The Seduction of Medical Science, Then and Now
John E. Stoos
May 2003
"It is the duty of the doctor, through advice and
effort, conscientiously and to his best ability, to assist as
helper the person entrusted to his care in the maintenance, improvement
and re-establishment of his vitality, physical efficiency and
health. The accomplishment of this duty is a public task." Suggested
Oath for Physicians
Suppose you are a physician or someone studying to practice the
art of medicine. Would you sign such an oath? Even if you have
some concerns about how it is worded or structured, would you
be willing to go along with the powers that be who want it signed
or would you need to take a stand? If you were willing to take
a stand against this oath, what price would you be willing to
pay for taking a stand in opposition? Would your fellow doctors
or students be willing to join with you in such a crusade?
How you answer these questions determines which side you are
on in one of the greatest battles of the last century. If you
think this oath is not all that bad or all that serious, you are
with those who assisted with the deaths of millions of European
Jews, Christians, and other undesirables in the Nazi death camps.
If you think that this oath is fundamentally wrong and would chose
to take a stand against it, you have joined the one hundred Dutch
physicians who were sent as prisoners to those same camps for
refusing to sign.
The Beginning of the End for Millions
This oath was presented to Dutch physicians in 1941 by their Nazi
conquerors as a mild way to bring them into the fold of the new
order. The story of how these brave Dutch physicians stood against
this opening wedge of Hegelian utilitarianism was told by Dr.
Leo Alexander in the July 1949 edition of the New England Journal
of Medicine.1 Dr. Alexander was a psychiatrist
at the University of Boston who was sent to the Nuremburg Trials
for the sole purpose of finding out why so many scientists and
physicians in the once civilized German society had participated
in the gruesome human experimentations and deaths under the Nazi
regime.
Dr. Alexander discusses how the attitude changes came long before
the Nazis took control of Germany and how the medical community
was fully involved in what we now call "The Holocaust."
The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler
on September 1, 1939, and an organization was set up to execute
the program. Dr. Karl Brandt headed the medical section, and
Phillip Bouhler the administrative section. All state institutions
were required to report on patients who had been ill five years
or more and who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires
giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin,
whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore financial responsibility
and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be
killed was made entirely on the basis of this brief information
by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry
in the key universities. These consultants never saw the patients
themselves.
These questionnaires were collected by a "Realm's Work Committee
of Institutions for Cure and Care." A parallel organization
devoted exclusively to the killing of children was known by
the similarly euphemistic name of "Realm's Committee for Scientific
Approach to Severe Illness Due to Heredity and Constitution."
The "Charitable Transport Company for the Sick" transported
patients to the killing centers, and the "Charitable Foundation
for Institutional Care" was in charge of collecting the cost
of the killings from the relatives, without, however, informing
them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the
cause of death was falsified.
According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death
in these killing centers. Ghastly as this seems, it should be
realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for
exterminations of far greater scope in the political program
for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted.
The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers
for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger
centers on the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and
Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.
The Beginning of Corrosion
Dr. Alexander points out, "It started with the acceptance of the
attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such
a thing as life not worthy to be lived." He goes on to warn, "It
is, therefore, this subtle shift in emphasis of the physicians'
attitude that one must thoroughly investigate." With that in mind,
let me return to the question about whether you would sign the
oath presented to the Dutch physicians. These doctors understood
what it meant and, to a man, refused to sign. Dr. Alexander explains
that "the Dutch physicians decided that it is the first, although
slight, step away from principle that is the most important one."
I would encourage you to read the entire story in his essay, but
know that even when the Nazis sent 100 of the doctors to the concentration
camps they still refused to sign. Dr. Alexander concludes:
They had the foresight to resist before the first step was
taken, and they acted unanimously and won out in the end. It
is obvious that if the medical profession of a small nation
under the conqueror's heel could resist so effectively, the
German medical profession could likewise have resisted had they
not taken the fatal first step. It is the first seemingly innocent
step away from principle that frequently decides a career of
crime. Corrosion begins in microscopic proportions.
As we think about medical ethics today, there is enormous sadness
on two fronts. The country that we look back to for our example
in those brave Dutch physicians is today leading the world down
the path of euthanasia. Here in the United States the Roe v.
Wade decision of 1973 has led to the killing of over 40 million
"unwanted" unborn children and an epidemic of child abuse and
neglect. The appointment of Dr. C. Everett Koop by President Reagan
as the Surgeon General in 1981 seriously slowed the advancement
of infanticide in our country, but we obviously have a long way
to go on the road back to properly upholding the sanctity of human
life.
A Texas medical professor recently caused quite a storm of protest
with his policy of not giving recommendations to his students
who could not affirm the "fact" of evolution as the answer to
the origin of life. The howls of protest went up in many Christian
circles decrying this blatant discrimination against those who
hold to Biblical truth. Perhaps the better question might be to
ask why there are no Christians in the medical field who are refusing
to recommend students who hold to the "Hegalian utilitarianism"
that Dr. Alexander warned us about back in 1949.
Notes
1. www.petersnet.net/browse/492.htm
John E. Stoos is a political consultant living in Sacramento, California
with his wife Linda. They have six children and sixteen grandchildren.
|