Interesting small book that casts light on the use of sterilizations in nordic countries. It shows quite clearly that eugenics has it origin in collectivist and socialist thinking and was supported by most parties in the 20-40s. Clearly not just something the nazis did (and did wrong).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/book\/show\/3831890-eugenics-and-the-welfare-state<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n In Sweden, however, th e au th o rities advocated p ersu asio n , n o t force. The <\/span><\/p>\n Swedish sterilization p rogram contained several procedures by which involun\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n tary sterilization was carried out. The legally incompetent, to begin with, could <\/span><\/p>\n be subjected to sterilization without their consent according to the 1934 and<\/span><\/p>\n 1941 laws. How was this category defined? According to instructions circulated <\/span><\/p>\n by the Board of Health in 1947, a person should be able to understand \u201cthe <\/span><\/p>\n meaning and the consequences\u201d of the operation to be declared legally compe\u00ad<\/span><\/p>\n tent. But: \u201cSuch an understanding is n o t at hand only because he knows that he <\/span><\/p>\n cannot have a child after a sterilization; it must furtherm ore be required that <\/span><\/p>\n he to some extent comprehends the importance o f sterilization for himself and <\/span><\/p>\n for society.\u201d As to the mentally retarded, legal incompetence was said to prevail <\/span><\/p>\n if he or she could be com pared intellectually with a person twelve years old or <\/span><\/p>\n younger.68<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mental age of 12 seems to accord nicely with modern deviation based definitions. 12\/16=.75 or 12\/18=.67. Normalt siger man at <70 IQ er retarderet. Det samme g\u00e6lder i Danmark, jf. https:\/\/www.sundhed.dk\/borger\/sygdomme-a-aa\/boern\/sygdomme\/vaekst-og-udvikling\/udviklingshaemning\/<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n –<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Mjoen condemned this lenient attitude toward alcohol as an irresponsible <\/span><\/p>\n handling o f scientific results by a \u201cspectacle-wise\u201d academic. M ohr was guilty <\/span><\/p>\n o f neglecting the risk involved by the uncertainty o f the results, argued Mjoen. <\/span><\/p>\n He admitted that no effects on the hereditary material had been proven. But <\/span><\/p>\n the lack o f scientific p ro o f in no way justified the lack o f action. \u201cWe have every <\/span><\/p>\n reason to believe that alcohol is a much more serious enemy for the family, the <\/span><\/p>\n people and the race than one has so far considered it to be!\u201d42<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The arg u m en t o f u nacceptable risk was often used by M joen to justify <\/span><\/p>\n eugenic measures. The risk incurred by not acting was so serious that it was <\/span><\/p>\n morally irresponsible n o t to take immediate action even on the basis o f quite <\/span><\/p>\n u n certain knowledge. He also justified steps against race crossing w ith the <\/span><\/p>\n same kind o f argument. He admitted uncertainty about the detrimental effects <\/span><\/p>\n and agreed that more knowledge must be sought, but in such a situation it was <\/span><\/p>\n