DISCUSSION OF MALLET'S PAPER 371 



ilization as unsexing the patient. With such blunders it is not strange 

 that to the great majority of the public sterilization means emasculation, 

 unsexing, and humiliation to the patient and the family. When they 

 understand what it is and what it is not, none are more ready to accept it 

 than the more intelligent of the unfit and their families. We believe there- 

 fore that relief must be sought, first, by the education of the masses of the 

 people of each state or nation as to the necessity of this relief to the indi- 

 vidual, to the family, to the state, and to posterity; second, by the dis- 

 semination of a rational idea of what sterilization is and what it is not; 

 third, by the enactment of clear, definite, conservative, workable steri- 

 lization laws, with the omission of unnecessary "red tape," but clearly 

 protecting the rights of the patient. Such a law should provide for ster- 

 ilizations at public expense wherever it is necessary for the protection of the 

 state and posterity, and where the patient is unable to pay the expense; 

 fourth, for the sane, unencumbered, conservative, diplomatic administration 

 of these laws. 



In borderline cases doubts may often arise, in which sterilization should 

 not be performed without the full knowledge and consent of the patient or 

 guardian. 



Where serious hereditary defects are unquestioned, marriage should not 

 be permitted except after sterilization. 



In this educational campaign of the general public, a clear distinction 

 should be drawn between castration as a punishment for crime, and eugenic 

 sterilization of selected cases of the unfit, which is in no case a punishment, 

 but is the most humane protection of the patient, of the family, of the state, 

 of human progress, and of civilization. 



