laboratory medicine? Natural healing
was very popular at the time. In November 1934, more than 270,000
people paid for treatment by natural healers, even though they could
have received free treatment from government-paid physicians.
At first, the
Nazis met our expectations. Gerhard Wagner, the head of the National
Socialist Physicians’ League and Leader of German Medicine, favored
a unification of standard and alternative medicine. The government
provided funds for natural healers, as well as for standard medicine,
and the Rudolf Hess Hospital in Dresden specialized in homeopathic
medicine.
But, as always,
when the state supports something, it takes control. Wagner made
clear that alternative healers must be strictly regulated. One major
practitioner of alternative medicine found out quickly what this
meant. Albert Wolff, the editor of a leading journal of homeopathic
medicine, wrote an editorial denouncing compulsory vaccination.
(By the way, Herbert Spencer and George Bernard Shaw were also opponents
of this practice.) Wolff was threatened with criminal action and
his journal had to publish a statement by Wagner forbidding criticism
of the government.
The standard
doctors strongly opposed natural healing, and their opinion became
more and more influential. Alternative medicine still had powerful
supporters, including Rudolf Hess, the Deputy-Führer; Heinrich Himmler,
head of the SS; and Julius Streicher, the editor of the anti-Semitic
newspaper Der Stürmer and Gauleiter of Franconia. (Streicher’s
influence declined after 1940, and he was eventually put under house
arrest.) By 1939, a law provided that no one could practice as a
healer unless enrolled in a government approved program, and natural
healers were gradually to be phased out
Matters became
even worse for alternative doctors after Rudolf Hess’s flight to
Britain in May 1941. Hess intended to contact the Duke of Hamilton,
a leading Scottish peer, whom he somehow believed was an opponent
of Winston Churchill. He hoped to negotiate a peace settlement between
England and Germany. Some have speculated that Hitler approved Hess’s
mission, but the Nazi leadership professed surprise and shock, denouncing
Hess as insane. Joseph Goebbels, the Minister of Propaganda, strongly
opposed those he termed medical quacks, and he used Hess’s flight
to urge a crackdown on those who deviated from medical orthodoxy.
Since Hess supported alternative medicine, the natural healers had
to be punished when he came into disfavor. One of the speakers at
our conference is an anthroposophical doctor, and he would not have
fared very well under this order: among those arrested after Hess’s
flight were anthroposophists. Here we see in action another characteristic
of a statist regime. Groups can fall in and out of favor for arbitrary
reasons, often with severe consequences for those who belong to
them.
The Nazis had
comprehensive plans for medicine. To carry out these plans, medicine
received extensive funding; and medicine became one of the most
popular subjects for university students. Of course, government
funding meant government control. Jewish professors of medicine
were dismissed. One exception was the Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg,
who retained his position as head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
for Cell Physiology in Berlin through World War II. Often, they
substituted for the ousted professors ideologues of their own stamp,
such as experts in "racial hygiene."
The Nazis
believed that medical research had been too abstract. They proposed
instead to concentrate on more practical measures. They emphasized
prevention of illness, as well as cure. Cancer was an especially
important area of concern, and the Nazis addressed this illness
in their characteristic language. War had to be waged against "Jewish"
or "Bolshevist" cancer cells.
But there was
more to the Nazi campaign against cancer than odd rhetoric. Massive
surveys took place to determine the incidence of cancer, and these
proved very useful for later research. Many of the health campaigns
we see today have precedents in Nazi policy. Women over thirty were
urged to undergo screenings for cancer, and advertising campaigns
warned against the dangers of tobacco. Just as today, regulations
forbade smoking in certain public places and jobs. And, just as
with us, smoking could not be banned completely: smoking was too
popular, and the tobacco companies were too powerful.
Many people
think that before the 1950s, the evidence that linked smoking and
lung cancer was just anecdotal, but in fact a member of the Nazi
party, Franz Mueller, established the link in his 1939 dissertation.
The research that showed the dangers of asbestos also took place
in the Nazi period. Robert Proctor has written an excellent book,
The Nazi War on Cancer, which gives full particulars on Nazi
research.
