Misusing the Nazi Analogy
Sixty years ago, Allied forces brought an end to Adolf Hitler’s dream that Germany would rule Europe and dominate the world. The death of Nazi Germany gave birth to a charge that still haunts the scientific community— what might be called ”the Nazi analogy.” In ethical or policy disputes about science and medicine, no argument can bring debate to a more screeching halt then the invocation of the Nazi comparison.
Whether the subject is stem cell research, end-of-life care, the conduct of clinical trials in poor nations,
abortion, embryo research, animal experimentation, genetic testing, or human experimentation involving
vulnerable populations, references to Nazi policies or practices tumble forth from critics. “If X is done, then we are on
the road to Nazi Germany” has become a commonplace claim in contemporary bioethical debates.
Sadly, too often those who draw an analogy between current behavior and what the Nazis did do not know what they are talking about. The Nazi analogy is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb in ethical battles about science and medicine. Because its misuse diminishes the horror done by Nazi scientists and doctors to their victims, it is ethically incumbent upon those who invoke the Nazi analogy to understand what they are claiming.
A key component of Nazi thought was to rid Germany and the lands under German control of those deemed economic drains on the state—the mentally ill, alcoholics, the “feeble-minded,” and the demented elderly. They were seen as direct threats to the economic viability of the state, a fear rooted in the bitter economic experience after the First World War. The public health of the nation also had to be protected against threats to its genetic health. These were created when people of “inferior” races intermarried with those of Aryan stock. Threats to genetic health also included, by their very existence, genetic degenerates— Jews and Roma. Theories of race hygiene had gained prominence in mainstream German scientific and medical circles as early as the 1920s.
What is important to keep in mind about these underlying themes that provided the underpinning for Nazi euthanasia and eugenic practices is that they have little to do with contemporary ethical debates about science, medicine, or technology. Take, for instance, the case of Terri Schiavo, a massively brain-damaged patient who was kept alive by means of artificial feeding for more than a decade. When congressmen and religious leaders in the United States commented on her situation during the weeks leading up to her death on 31 March 2005, soon after her feeding tube was removed, they described it as analogous to what the Nazis had done to Jews in concentration camps—a complete misuse of the Nazi analogy. Whatever one thought about the ethical issues raised by the decision to allow the removal of a feeding tube from this woman, the decision had nothing to do with the belief that her continued existence posed a threat to the economic integrity of the United States or that her racial background posed a threat to America’s genetic health. The fight over her fate was about who best could represent her wishes so that her self-determination could be respected—a moral principle not afforded those killed by deliberate starvation in the Nazi euthanasia programs.
Similarly, when critics charge that allowing embryonic stem cell research permits the taking of innocent life to serve the common good, and then compare it to Nazi research in concentration camps, the claims of resemblance are deeply flawed; moreover, they demean the immorality of Nazi practices. Concentration camp prisoners were used in lethal experiments because they were seen as doomed to die anyway, were seen as racial inferiors, and, given the conditions of total war that prevailed, they were considered completely expendable in the service of the national security of the Third Reich.
There are many reasons why a practice or policy in contemporary science or medicine might be judged unethical.
But the cavalier use of the Nazi analogy in an attempt to bolster an argument is unethical. Sixty years after the fall
of the Third Reich, we owe it to those who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis to insist that those who
invoke the Nazi analogy do so with care.
- Arthur Caplan [an Editorial in the July 22 issue of Science]
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
I would have to say that for once I agree! However, I would caution those who dismiss the use of the Nazi analogy as inappropriate when it is invoked in the case of say genetic counseling. Many are choosing to abort affected fetues, but just because they are doing so as a personal choice does not mean that there may not be a risk of something akin to what happened in Nazi Germany developing. Not that I am suggesting that there will be a full out holocaust, but there is a consistent increase in the application of genetic technology to screen for different diseases, many of which have no cures, and a push to abort those fetuses......
- by Daughter of St. John on Jul 22, 2005 at 9:04 PM | link
I think this is a concise, excellent and important article. I agree that not only does the "Nazi analogy" not hold much water, but when examined it is somewhat offensive.
- by Stroll on Jul 23, 2005 at 12:07 AM | link
"They're going to die, anyway," sounds familiar, though.
Do you suppose that Mengele saw himself as anymore immoral than the veterinarian, Dr. Hwang sees himself?
Time will tell whether we remember individuals as we remember Mengele or whether we remember entire societies as we remember the Nazi's.
- by Beverly on Jul 23, 2005 at 2:24 AM | link
Oh Beverly, do get some sleep.
"They're going to die anyway" sounds familiar, if you remove the context (racial purity, the camps, ...) but recognition of the context is precisely Caplan's point.
How much should we care about Mengele's moral self-image? And who is Dr. Hwang, anyway?
We should not remember ANY societies as we remember the Nazis. German society was not equivalent to the Nazis and their crimes. Saying otherwise borders on racism.
And as far as remembering individuals as we remember Mengele, I suppose you mean those individuals who do not believe in preserving life at all costs (even if the life does not want to keep going) might be regarded like Mengele. Well, they might, if they are lousy historians who forget the particular context of Mengele's actions. That is Caplan's point. Again.
Is tarring your opponents with the brush of Nazism something that you personally have problems giving up?
- by Sam I am on Jul 23, 2005 at 5:38 AM | link
Sam, look up Dr. Hwang.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned is not to "(tar) your opponents with the brush..." of generalities, at all.
However, analogies are extremely useful in discussion. The trick is to avoid logical fallacies while doing so.
In the public discussion of bioethics it is legitimate to discuss societies. Mengele must be considered in his environment, which included the people of all nationalitiess who avoided action when they knew about the Holocaust and (in my opinion) the medical and scientific community which enabled the eugenics that engendered the holocaust.
- by Beverly on Jul 23, 2005 at 9:52 AM | link
Bev,
Oh, Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. I guess you are saying that cloning human embryos in the future could be viewed on a par with giving lethal injections to 12 healthy year old twins, as Dr. Mengele did. But to me this only means that in the future people will continue to make labored comparisons to score points.
Analogies indeed can be useful.
But if there are enough disanalogies that cover the essential points of the issue at hand, the the analogy becomes empty and misleading. This is where I think your use of the Mengele/cloning analogy is heading.
What I take from your last comment is that we should have a robust understanding of the Nazi regime, the medical authorities in that regime, and the international political context when abusive medical experiments took place. I agree. But the more robust your understanding of the Nazi period is, I should think that you should be less inclined to make simple analogies with present-day practices, not more.
- by Sam I am on Jul 24, 2005 at 12:37 AM | link
I'd suggest a look at the medical and social pressures for eugenics prior to the rise of the Nazis - and all over the world in the early 20th century. It's fascinating to see how the clergy and politics, as well as science, medicine, and then the specific regimes, urged "better families," and weeding out those not worthy of life.
Unfortunately, the names changed but the intent didn't, after WWII. In the US, we continued forced and coerced sterilization at least into the 60's.
It never ceases to amaze me that genetically modified foods and environmental concerns are rarely connected in the public media to what we do to the genetic makeup of the human race.
- by Beverly on Jul 24, 2005 at 2:22 PM | link
Pro-life, anti-stem cell research groups just can't seem to stop. They are Nazi analogy junkies.
http://insidedenver.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_3977889,00.html
- by Sam I am on Aug 4, 2005 at 9:28 PM | link