Child Euthanasia Research Articles

Was Hans Asperger Complicit in the Nazi Child Euthanasia by Participating in the Gugging Commission?

Objective: In 2018, Herwig Czech (2018, 2020) and Edith Sheffer (2018) accused Hans Asperger of complicity in the Nazi child euthanasia program also because of his participation in the Gugging Commission. Method: We reviewed all documents related to the Commission to clarify Asperger's role. Results: The Commission consisted of officials from Vienna and Lower Danube and had the primary task of determining which children admitted to Gugging could attend an auxiliary school. As part of the investigations, a group of children was also diagnosed as incapable of learning and developing normally based on a list prepared by Gugging's Director. According to two documents prepared for the Commission, these children were to be assigned to the "Aktion Jekelius". The two authors imply that "Aktion Jekelius" was a cover term for the murder of these children and was known as such. However, this designation was communicated only within the Reich Governor's Office in Lower Danube. Conclusion: According to the available documents, there is no indication that Hans Asperger, as a member of the Vienna delegation, knew about "Aktion Jekelius" and its hidden murderous intentions. He therefore had no reason to refuse to participate in the Commission. Analysis of the subsequent transfers of children to Spiegelgrund showed no direct connection with the Commission's activities.

Recommendation on the Legalization of Child Euthanasia in the Netherlands

Recommendation on the Legalization of Child Euthanasia in the Netherlands

An assessment of what Hans Asperger knew about child euthanasia in Vienna during the Nazi occupation.

Hans Asperger is probably best known for Asperger syndrome. However, he has been accused of knowingly and willingly participating in the National Socialist Child Euthanasia programme by referring patients to the Am Spiegelgrund children's home in Vienna. This later became notorious for euthanising disabled children. We investigated those allegations. Clinicians and historians examined original documents and transcripts related to Asperger's referrals from the Viennese Therapeutic Pedagogy Unit, and corresponding Am Spiegelgrund admissions, up to 25 March 1943, when he was drafted. Asperger referred 13 children to Am Spiegelgrund. Eleven survived and apparently received adequate care that allowed them to achieve positive developments, but two girls died. Asperger referred these two girls during June and October 1941, before most of the deaths at Am Spiegelgrund occurred and before its euthanasia programme became public knowledge. Our detailed investigation of the medical records, Unit referral practices and Am Spiegelgrund provided no evidence that Asperger knew about the euthanasia programme at the time of the referrals. One death was probably due to euthanasia, but the other was less clear. There was no evidence that Asperger knew about the euthanasia programme when he referred two patients who died at Am Spiegelgrund.

Deconstruction of Discernment in Child Euthanasia

Belgian law on child euthanasia uses the concept of discernment to bestow the right to die to minors. Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction of oppositional logic grasps the ambiguity of this use of discernment and generally challenges the alleged force of a textual sign meaningfully to differentiate itself from its different and meaningless else. This alleged ability to discern the presence of discernment impinges the truth-value of the distinction between worthy/unworthy lives. The resulting undecidability morally suggests the respect for otherness and promotes the moral value of the suspension of arbitrary judgment (epokhē) and, in so doing, de facto converges towards the praxis of the doctrine of the sanctity of life that embraces the ‘life is always quality’ argument.

The pathologist Hans Klein (1912-1984) : Autopsy of his role in the "Third Reich"

The role of pathologist Hans Klein during the National Socialist era and his career in post-war Germany have hardly received systematic attention. During World WarII, Hans Klein worked in two medical institutions, where he collaborated with individuals who were significantly involved in Nazi crimes. Klein's participation initially extended mainly to his work as an employed pathologist at the Rudolf Virchow Hospital in Berlin. There he was introduced to autopsy practices in the context of the children's euthanasia programme and autopsies of victims of medical experiments. Later, ashift in his activities is noticeable at the Hohenlychen Sanatorium. Klein's activities there increasingly involved independent research or voluntary collaboration in the projects of other scientists that were closely connected to the SS and experiments on human beings in concentration camps. He never had to face justice. His role was not further investigated by the Allies - probably due to his non-existent Nazi party and SS membership.

The Trial of Wilhelm Doering: “Public Interest” and Shooting of Mentally Handicapped Children in Shumyachi

In May 1961, the German law enforcement agencies detained Wilhelm Doering, the commander of one of the mobile squads of Einzatzkommando. The perpetrator was charged with the organization of the slaughter of the Jewish population in a number of settlements in Belarus and Russia, as well as the slaughter of mentally handicapped children in the village of Shumyachi (Smolensk region). Following two trials (1962—1964) W. Doering was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. The former Nazi managed to avoid responsibility for organizing the slaughter of 16 disabled children living in the Shumyachian boarding house. The Court qualified the offence under consideration as a “second-degree murder”, under which the statute of limitations had expired. In fact, the German judiciary laid the blame for the slaughter of children on the Soviet authorities that “left the children in a helpless state” and the Nazi criminals were characterized as guardians of “public interest” who, by killing children, saved the Russian population and German servicemen from the epidemic. The court verdict never mentioned that, in the Third Reich, the slaughter of mentally ill children was common practice; the crime in Shumyachi was taken out of general context of Nazi atrocities related to the implementation of the “child euthanasia programs.” The verdict handed down to W. Doering was a fact of blatant injustice and trampling upon the memory of thousands of children victims of Nazism.

