Howe: Heredity Eye Defects 



381 



that this defect is in reality dominant, 

 then half the children on the average 

 will develop the defect; or even if the 

 defect is recessive, but occurs in both 

 families, the danger is practicall}^ the 

 same. 



Another phase of the same problem 

 is presented when a couple is already 

 married, and with little or no history on 

 either side of eye defect; yet in spite of 

 that, for reasons which we do not know, 

 one child after another, blind or partly 

 blind, is bom to these parents. This 

 congenital blindness is in one way quite 

 different genetically from hereditary 

 blindness, but from the standpoint of 

 eugenics, families with hereditary and 

 with congenital blindness may be con- 

 sidered together as one group and classed 

 as hereditary. It is desirable to appre- 

 ciate how important this group is, but 

 space permits here only the categorical 

 statement of a few facts, which, properly 

 presented, would fill a small volume. 

 These facts are: 



(a) The number of this group in the 

 United States is considerable. It has 

 been estimated at about 8,000 and 

 upward. According to the census of 

 1910, the total number of blind was 

 52,272. Counting unavoidable and ad- 

 mitted errors in that census, the results 

 of subsequent surveys, and increase of 

 population, the National Committee 

 for the Prevention of Blindness esti- 

 mated the number of blind in 1917 at 

 from 100,000 to 110,000. According 

 to the data given by Best in his exhaus- 

 tive and recent study of the blind in 

 this country, the proportion of heredi- 

 tary and congenital blind is considerably 

 larger than here stated. But in giving 

 estimates, the minimum limit is evi- 

 dently the safest. 



(b) The cost also is considerable. 

 According to statistics carefully col- 

 lected in Massachusetts and elsewhere, 

 the average cost per year of each blind 

 person in and out of institutions is at 

 least $475. This gives us a total annual 

 cost of some $3,800,000. 



(c) It is unjust to the blind to allow 

 them to be brought into existence 

 simply to lead miserable lives. 



(d) It is unjust to taxpayers to be 

 compelled to support them. 



(e) The longer we delay action to pre- 

 vent this blindness, the more difficult 

 the problem becomes. 



(/) A large part, if not all, of this 

 misery and expense could be gradually 

 eradicated by sequestration or by sterili- 

 zation, if the transmitter of the defect 

 preferred the latter. An idea of this 

 plan is given by the somewhat similar 

 one for dealing with feeblemindedness. 

 In 1913, laws for sterilization, under 

 certain circumstances, had been passed 

 in twelve states and proposed in nine 

 others. Bulletin 10 of the Eugenics 

 Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I., 

 N. Y., gives a map showing the status 

 at that time of such legislation. Where 

 such eugenic laws have been enacted or 

 favorably considered, probably existing 

 laws could be properly amended or new 

 laws passed to prevent this form of 

 blindness. The same bulletin gives the 

 form of a model law for this purpose. It 

 was prepared by committees composed 

 of the most eminent physicians, sur- 

 geons, sociologists, students of genetics 

 and similar experts in this country. 

 That law could be made applicable to 

 the prevention of hereditary blindness, 

 but with an important difference, which 

 makes the prevention of this form of 

 blindness comparatively easy and inex- 

 pensive. No legal action is essential 

 until after a marriage has been found to 

 produce blind children, and even then 

 sequestration of the transmitter of the 

 defect may be substituted for steriliza- 

 tion. Moreover, if this sequestration 

 is of a kindly nature, with congenial 

 occupations suited to the intelligence 

 and social tastes of the subject, the sense 

 of restraint is slight, since it is reduced 

 to the minimum. This is not theory 

 but experience, as shown especially by 

 the colonies for the feebleminded estab- 

 lished by Dr. Charles Bernstein of the 

 State Custodial Asylum at Rome, 

 N.'Y. 



WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? 



In other words, we have all this 

 misery and expense, both of which are 

 largely unnecessary; we have also an 

 effective method of relief prepared by 

 committees of our foremost experts and 

 already well supported, in principle, by 



