Brock Report

Last updated

The Brock Report or Report of the Departmental Committee on Sterilisation (1934) was a British Parliamentary report advocating for the sterilisation of disabled people.

Contents

Context

In late 19th and early 20th century Britain, supporters of eugenic ideas sought to promote breeding by those they considered "fit" and control the reproduction of those they considered to be "unfit". In the United Kingdom, prominent people from different political parties and backgrounds in arts and science supported eugenic ideas and aimed to have them made into law. [1] The Eugenics Society saw voluntary sterilisation as a key issue and campaigned hard for it to be introduced into law. [2] [3] Desmond King and Randall Hansen have noted that the effort to promote eugenicist ideas was driven by a privileged minority rather than electoral support. [4] [5]

Disabled people were often targeted as "unfit". The "Idiots Act" of 1886 and the Mental Deficiency Act 1913 defined categories of mental disability and controlled the treatment of mentally disabled people. The Act of 1913 and a prior 1912 Private Members' Bill called the "Feeble-Minded Control Bill" rejected sterilisation but included segregation, though Paragraph (e) of a draft of the Bill specifically proposed to confine those "in whose case it is considered desirable in the interests of the community that they should be deprived of the opportunity of procreating children". [6]

In 1924, the Wood Committee was created to investigate the number of "mental defectives". The committee included eugenicists. It reported in 1929 that deficiency was increasing and defined categories of people. [4]

In 1931, Archibald Church, a Labour MP, introduced a Sterilisation Bill to the House of Commons. [7] Carlos Blacker campaigned to support the Bill but it was defeated with 167 votes against and 89 in favour. Those against the bill said it was anti-working class. [4]

A departmental committee on sterilisation was established soon afterwards.

Committee and evidence

The departmental committee on sterilisation was chaired by L.G. Brock, who was Chair of the Board of Control for Lunacy and Mental Deficiency. [8] Its members included Wilfred Trotter, A.F. Tredgold, Ronald A. Fisher, Ruth Darwin, Ralph Henry Crowley, E.O. Lewis, E.W. Adams and Bertrand Dawson. [9] [8] [10] F. Chanter was secretary. [11] Crowley, Tredgold and Lewis had been involved in the earlier Wood Committee. [4]

Brock was, by his own admission, biased in favour of eugenics from the outset and was given power to select the committee, thus shaping its views. [4]

The committee heard evidence from 60 witnesses and held 36 meetings to consider this and evidence from reports and statistics. [9] [4] [12] Of the 60 witnesses interviewed by the committee, only 3 were opposed in principle to the idea of sterilising people who were mentally disabled. [7]

A London County Council survey into inheritance of "defect" was an influential piece of evidence considered by the committee. [13]

Report

The Report concluded that 'allowing and even encouraging mentally defective and mentally disordered patients' to be sterilised was a desirable approach, and that the scope of sterilisation should also be extended to people with physical disabilities. [7] [14] Its conclusions were described as the "unanimous" view of the committee. [7] [8]

The report was vague about who would be considered for sterilisation or how consent would be obtained. [4] It neglected to account for evidence that environment shaped mental health. [1] [4]

Responses and impact

The Eugenics Society praised the Report and the Minister for Health, Sir Hilton Young, sought support for a motion on sterilisation. Municipal Corporations, the Mental Hospitals' Association, and County Councils' Association created a draft Bill that had support from professional organisations. [4] Herbert Ritchie Spencer, Charles Oliver Hawthorne and Philip Hamill opposed the Report, though the other 82 Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians who voted on it, including Walter Langdon-Brown, supported mass sterilisation as proposed. [10]

But the Report did not win over doubters [7] and Young refused to push the issue forward, concerned that there was a lack of voter support. [4] The public, the British Medical Association, and the Catholic Church were in opposition, and a Royal Commission was not created. [4]

Countries including Germany, Denmark, Canada and the United States, introduced sterilisation but the UK did not. [4] The Nazi eugenic practices praised by the Report but then widely condemned during and after World War II made it impossible for the proposals to get support. [4] [15]

Historians Greta Jones and John MacNicol have argued that the Brock Report is evidence that there were limits to connections between 'progressive' thought and eugenics because the Labour Party blocked sterilisation measures they saw as anti-working class. [1] [16] [2] The London County Council, newly under Labour control, voted against the Report, though the council's own survey was cited as evidence in support of sterilisation. However, historian Mathew Thompson argued that it is "too simplistic" to explain this as due to a shift to Labour control of the council. He notes that religion of constituents, as much as class issues, may have led to its rejection, and that doctors and women who were Labour members and sought more access to birth control were in favour of the report. [13]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics</span> Effort to improve purported human genetic quality

Eugenics is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population. Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter the frequency of various human phenotypes by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups they considered inferior, or promoting that of those considered superior.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Compulsory sterilization</span> Sterilization effected by government coercion

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, refers to any government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done by surgical or chemical means.

