Robert Jay Lifton's Role In The Medical Field

On top of this, it is crucial to consider the impact of the social conditions within which these physicians operated. Economic conditions had deteriorated drastically in Germany in the early 1930s, and this affected physicians in many ways. By 1932 the incomes of 72% of doctors lay below the minimum amount needed for survival, and in this context, the Nazis looked quite appealing with their claims that they could bring order to the medical profession and restore jobs, money, and professional pride (Baumslag 48). Economic hardship impacted medical institutions as well, and that influenced doctors’ opinions on the necessity of extreme acts. For example, it was after the Depression struck that involuntary sterilization gained widespread support among doctors, as there were now huge

funding shortages in health services, and doctors were desperate for a solution (Pross 3). Involuntary euthanasia was also justified economically, for the costs of caring for the handicapped seemed absurdly high when so many healthy Germans were in economic despair (Kaminsky 241). The advent of the war impacted opinions even more, as the common argument arose that in times of war, extreme acts were sometimes justifiable for the greater good, and that a recent oath made to Hitler was far more binding than the Hippocratic Oath taken years earlier as a medical graduation ritual (Bruns 229, 235). In all of these ways, the social conditions surrounding German physicians made them more receptive to ideas that, to an outside party, seemed to blatantly contradict their objectives as healers.
Ideological beliefs and social conditions alone do not adequately explain doctor involvement, however, for it is one thing to believe that it is acceptable to kill Jews or undesirables, but another to actually kill them. A third important factor of participation to consider is thus personal motivations, such as ambition, fear of the alternative, and fear of consequences. To be blunt, some doctors were— as some are today— utter opportunists, and recognized that taking a position as a euthanasia specialist or camp doctor would save them from being sent to the front, where they may die. Moreover, working as a camp doctor brought financial benefits and possibilities of promotion and reputation in their field, not to mention that they lived incredibly well compared to most Germans at the time (Baumslag 127). For young doctors, there were the added incentives of getting to work with renowned superiors, advancing in their areas of speciality, and finishing their education (Friedlander 225-6). Even the act of supporting the regime alone could bring physicians better funding for their research projects, access to improved facilities, and supplemental income for small assignments (Burleigh 164). Finally, while no evidence suggests that any doctor who turned down a killing-related post was ever harmed, it is possible that physicians at the time believed they would be, and thus complied out of fear. Relatedly, some young physicians later reported that they were new, anxious, and isolated, and simply did not know how to say no (Friedlander 235-6; Lifton 59). While none of these reasons suffice to justify participation in mass murder, they do help to explain why individual physicians may have done so.
On the topic of human experimentation specifically, many physicians participated out of simple academic curiosity, and the opportunities suddenly open to them in the climate of removed barriers that arose in euthanasia centers and concentration camps. Suddenly, doctors were presented with millions of subjects to use for research, and, as they had already been deemed inferior and condemned to death, literally anything could be done to them (Pross 2). As barbaric as this seems in retrospect, to many doctors of the day this was an unbelievable opportunity. Not only were there unlimited subjects, but they ate, slept, and dressed the same, making them an ideal test population. Moreover, since there were so many of them, desired medical conditions were easily found. Realizing this, it was usually doctors themselves that advocated for more human experimentation (Biagioli 202-3). While it is certainly not true for everyone, for some individuals, laws and fear of punishment are the only real incentives to refrain from committing murder or atrocities. In Nazi Germany, those incentives disappeared when the victims in question were Jews or other undesirables, and in response, many physicians, as well as others, abandoned all restraint to further their own interests (Drobniewski 542).
Despite these various explanations of why so many doctors participated in the implementation of the Shoah and other atrocities, one is bound to wonder how they were able to do so.

Is it really that simple for ordinary individuals, especially those trained to save lives, to become murderers? While a thorough investigation of that question exceeds the constraints of this paper, one brief interpretation will be proposed, namely the concept of “doubling” put forth by Robert Jay Lifton, based on extensive research and interviews with former Nazi doctors. His findings suggest that a physician agreeing to participate in mass murder would soon undergo a psychological split of the self into two complete wholes. The sense of conscience would be transferred into the second self— which Lifton often refers to as the Auschwitz self— but with adapted criteria of right and wrong. Remaining loyal to the fatherland would be good, for example, while failing to protect the Aryan race would be bad. In this context, the second self could then commit murder, like by operating the gas chambers, without really interpreting it as murder, while the first self could be absolved of all responsibility (Lifton

418-25).
His findings reveal that although this was a difficult transition to make, doctors had an easier time with it, as they had already learned to perform a similar process when performing autopsies or losing patients. It came more naturally to those that were already committed to Nazi ideology, and many of the doctors who ended up in murderous positions were. Alcohol helped as well, and as doctors grew less sensitive to the deaths they were causing, they were increasingly able to justify their actions, such as on the basis that all Jews and undesirables were going to be killed anyway, or that they were only acting as a member of a group, and thus had no personal responsibility (Lifton 427, 443-4).
According to this argument, then, all people are capable of becoming evil and murderous under the right circumstances— particularly when they feel they are in a life and death struggle— although various individuals undoubtedly have different degrees of susceptibility to it (Lifton 497-8). While this is an extremely difficult premise to corroborate, it does seem to be supported by the recurrent theme in memoirs of doctors learning to shut down their recognition of their victims’ humanity and the reality of what they were doing, as well as the disconnected professionalism with which they seemed to operate (Landau 185-7). Moreover, it does seem to explain how so many ordinary physicians were able to commit atrocities, beyond the question of why they may agree to. Realistically, it may never be possible for an outsider to fully grasp how and why these doctors behaved as they did, but, even so, a potentially inadequate attempt to understand is certainly more helpful than no attempt at all.
As this essay has demonstrated, the German medical profession played a crucial rule in the causation and implementation of both the Shoah and the mass atrocities that preceded it. Physicians were vital in forming and promulgating the racial and ethical ideologies on which the Shoah rested; they forcibly sterilized undesirable individuals, establishing the principle that national interests were more important than personal rights; they forcibly euthanized thousands of ill individuals, creating the means and method of mass murder; they killed millions of Jews and others in concentration and death camps; and they maimed and killed countless victims in human experiments on the basis that inferior lives were disposable. While responsibility does not lie with the doctors alone, it is possible that without their contributions, events may not have culminated as they did. Understanding this is important, for despite the Nuremburg trials held following the Shoah, only a handful of doctors ever faced punishment for their actions, and their role remains largely unknown. This paper also illustrated several of the motivations physicians had for participating in acts that obviously contradicted their pledge to do no harm: specifically, their dedication to prevalent racial and ethical ideologies; the social conditions they were operating in; their concerns of personal interest; their academic curiosity; and their psychological state that enabled them to do so. Exploring these motives is extremely important, for even if they do not satisfactorily account for why these physicians behaved as they did, they make headway into the attainment of an eventual understanding, and that is valuable in and of itself.