Crying Hands: Eugenics and Deaf People in Nazi Germany

8. Sterilization’s Legacy

140 8 Sterilization’s Legacy THERE ARE no simple medical criteria by which to measure the consequences of sterilization. After analyzing almost 2,000 accounts of victims of the sterilization law (of which 1,215 are deaf), however, I agree with another scholar’s statement that behind the effects of compulsory sterilization lies “the problem of the irreversible violation of physical integrity.”1 Sterilization Procedures The usual method of sterilizing men was to sever the sperm duct (vasectomy). As the operation was performed in the transitional area between the groin and the scrotum, that is, outside the abdominal cavity, it was considered relatively inconsequential and was as a rule carried out with local anesthesia, frequently as an outpatient procedure. But the sterilization of women, even in the eyes of those responsible for the sterilization law, was considered a “serious bodily intrusion.”2 By the 1930s, more than one hundred female sterilization procedures were known.3 One of these was by way of the vagina. This procedure spared the woman an incision into the abdominal cavity , but it was hardly ever practiced because it was judged too unreliable in terms of the intended “success” of the operation, that is, the future infertility of the woman. For this reason, in almost all cases a laparotomy was practiced, in other words, surgical incision through the abdomen. This operation necessarily involved general anesthesia. After the abdominal cavity was breached, the most frequently employed methods of sterilization were the crushing, severing, or removal of the Fallopian tubes. Some surgeons opted for the “surest ” procedure, however, which was the removal of the uterus. This method was particularly promoted and practiced by Gustav Boeters in Thüringen. Boeters argued that “only the surgically removed , and carefully identified and preserved uterus guarantees the one hundred percent certainty that is desired by the Führer, and can in no instance lead to further recourse to sterilization efforts.”4 The older methods, simple removal or ligature of the tubes, were seldom practiced because of the high failure rate. The dangerous but bloodless practice of sterilization by X rays became legally permissible in 1936, after an elevated number of fatalities due to other methods had led to unrest and criticism in the general population . This method was employed infrequently before 1939; after that date it was used particularly when the women to be sterilized opposed the operation or were in concentration camps.5 The choice of operation method was basically the decision of physicians, who exercised this authority in varying degrees. The fact is that “the sterilization law offered surgeons and gynecologists a broad field for experimentation on human subjects in order to test new operational procedures.”6 The Trivialization of Surgical Sterilization Statements by those sterilized contrast starkly with the attempts of Nazi propagandists to trivialize the operation as an inconsequential surgical intervention. Leaflets like that reproduced in figure 8.1 suggested to those affected that the measure was harmless ; it was often compared to an appendectomy. Even some educators of deaf students characterized the “experience of sterilization” as thoroughly positive. In order “to still the anxiety of parents,” Herbert Weinert published two statements from parents whose deaf children had been sterilized: Sterilization’s Legacy 141 My son Heinz H. has just been sterilized in an operation. As a single mother, I have to welcome wholeheartedly that this was done to my son, if for no other reason than to avoid later mentally inferior offspring . I would also like to note that after this operation my son has suffered no negative effects. On the contrary, in mental terms he does better than before. I let my congenitally deaf and dumb son, born in 1930, be sterilized for purely eugenic reasons when he was 13 years old. My son got over the operation quite promptly. He does gymnastics, swims, cycles, makes day-long hikes and performs heavy physical work in the third year of his apprenticeship as a baker. He has never complained about pains around the incision or otherwise complained about his abdomen. In his mental development as well we have noted no impairment nor any new demands on us as a result of the sterilization.7 A forcibly sterilized deaf woman, who still complains of longterm psychological effects, gave me a note written by a state142 Sterilization’s Legacy An Informative Circular on Sterilization (pursuant to article 2, paragraph 3, of the ordinance for the...