The Eugenics Record Office (ERO), located in Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States, was a research institute that gathered biological and social information about the American population, serving as a center for eugenics and human heredity research from 1910 to 1939. It was established by the Carnegie Institution of Washington's Station for Experimental Evolution, and subsequently administered by its Department of Genetics.

The Adelphi Genetics Forum is a non-profit learned society based in the United Kingdom. Its aims are "to promote the public understanding of human heredity and to facilitate informed debate about the ethical issues raised by advances in reproductive technology."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ernst Rüdin</span> Swiss-born German geneticist

Ernst Rüdin was a Swiss-born German psychiatrist, geneticist, eugenicist and Nazi, rising to prominence under Emil Kraepelin and assuming the directorship at the German Institute for Psychiatric Research in Munich. While he has been credited as a pioneer of psychiatric inheritance studies, he also argued for, designed, justified and funded the mass sterilization and clinical killing of adults and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">E. S. Gosney</span> American financier, eugenicist

Ezra Seymour Gosney was an American businessman and philanthropist who supported the practice of eugenics. In 1928 he founded the Human Betterment Foundation (HBF) in Pasadena, California, with the stated aim "to foster and aid constructive and educational forces for the protection and betterment of the human family in body, mind, character, and citizenship," primarily through the advocacy of compulsory sterilization of people who are mentally ill or intellectually disabled. Rufus B. von KleinSmid, President of University of Southern California, was a co-founder.

Eugenics has influenced political, public health and social movements in Japan since the late 19th and early 20th century. Originally brought to Japan through the United States, through Mendelian inheritance by way of German influences, and French Lamarckian eugenic written studies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Eugenics as a science was hotly debated at the beginning of the 20th, in Jinsei-Der Mensch, the first eugenics journal in the Empire. As the Japanese sought to close ranks with the West, this practice was adopted wholesale, along with colonialism and its justifications.

In 1928, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Canada, enacted the Sexual Sterilization Act. The Act, drafted to protect the gene pool, allowed for sterilization of mentally disabled people in order to prevent the transmission of traits to offspring deemed undesirable.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring</span> 1933 compulsory sterilisation law in Nazi Germany

Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring or "Sterilisation Law" was a statute in Nazi Germany enacted on July 14, 1933, which allowed the compulsory sterilisation of any citizen who in the opinion of a "Genetic Health Court" suffered from a list of alleged genetic disorders – many of which were not, in fact, genetic. The elaborate interpretive commentary on the law was written by three dominant figures in the racial hygiene movement: Ernst Rüdin, Arthur Gütt and the lawyer Falk Ruttke.

Compulsory sterilization in Canada is an ongoing practice that has a documented history in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and British Columbia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenics in the United States</span> "Race improvement" as historically sought in the US

Eugenics, the set of beliefs and practices which aims at improving the genetic quality of the human population, played a significant role in the history and culture of the United States from the late 19th century into the mid-20th century. The cause became increasingly promoted by intellectuals of the Progressive Era.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Archibald Church</span> British school teacher, soldier and politician

Major Archibald George Church was a British school teacher, soldier and Labour Party then National Labour politician. He served as the Member of Parliament (MP) for Leyton East from 1923 to 1924, and for Wandsworth Central from 1929 to 1931.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental Deficiency Act 1913</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Mental Deficiency Act 1913 was an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom creating provisions for the institutional treatment of people deemed to be "feeble-minded" and "moral defectives". People deemed "mentally defective" under this Act could be locked up indefinitely in a "mental deficiency colony", despite not being diagnosed with any mental illness or disability, or committing any crime.

The history of eugenics is the study of development and advocacy of ideas related to eugenics around the world. Early eugenic ideas were discussed in Ancient Greece and Rome. The height of the modern eugenics movement came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Sir Laurence George Brock CB was a British civil servant. He was chairman of the Board of Control for Lunacy and Mental Deficiency from 1928 to 1945.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924</span> 1924 U.S. state law allowing compulsory sterilization for eugenic purposes

The Virginia Sterilization Act of 1924 was a U.S. state law in Virginia for the sterilization of institutionalized persons "afflicted with hereditary forms of insanity that are recurrent, idiocy, imbecility, feeble-mindedness or epilepsy”. It greatly influenced the development of eugenics in the twentieth century. The act was based on model legislation written by Harry H. Laughlin and challenged by a case that led to the United States Supreme Court decision of Buck v. Bell. The Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional and it became a model law for sterilization laws in other states. Justice Holmes wrote that a patient may be sterilized "on complying with the very careful provisions by which the act protects the patients from possible abuse." Between 1924 and 1979, Virginia sterilized over 7,000 individuals under the act. The act was never declared unconstitutional; however, in 2001, the Virginia General Assembly passed a joint resolution apologizing for the misuse of "a respectable, 'scientific' veneer to cover activities of those who held blatantly racist views." In 2015, the Assembly agreed to compensate individuals sterilized under the act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eugenic feminism</span> Areas of the womens suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics

Eugenic feminism was a current of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics. Originally coined by the Lebanese-British physician and vocal eugenicist Caleb Saleeby, the term has since been applied to summarize views held by prominent feminists of Great Britain and the United States. Some early suffragettes in Canada, especially a group known as The Famous Five, also pushed for various eugenic policies.

