Rucker: More "Eugenic Laws' 



221 



that people of that character should 

 leave offspring who are likely to resemble 

 them. 



From the standpoint of eugenics, 

 therefore, we think it would be a mis- 

 take to pass a law which would make 

 sterilization outside of State institutions 

 absolutely impossible. No doubt the 

 practice of it should be properly safe- 

 guarded, but that is a very different 

 thing from branding it as a felony. It 

 might be possible to have cases proposed 

 for sterilization reviewed by a State 

 board of experts, in order that quacks 

 should not take advantage of freedom 

 from restriction to work irreparable 

 harm to credulous or cowardly young 

 persons. Eugenists can be counted on, 

 we believe to support any honest 

 attempt of a State to find a means 

 whereby sterilization can be properly 

 controlled and directed, but we cannot 

 countenance measures which will stig- 

 matize eugenic asexualization as a 



crime. 



WASHINGTON LEGISLATION 



The State of Washington has had, 

 since 1909, a law providing that courts 

 may order the sterilization of habitual 

 criminals and extreme sex-offenders. 

 It is, as H. H. Laughlin, Superintendent 

 of the Eugenics Record Office, says, 

 "A purely optional and punitive statute 

 that should be recast into an operable 

 eugenical measure." An attempt was 

 made to do this in 1913, but failed. 

 Another bill was introduced in January 

 of this year (House No. 24) providing 

 that no person in any of the several 

 Washington hospitals for the insane, or 

 the State institution for the feeble- 

 minded, shall be discharged unsteriHzed 

 if, in the judgment of the superintend- 

 ent, procreation by such person "would 

 produce children with an inherited 

 tendency to crime, insanity, feeble- 

 mindedness, idiocy or imbecility, and 

 there is no probability that the condi- 

 tion of such person will improve to 

 such an extent as to render procreation 

 by such person advisable." Friends or 

 relatives of the patient may appeal from 

 the decision of the superintendent to 

 the Superior Court, who shall appoint 

 three physicians to investigate. If a 



majority of this investigating committee 

 overrules the superintendent's decision, 

 the person shall be discharged from the 

 institution. If they uphold the super- 

 intendent, "the court shall enter an 

 order directing that such person shall 

 not be discharged from such institution 

 until such operation is performed." 

 If the friends or relatives then consent 

 to the operation, the patient shall be 

 sterilized and discharged. 



It is a temptation to State authorities, 

 of course, to release as many of the 

 State's wards as possible, in order to 

 transfer the expense of their care from 

 the State to private individuals. This 

 is entirely proper if careful safeguards 

 are established; but the present bill 

 does not appear to us to provide any 

 such safeguards. From a eugenic point 

 of view, we think State segregation 

 may give place to family segregation, 

 where the relatives of an insane or 

 feebleminded person are able to become 

 responsible for him or her; but State 

 segregation should not be replaced by 

 sterilization and the reckless release of 

 defective persons. The bulk of the 

 persons affected will probably be the 

 higher grades of feebleminded; these 

 have the sexual impulses strongh' devel- 

 oped, but their sexual inhibitions are 

 weak or lacking : their freedom, sterilized, 

 in the community, appears to us almost 

 certain in a great many cases to make 

 them foci for the dissemination of 

 immorahty and venereal diseases. That 

 is a hygienic rather than a eugenic 

 consideration, but it seems to us the 

 most serious aspect of the sterilization 

 idea. From the eugenic point of view, 

 sterilization of the defective females 

 -would be TTiDst important, and it Trnist 

 not be forgotten that sterilization of 

 females is a serious matter, leading to 

 expense, illness, and frequently danger. 

 It is not to be undertaken on a wholesale 

 scale without careful consideration. 



OBJECTION TO THE BILL 



Our objection, then, to this bill is 

 that it is not adequate to serve the 

 purpose for which it is intended. It 

 makes no provision for the proper 

 segregation of defectives after they 

 have been released from a State institu- 