Child Euthanasia and the Church

The creeping expansion of euthanasia around the world, but especially in the West, is a concern for any moral theologian. This expansion has already reached beyond the elderly into younger and objectively healthier groups, including children. The stance of the Catholic Church is that euthanasia is never permissible and must combat philosophies and laws that support it as fervently as possible.

Between affirmation and negation: Karl Kleist and Viktor von Weizsäcker between 1933 and 1945

In 1954 Karl Kleist (1879-1960) became an honorary member of the German Neurological Society (DGN), an honor that was granted 2 years earlier to his colleague Viktor von Weizsäcker (1886-1957). The attempt to classify and assess their careers between 1933 and 1945 led to diametrically opposed results in historical research. This article summarizes the main lines of argumentation and draws apreliminary conclusion. After 1933 Kleist is said to have felt more and more accountable for his non-Aryan colleagues and that he treated his Jewish patients as long as he could. Publications and third party testimonies confirmed that he circumvented at least occasionally the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (GzVeN). Furthermore, he is said to have saved patients from "euthanasia" actions by prudently formulated diagnoses. Simultaneously, he worked as an expert at the Appelate Hereditary Health Court in Frankfurt am Main, in 1940 he joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) and in 1942 the NS Medical Association. Von Weizsäcker used his scope of action in asimilarly contradictory way. Certainly, he kept away from central Nazi organizations and was considered "politically unreliable" by those colleagues who had apenchant for the system. But as professor of neurology he formally headed from 1941 onwards exactly that Neuropathological Research Institute in Breslau (Wroclaw) where one of his colleagues examined the brains of minors who had been killed in the course of "child euthanasia", in what was called "concomitant research". To acertain extent von Weizsäcker was also an advocate of the GzVeN. In his lectures and publications between 1933 and 1935 he chose the pertinent NS terminology and he was the first to speak of a"theory of extermination". In either case, even meticulous research could not answer the question where to exactly assign both biographies in aspectrum between criticism and affirmation of National Socialism.

Max Nonne (1861-1959) and his attitude towards "euthanasia"

Max Nonne, an internationally renowned German neurologist, acted from 1918 to 1924 as president of the (first) Society of German Neurologists (GDN). Appointed honorary president in 1925, he held this position in the (second) German Neurological Society (DGN) until his death. Since 1961, this association has honored 16neurologists with acommemorative medal named after Nonne. His outstanding findings in various fields of neurology are uncontested and some of them live on as eponyms (Nonne-Apelt syndrome, Nonne-Froin syndrome, Nonne-Milroy-Meige syndrome); however, recent archival studies and an analysis of individual publications deeply darkened the image of the "grey eminence" of German neurology. Records kept at the Hamburg State Archive prove that in amemorandum from 1941/1942 following the example of Binding and Hoche, Nonne firmly approved the killing of "life absolutely unworthy of living". In areport addressed to the District Court of Hamburg he attested in 1946 that many physicians charged with manslaughter acted in accordance with the regulations governing "child euthanasia", resulting in the withdrawal of the accusation. In afurther statement from 1949 he confirmed that the killing of children and the "euthanasia program" during the NS era were consistent with the state of medical science. An earlier book chapter authored by Nonne immediately after World WarI suggested that his social-Darwinistically colored concept of mankind was developed clearly before the Nazi era. Notwithstanding the arrangement to which he came with the new powers after 1933 and his acceptance of tributes to him by them, he repeatedly stood up for his Jewish colleagues. He was never aNazi, nevertheless, he engaged in activities that fostered NS "euthanasia" going far beyond a"mentality of approval".

Non-complicit: Revisiting Hans Asperger's Career in Nazi-era Vienna.

Recent allegations that pediatrician Hans Asperger legitimized Nazi policies, including forced sterilization and child euthanasia, are refuted with newly translated and chronologically-ordered information that takes into account Hitler's deceptive 'halt' to the T4 euthanasia program in 1941. It is highly unlikely that Asperger was aware of the T4 program when he referred Herta Schreiber to Am Spiegelgrund or when he mentioned that institution 4 months later on the medical chart of another (unrelated) girl, Elisabeth Schreiber. Asperger campaigned vigorously from 1938 to 1943 to have his specialization, Curative Education, take priority in the diagnosis and treatment of disabled children over other fields that promoted Nazi racial hygiene policies. He neither disparaged his patients nor was he sexist. By 1938, he had identified the essentials of Asperger syndrome and described an unnamed boy whom he later profiled (as Ernst K.) in 1944. Rather than doing 'thin' research, Asperger made discoveries that were prescient, and some of his activities conformed to definitions of "individual resistance."