The Nazi health
campaigns were by no means confined to cancer. People were urged
to eat whole grain bread instead of white bread, and there were
demands for a final solution for the bread problem. Another campaign
urged people to eat vegetables. Hitler had become a vegetarian in
1931, although, like Bernard Shaw, he was not of the strict observance.
(Some people have speculated that Richard Wagner, to whose music
and writings he was devoted, influenced Hitler here.) But there
was no attempt to ban meat altogether. Most of the Nazis were not
vegetarians, and such a ban could in any case never have been effective.
Robert Ley,
the head of the Labor Front, urged workers to drink tea instead
of their traditional beer. His anti-alcohol campaign, though, suffered
from the fact that he himself was a notorious drunk who sometimes
delivered public speeches while under the influence.
Nazi medical
policy of course had a more sinister side than I have so far described.
If individuals do not own their own bodies, then people have no
right to reproduce. The good of the German Volk, as determined
by the ruling authorities, would govern who could have children.
A law of October 1933 provided for the sterilization of persons
with certain conditions, including feeblemindedness, schizophrenia,
manic-depression, epilepsy, blindness, deafness, and alcoholism.
Genetic courts could judge people with these conditions. These consisted
of two doctors and a lawyer. Eminent scientists, including Eugen
Fischer, who coined the word "genetics" in 1926, served
on the tribunals. People could appeal the verdict of the genetics
court, but few appeals were successful. About 4000 people per year
were sterilized, mostly for feeblemindedness; the total number of
people sterilized under this law was about 400,000. Rudolf Ramm,
a leading National Socialist medical expert, said that those sterilized
were making a sacrifice "in the interests of the good of the
Volk."
Here I think
we must avoid a mistake. It is easy to say that such a policy could
only take place in a dictatorship: a Western democracy could never
do such a thing. Quite the contrary, sterilization was very popular
in the United States. Twenty-nine states had laws allowing compulsory
sterilization, beginning with Indiana in 1907. Oliver Wendell Holmes
found these laws constitutional in Buck v. Bell (1927). He
declared, "three generations of imbeciles are enough."
In fact, the Nazis modeled their policy on the American laws. They
were influenced by American racial theorists and eugenicists, such
as Lothrop Stoddard. He later visited Germany and described the
genetic courts in his book Into
the Darkness. European nations such as Denmark also had
sterilization laws. Once a nation abandons self-ownership, individual
welfare must indeed bow to the general good. The National Socialists
carried out more consistently than others an idea that was widespread.
After World
War II began on September 3, 1939, the Nazis extended the basic
premise of their medical and health policy even further. Demands
on resources drastically increase during a war. People who are severely
mentally ill use valuable resources but do not contribute to the
welfare of the Volk. (The historian Goetz Aly has written
extensively on the use of this argument in Nazi racial policy.)
If they have no rights to their own bodies, the government is free
to get rid of them. They, like everyone else, are viewed as means
to an end and not as persons with inherent worth. Hitler issued
a secret order that allowed the mentally ill to be killed. Another
policy called for killing mentally defective and handicapped children.
About 5000 children were killed, and about 6570,000 mentally
ill people were gassed. National Socialist experts estimated that
out of every 1,000 people, 10 would need psychiatric treatment.
About 5 of this group would need continuous treatment, and 1 would
need to be killed.
The program
could not be kept fully secret, and people protested against it.
These included Bishop (later Cardinal) Klemens von Galen, the "Lion
of Muenster," who denounced the killings from the pulpit. As
a result of these protests, Hitler ordered the gassing program ended
in August 1941, but many of the mentally ill continued to be killed
throughout the war, many by lethal injection.
National
Socialist medical policy thus offers an excellent case study of
what happens if a nation embraces the slogan that the common good
is higher than the individual good. Exactly the same mentality can
be found today in those, such as Judge Richard Posner and John Yoo,
who defend torture if this would promote national security. Once
more we have the premise that the rights of individuals must bow
before what the government deems best for all. Let us hope that
those loyal to freedom will be able to overcome this dangerous view,
both in medicine and elsewhere.
Copyright ©
2006 LewRockwell.com
David
Gordon Archives
|