Adolf Hitler Forced Sterilization Analysis

Forced sterilization is primarily depicted negatively due to many ethical implications. I’d like to preface this by quoting Adolf Hitler, after 15 states had enacted similar sterilization laws to California; In his autobiography Mein Kampf published in 1925 where he advertised his ideology and Germanys future he wrote, “There is today one state, in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception of citizenship are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States (Mark G. Bold, 2015).” I believe many Americans today can largely come into a consensus that Hitler’s centrality in the Holocaust was devastating and seen as a negative event in history but isn’t it ironic that Hitler’s Reich implemented its own sterilization laws, practically the same to those in the United States yet we scowl at him, forgetting Americas own set of wrongs. Eugenics is pseudoscience based on racism. Better breeding, the overall selective reproduction of those who seem fit or of those who are considered ideal subjects is hard to come into terms considering individuals are too diverse and unpredictable. Basing eugenics preferences

comes down to the people in power (Beery, 2017). Power shouldn’t be a sufficient excuse to dictate the various rationalities, different preferences, and different value judgements.

Furthermore, forced sterilizations due it’s high correlation with eugenics is pseudoscience based on racism and overall dehumanizing.

People living in poverty, ethnic minorities, the disabled, single mothers, and groups such as transgender and intersex are disproportionately particularly targeted (Ko, 2016). Which makes sense knowing those in power are predominantly white old men that claim forced sterilization is okay in order to save taxpayers welfare money and control population growth. It is argued that marginalized communities suffer from a lack of personal responsibility therefore shouldn’t have children to save them and the government from any more burdens. It is wrong to violate the fundamental constitutional right to reproductive autonomy knowing that all these people suffer from is a lack of support and

resources.

Sterilization has been used with women who have been uninformed and involuntary consented to the procedure (Patel, 2017). In East Los Angeles in the 1960’s and Early 1970’s at USC Medical Center, Latina women that went into labor came out of the hospital sterilized (Ko, 2016). Many of these women were asked to sign papers in the midst of labor, some spoke little to no English, and some don’t even remember signing (Ko, 2016). More recently, female inmates in California underwent tubal litigation without their personal lawful consent (Johnson, 2014). Although the state did consent and even paid doctors $147,460. In 27 cases inmates’ physicians did not sign the required consent asserting the patient was mentally competent and that they understood the lasting effects of the procedure. In other cases, physicians falsified the consent forms. Women should not be asked for consent under duress, asked to sign papers without being provided with full and accurate information regarding the sterilization procedure, or just simply disregard the overall consent. that sterilizing inmates is cheaper compared to the expenses spent on welfare paying for the “unwanted” children. Furthermore, although a bill was passed to ban all inmate sterilizations for birth control purpose just last year in Tennessee judge Sam Benningfield offered misdemeanor defendants only a 30-day reduction if they get a vasectomy or birth control implant (Hunter, 2017). Although it’s not sterilization it is still an occasion where a man with power is telling people who don’t have power that they are unfit to reproduce. Overall, forced or coerced sterilization is a violation of the prohibition on discrimination and is overall unethical because people everywhere have the right to non-discrimination, equality, liberty, human dignity, and the right to information (Patel, 2017).