INTER-CLUB DEBATE

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 216, 9 June 1936, Page 5

INTER-CLUB DEBATE

Woburn and Hutt Societies

“Those who associate themselves with the principles of sterilisation are those who keep in step with modern science and progress,” said Mr. Scott, of the Woburn club, in an inter-club debate with the Hutt club, the motion being “That the sterilisation of the unfit is essential . to the progress-of a people.” “From time immemorial the community at large has been strongly prejudiced against any innovation to the system and all new principles, through their very struggle against this public bias, have emerged all the more consolidated, practicable and necessary,” Mr. Scott said. He indicated how the antitoxins and anaesthetics of modern medical science had overcome successfully all contentions that they were contrary to the laws of nature. Similarly the application of the principle of sterilisation would be one stage further in the conflict between man and his mortal enemy disease. The two seconders for the affirmative dealt further with the necessity of arresting the increase in the number of mental and physical deficients and supplied some official statistics to illustrate the enormous burden that the State .was obliged to carry in its public institutions. An example to indicate the prevalence, of hereditary diseases was quoted in which a person who was known to suffer from a form of blindness was succeeded over a number of generations by two thousand descendants, of whom no fewer than thirteen hundred 1 were known to suffer from the same affliction. In opening the case for the negative, Mr. A, Porter (Hutt) contended that by virtue of the insurmountable difficulties that confronted the introduction of such a principle it offered no solution of our 'social problems. He mentioned as an example the case of Germany, where the moral aspect of the practice had not been considered and where there was a strong tendency to. subjugate.the real purpose of the principle to political aims. “Every man has the right to live as an individual;” he said, “and what authority have his fellows to constitute a tribunal to condemn him according to their own standards of perfections.” He contended that the determining of the qualifications to be classed as unfit would delegate a very dangerous weapon to any communal body, especially in these times of intense political stress. Some or the world’s greatest figures were often physically unfit and fin many eases the breath of genius was bordering closely on insanity. Milton was blind, Beethoven was deaf, and, he asked, was the world to be denied the benefits of the/ life-work of such immortal men? The two seconders for the negative argued that the real causes which were giving rise to these new principles were to be found in the deficient home-train-ing and lack of moral educational, facilities, that the solution lay in eradicating the cause ratlier than in attempting to impose restrictions that would inevitably cause irreparable harm. The judge, Mr. V. Riper, declared that the negative had aclvaneed the most convincing argument, but that there was very little difference to be discerned in the high standard of the debating.