Visit Atticus Mullikin's column >>

ATTICUS MULLIKINHome Page

Illiberal Commentary From a Non-Liberal
Add To Watchlist
Articles Posted: 30; Links Seeded: 52
Member Since: 8/2007Last Seen: 10/29/2009

[Seed] Doctor Refuses to Perform Operation That Would Have Saved Infant's Life

News Type: Other — Seeded on Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:48 AM EST
advertisement

Surgeon Lets Baby, Born to Idiocy, Die, July 24, 1917

An old article detailing the case of Dr. Harry J. Haiselden of Chicago, who as a practicing American eugenicist refused to save the lives of infants he considered unlikely to live, or whom he thought would be born to idiocy.

On this particular occasion, Haiselden refused to operate on the baby of Mr. and Mrs. William Meter, whose child "had no upper skull cap" and "other deformities." Forty other physicians were invited to examine the child, and concurred with Haiselden's decision, many signing a statement of support.

This statement might have been a necessity for Dr. Haiselden, who two years previous had faced possible charges by Illinois authorities and expulsion from the Chicago Medical Society for his similar refusal to perform a possibly life-saving operation on the child of Anna Bollinger.

The Bollinger case is described in greater detail in an article I seeded, Hitler's Debt to America.

Published to:

What's this?
Who's leading the conversation?
This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.
4.5
{"commentId":1415268,"authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
Atticus Mullikin

This seed planted in the article Edwin Black

Thing is, I think you can still read this story and be torn yourself by the ethical quandary. Eugenics, in a very dark, strange way, has always made some type of sense. Who knows how the U.S. might have evolved if the Second World War hadn't happened, and we hadn't seen the horrible results of such eugenical solutions firsthand.

{"commentId":1415268,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
  • 1 vote
Reply#1 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 6:58 PM EST
{"commentId":1415296,"authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
Dr Know

The complete article details that over 40 other physicians were consulted and agreed with the course of action that was taken almost 100 years ago.

Just because a procedure CAN be done does not mean it MUST be done or even SHOULD be done. The quality of life after the procedure was in question at that time and would be even now.

Eugenics is the self direction of evolution. Operating on this child would have involved eugenics, leaving it to the course of nature is not.

{"commentId":1415296,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"DrKnow"}
  • 3 votes
Reply#2 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:10 PM EST
{"commentId":1415312,"authorDomain":"gwenny"}
Gwenny
Eugenics is the self direction of evolution. Operating on this child would have involved eugenics, leaving it to the course of nature is not.

Totally with you on this one, Doc. I'm mystified by how many people think meddling is the right thing to do and consider allowing Nature/God to take it's course a "crime".

{"commentId":1415312,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"gwenny"}
  • 2 votes
#2.1 - Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:18 PM EST
{"commentId":1416459,"authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
Glinda

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree.... I know, where's the sport in that :-)

The really creepy area of eugenics, I think is in ideas like enforced sterilizations of "undesirable" types - which is playing god or whatever you might like to call it. The equivalent would be actually euthenizing a viable infant because of a birth defect - but I don't believe that was ever done.

{"commentId":1416459,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
    #2.2 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:28 AM EST
    {"commentId":1417250,"authorDomain":"gwenny"}
    Gwenny
    The equivalent would be actually euthenizing a viable infant because of a birth defect - but I don't believe that was ever done.

    I just don't see how allowing a damaged creature to die peacefully is a crime. Especially a century ago when it's prospects were so limited.

    {"commentId":1417250,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"gwenny"}
    • 2 votes
    #2.3 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 10:40 AM EST
    {"commentId":1417865,"authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
    Atticus Mullikin
    Just because a procedure CAN be done does not mean it MUST be done or even SHOULD be done. The quality of life after the procedure was in question at that time and would be even now.

    Right, and that's what I meant by "ethical quandary." While I agree with you ostensibly, this same doctor (if you read the link quoted above) Hitler's Debt to America refused treatment to the Bollinger baby on tenuous grounds. It's one thing if a baby will live a horrible life because of severe deformities, quite another to allow a child who needs a one-time operation die because you want to improve the human stock.

    The Edwin Black article, and the book it refers to, tell the story of how American eugenicists influenced the development of the Third Reich's racial policy. The Bollinger case involving Haiseldon is an important case study in that interaction. This article shows Dr. Haiseldon, years later, still practicing medicine but, because of the exposure generated by his eugenical views and media attention during the Bollinger case, requiring confirmation from others to protect himself from further prosecution.

    It's also interesting to see how the newspapers depict these incidents.

    {"commentId":1417865,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
    • 1 vote
    #2.4 - Wed Jan 30, 2008 1:08 PM EST
    {"commentId":1421715,"authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
    Glinda

    I wonder at the coincidence (?) that it was the German-American hospital. They seem to have made a rational decision, as far as I can see.

    You wouldn't want some racial-purity nut or individual with an axe to grind to make this call; having more than one doctor involved seems a reasonable safeguard. In this story, it sounds like almost overkill in that regard - I get the sense that this earlier Bollinger case was more of a sensation and maybe more questionable.... what is a "life of idiocy" exactly? This is where it gets slippery.

    {"commentId":1421715,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"witchofthenorth"}
      #2.5 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:47 PM EST
      {"commentId":1422865,"authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
      Atticus Mullikin

      I get the sense that this earlier Bollinger case was more of a sensation

      That's why I included a link to the Edwin Black story, Hitler's Debt to America, above, because it opens with the sensational Bollinger story, and demonstrates why the wording of this story is so questionable. Read at least the beginning of the other article, and you'll see what I mean.

      {"commentId":1422865,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
        #2.6 - Thu Jan 31, 2008 5:07 PM EST
        Reply
        {"commentId":1457794,"authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
        Atticus Mullikin

        Just a comment to you folks to clarify why I posted this article. I understand that some of you may have found it's purpose confusing, but I put it up simply to show a contemporary account of Dr. Haiseldon in the aftermath of his notoriety within the American eugenics movement. I should have said, above, that Haiseldon was a self-proclaimed eugenicist, and that he'd a history of refusing potentially life-saving treatment to infants he considered unworthy of survival. He even starred in the notorious eugenics film, The Black Stork, which depicted a doctor warning two parents against having children for the fear they'll give birth to a "defective."

        That said, this particular story is contentious, and I understand how it might have been confusing. If you want to understand it in context, check out some of the links within the summary above.

        {"commentId":1457794,"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160","authorDomain":"atticusmullikin"}
        • 1 vote
        Reply#3 - Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:06 AM EST
        {"canLink":false,"threadId":"210869","isPrivate":false}
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        {"threadId":"210869","contentId":"1260160"}
        Start TrackingStart Tracking
        Stop TrackingStop Tracking
        Back To Top | Front Page