|Family Edge looks at news and trends affecting the family in the light of human dignity. Our focus is the inspiring, creative, humorous, annoying, ridiculous, and dangerous ideas in the evening news. Send tips and brainwaves to the editor, Tamara Rajakariar, attamara.rajakariar@ mercatornet.com|
MONDAY, 7 DECEMBER 2015
Imagine for a moment that reporters broke the news that the Vatican had destroyed the bulk of its archival records. Researchers around the world justifiably might accuse the Roman Catholic Church of a deliberate cover-up.
Well, the Vatican has done no such thing. But it appears as if the right-to-die movement has. If so, one might well ask; why did people in the movement do it? Are they trying to hide something about their past?
One thing is clear: if the euthanasia movement’s records have indeed been destroyed, a lot of history has vanished, Orwell-like, down a cavernous memory hole. And with it, information the right-to-die movement doesn’t want you to know.
I should know, because I saw these records and I know what was in them. I wrote up my findings in my 2003 book on the history of the movement, published by Oxford University Press.
The story of my involvement in these valuable records begins about fifteen years ago when I was given permission to explore the archives of what used to be called Partnerships for Caring, Inc. PFC was a successor organization to the defunct Euthanasia Society of America (ESA). The ESA records, housed in a law firm in Baltimore, consisted of 15 large cardboard boxes holding correspondence, financial records, press releases, published materials and minutes of meetings, much of it uncatalogued.
There were literally thousands of items in these boxes documenting the entire 20th Century history of the US and non-American activists who advocated the legalization of various forms of euthanasia. The ESA archive contained materials relating to the careers of noteworthy social activists such as Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (now called Compassion and Choices), Joseph Fletcher, the founder of “situation ethics,” Alan Guttmacher (after whom the population-control Guttmacher Institute in New York City is named), and the birth control pioneer Margaret Sanger who, unbeknownst to all her biographers, was also a vocal proponent of legalized euthanasia.
Not only did these activists urge governments to permit voluntary mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide, many also supported the involuntary mercy-killing of handicapped people. For example, despite his knowledge of widespread Nazi murder of people with disabilities, in 1943 the ESA’s president thought it was a good idea to legalize euthanasia in time for returning veterans who suffered from mental and physical wounds.
As recently as 2000, Derek Humphry proclaimed that because of escalating health care costs the elderly had a “duty to die.”
There was a good deal else in my book which would cause eye brows to arch in this day and age. The picture that emerged from my account was of a movement which harbored many people like the infamous “Dr. Death,” Jack Kevorkian, whose views on end-of-life care included the beliefs that experiments should be performed on dying persons and the mercy-killing of individuals whether or not they requested it was perfectly ethical.
The overlap between the eugenics and euthanasia movements was particularly eye-opening. For much of the 20th Century the same people who urged governments to permit mercy-killing and physician-assisted suicide typically applauded the courts and elected officials when they legalized the forced sterilization of people with disabilities.
My research did not always go smoothly. One right-to-die activist warned me that if I included anything he said to me over the phone he would sue me and my publisher. Clearly, the right-to-die movement did not like the contents of my book. Some in the movement must have regretted that I had gained access to their archives in the first place.
But the story did not end there. About five years after the book’s publication, I was contacted by a US graduate student researching the history of euthanasia. She told me that in trying to track down the ESA records she had been informed that the collection had been intentionally destroyed.
Just this year another US graduate student got in touch with me, also trying to locate the ESA archives. She too has been told the records no longer exist, although she is still investigating.
Of course, it might be that the ESA records are sitting somewhere safe and sound. Yet why do groups like Compassion and Choices ignore my own requests for information? Why, when a published scholar in the history of medicine enquires about the whereabouts of this important archive, is there a resounding silence?
Yet, if, as is highly likely, this magnificent archive is gone forever, one is perfectly entitled to call the right-to-die movement to account. What are they afraid of? The historical truth?
As a researcher, I am saddened and angry that such a treasure trove is likely gone forever. The scholarly community rightly protests when a similar destruction of historical records occurs. It’s time that its outrage was directed against the people who today tell us mercy-killing and doctor-assisted suicide are the latest “freedoms” you and I ought to enjoy.
In light of the disappearance of the ESA archives, can they be trusted?
Ian Dowbiggin, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, teaches history at the University of Prince Edward Island. He is the author of A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America (2003) and A Concise History of Euthanasia (2006). This article first appeared in the Prince Arthur Herald and has been republished with permission.
President Barack Obama has a big job on his hands. In his speech to the nation on Sunday evening, he tried to hose down fears that ISIS would bring the war in Syria and Iraq to America and that some Muslim Americans are forming a fifth column. It will be interesting to see whether his remonstrations bring calm and perspective.
He is not being helped by the media. The New York Times, normally so supportive of Mr Obama’s policies, seems to be stoking the fears by reporting that tragedies like San Bernardino are “daily” occurrences. “That is how often, on average, shootings that left four or more people wounded or dead occurred in the United States this year, according to compilations of episodes derived from news reports,” says a recent article.
But as Robert Hutchinson points out in an article below, this is a very rubbery statistic, which includes people wounded in gang shoot-outs. The editor of Mother Jones, a left-leaning magazine, used different criteria to come up with four mass shootings in 2015 and only 73 since 1982. Far too many, but far less frightening.
Sometimes it’s sensible to be scared. But scared of facts, not of sensational statistics.
|Modern technology: triumph or tragedy?|
Karl D. Stephan | FEATURES | 7 December 2015
Engineers sometimes get bad press, but where would we be without them?
|Are these horrific mass killings really happening ‘daily’?|
Robert Hutchinson | FEATURES | 7 December 2015
Before panicking, look at the facts.
|Rx against online harassment|
Denyse O'Leary | CONNECTING | 7 December 2015
Tips from five expert sources may help with online safety.
|The case of the vanished euthanasia files|
Ian Dowbiggin | CAREFUL! | 7 December 2015
Precious American documents have disappeared, perhaps for ever.
|Depressed daddy-less daughters|
Nicole M. King | FAMILY EDGE | 7 December 2015
Girls are more at risk of developing depression if they were separated from a parent.
|More Filipinos call New Zealand home|
Shannon Roberts | DEMOGRAPHY IS DESTINY | 7 December 2015
These cheerful migrants are in demand.
Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George Street, North Strathfied NSW 2137, Australia
Designed by elleston
New Media Foundation | Suite 12A, Level 2, 5 George St | North Strathfield NSW 2137 | AUSTRALIA | +61 2 8005 8605