Alfred Frank Tredgold was a British neurologist and psychiatrist and expert in Amentia. He also wrote on eugenics from the early 20th century. He was a member of the Eugenics Education Society.

Eugenics was practiced in about 33 different states. Oregon was one of the many states that implemented eugenics programs and laws. This affected a number of different groups that were marginalized for being "unfit" and often were subject to forced sterilization.

In Minnesota, developmentally disabled people, most of whom were women, were involuntarily committed to state guardianship and sterilized, but today, many of those who were either committed to state guardianship or sterilized would not be considered disabled. Eugenic ideals were popular in the state during much of the early-mid 1900s.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Barad, Maya M. (2016). Developing Eugenic Consciousness: The Campaign for the Voluntary Sterilization of the Mentally Deficient in Interwar Britain (BA in History thesis). Columbia University. doi:10.7916/D83B604G . Retrieved 14 February 2023.
  2. 1 2 Macnicol, John (1989). "Eugenics and the Campaign for Voluntary Sterilization in Britain Between the Wars". Social History of Medicine. 2 (2): 147–169. doi:10.1093/shm/2.2.147. ISSN   0951-631X. PMID   11622166.
  3. ↑ Woodhouse, Jayne (June 1982). "Eugenics and the feeble-minded: the Parliamentary debates of 1912-14". History of Education. 11 (2): 127–137. doi:10.1080/0046760820110205. ISSN   0046-760X. PMID   11614574.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 King, Desmond (1999-09-02). "'Cutting Off the Worst' Voluntary Sterilization in Britain in the 1930s". In The Name of Liberalism. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–96. doi:10.1093/0198296290.003.0005. ISBN   978-0-19-829629-4.
  5. ↑ King, Desmond; Hansen, Randall (January 1999). "Experts at Work: State Autonomy, Social Learning and Eugenic Sterilization in 1930s Britain". British Journal of Political Science. 29 (1): 77–107. doi:10.1017/S0007123499000046. ISSN   0007-1234. PMID   11660703.
  6. ↑ "Mental Deficiency Bill". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commons. 19 July 1912.
  7. 1 2 3 4 5 "Eugenics in Britain". English Heritage. Retrieved 2024-02-14.
  8. 1 2 3 "Sterilization Of Defectives: Departmental Committee's Report". The British Medical Journal. 1 (3812): 161–165. 1934. ISSN   0007-1447. JSTOR   25319969. PMC   2444136 . PMID   20778038.
  9. 1 2 Connor, J.T.H. (2019). ""For her own safety and the good of society at large": Eugenics, Sterilization, and Anglo-American Transnationalism in Newfoundland, 1928-1934". Acadiensis. 48 (1): 32–59. doi:10.1353/aca.2019.0002.
  10. 1 2 Lancashire, Felix (6 February 2023). "'Evil consequences may well follow': eugenics and the British medical establishment". Royal College of Physicians Museum. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  11. ↑ "Mental Defectives (Committee Of Inquiry)". Parliamentary Debates (Hansard) . Commons. 9 June 1932.
  12. ↑ Thomson, Mathew (December 1992). "Sterilization, segregation and community care: ideology and solutions to the problem of mental deficiency in inter-war Britain". History of Psychiatry. 3 (12): 473–498. doi:10.1177/0957154X9200301205. ISSN   0957-154X. PMID   11645803.
  13. 1 2 Thomson, Mathew (November 1993). "Social Policy and the Management of the Problem of Mental Deficiency in Inter-war London". The London Journal. 18 (2): 129–142. doi:10.1179/ldn.1993.18.2.129. ISSN   0305-8034.
  14. ↑ "Report of the Departmental Committee on Sterilisation". Wellcome Collection. Retrieved 2024-02-19.
  15. ↑ Moghaddami, Ann (15 November 2021). "UK Disability History Month: Laws, Relationships and Sex". UK Parliamentary Archives.
  16. ↑ Jones, Greta (September 1982). "Eugenics And Social Policy Between The Wars". The Historical Journal. 25 (3): 717–728. doi:10.1017/S0018246X00011882. ISSN   0018-246X.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.