“The name of Catel must strictly be erased everywhere”

By using several case studies, the article shows how the attitudes of paediatricians and state actors towards the involvement of the former Professor of Paediatrics at Leipzig University, Werner Catel, in National Socialist “child euthanasia” in the Soviet Zone of Occupation / German Democratic Republic changed over the decades. These interactions were shaped by very different motives, in particular by political opportunism, by moral convictions, and by the loyalty towards colleagues. On the one hand, the attitude of the state actors was strongly influenced by the GDR’s self-understanding as an anti-fascist state as opposed to the Federal Republic, and, on the other hand, by pragmatic considerations and overarching political decisions. These case studies are situated in the context of the current historiography of medicine, and, more broadly, the contemporary entangled history of both German post-war states and the emergence of commemorative cultures in East and West.

Organ donation after euthanasia in children: Belgian and Dutch perspectives

Organ donation after euthanasia has been performed more than 70 times in Belgium and the Netherlands combined (personal communication, Jan Bollen, 2018). These two countries allow for euthanasia in minors...

Should Pediatric Euthanasia be Legalized?

Voluntary active euthanasia for adults at their explicit request has been legal in Belgium and the Netherlands since 2002. In those countries, acceptance of the practice for adults has been followed by acceptance of the practice for children. Opponents of euthanasia see this as a dangerous slippery slope. Proponents argue that euthanasia is sometimes ethically appropriate for minors and that, with proper safeguards, it should be legally available in appropriate circumstances for patients at any age. In this Ethics Rounds, we asked philosophers from the United States and the Netherlands, and a Dutch pediatrician, to discuss the ethics of legalizing euthanasia for children.

Should the Euthanasia Act in Belgium Include Minors?

In 2014, Belgium became the first country in the world to legislate euthanasia for children. The decision evoked questions and criticisms in Belgium and in the world at large: should children have the right to ask to die? Are children able to make reasoned and independent choices on such an important matter? Does maturity matter? Are children as autonomous as adults? Is it a logical move to grant terminally ill children who are in intolerable pain this right? What happens if there is a conflict of wishes between the child and parents? This article argues that these questions should be addressed while legislators are fully aware of the relevant medical data regarding child development. The article weighs arguments for and against euthanasia for children, dis cussing patients' autonomy, competence, age and maturity, pressure and abuse, and palliative care. It is suggested that the option of pediatric palliative care should be exhausted before proceeding to euthanasia, and that psychological counselling be made available to both children and guardians. It is further argued that the law should explicate the age of children, and that it should insist on consensus between children and parents.

Правове регулювання дитячої евтаназії за законодавством Бельгії

Правове регулювання дитячої евтаназії за законодавством Бельгії

Terminating a Child's Life? Religious, Moral, Cognitive, and Emotional Factors Underlying Non-Acceptance of Child Euthanasia.

Is opposition to child euthanasia motivated only by ideology, or also by other personality characteristics and individual differences? In Belgium, the first country to legalize child euthanasia (in 2014), we investigated religious, moral, emotional, and cognitive factors underlying the (dis)approval of this legalization (N = 213). Disapproval was associated with religiousness, collectivistic morality (loyalty and purity), and prosocial dispositions, in terms of emotional empathy and behavioral generosity, but not values (care and fairness). It was also associated with low flexibility in existential issues and a high endorsement of slippery slope arguments, but not necessarily low openness to experience. A regression analysis showed that in addition to religiousness, low flexibility in existential issues and high empathy and generosity distinctly predicted opposition to child euthanasia. Whereas most of the findings parallel those previously reported for adult euthanasia, the role of prosocial inclinations in predicting moral opposition seems to be specific to child euthanasia.

Euthanasia for Children with Cancer: A Policy Brief

Euthanasia for Children with Cancer: A Policy Brief

Child euthanasia: should we just not talk about it?

Belgium has recently extended its euthanasia legislation to minors, making it the first legislation in the world that does not specify any age limit. I consider two strands in the...

Pediatric Euthanasia and Palliative Care Can Work Together.

Since the Netherlands produced the Groningen protocol describing the methods to be used for pediatric euthanasia and Belgium passed laws authorizing euthanasia for children who consent to it, the issue of pediatric euthanasia has become a relevant topic to discuss. Most rejections of pediatric euthanasia fall into 1 or more of 3 categories, each of which has problems. This article shows how several recent arguments against pediatric euthanasia fail to prove that pediatric euthanasia is unacceptable. It does not follow from this that the practice is permissible but rather that if one is to reject such a practice, stronger arguments will need to be made, especially in countries where adult euthanasia or assisted suicide is already permitted.

Pediatric euthanasia in Belgium: some ethical considerations

On February 2014, the Belgian Parliament approved the first law on children euthanasia stating that also young children can make the autonomous choice to have their lives terminated. This article reviews the ethical objections to the law. These include the impossibility to gauge the competence of children and their vulnerability, and the fact that euthanasia itself implies that some lives are not worthy of living. The denial of life as a “bonum onticum” reneges the very principles on which civil laws and medical ethics are founded.