The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1911. MORE ABOUT EUGENICS

New Zealand Tablet, 28 September 1911, Page 1918

The New Zealand Tablet THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1911. MORE ABOUT EUGENICS

E have already dealt somewhat fully with this subject in these columns; and our Mf/lfrf present brief remarks must be merely by lit way of supplement to our former discussion of the question. On what may ** be called the theoretic or academic side, the work of the .various Eugenics Education Societies is entitled to a large measure of approval. As defined in a leaflet issued by the New Zealand Society, ‘ Eugenics is a project of the most elevated and provident morality, aiming at no object less sublime than the ennoblement of mankind — she increase of all that makes us human and the decrease of all that still links us with the inhuman characteristics of the lower animals.’ Thus stated, the general aim and object of Eugenics is self-evidently desirable, and is one which good citizens everywhere can hardly fail to endorse. ■Sf. : Eugenics, however, has also its practical side, as the following paragraph-—from an official statement issued by the London Eugenics Education Society and adopted by the New Zealand branch—will' show: Parenthood on the part of the diseased, the insane,

the alcoholic— these conditions promise to be transmitted—must be denounced as a crime against the future. In these directions the Society stands for active legislation, and for the formation of that public opinion which legislation, if it is to be effective, must express.' It is in respect to this legislative or practical aspect of Eugenics that difference of opinion arises. On this side the movement appears to be open to criticism in the following particulars: (1) The data so far available are insufficient. Professor Karl Pearson, the great expert in biometric figures, has said that the Eugenics Education Society ought to wait half a century before beginning to move, so imperfect is the exact knowledge upon which it has to go. * (2) The physical or purely animal factor in race culture receives an altogether undue emphasis and importance in the present eugenic ideal. It is admitted that there is a moral factor, and that moral excellence has a higher worth than physical, but the moral factor is not to be allowed to (reign supreme over the intellectual and physical. Thus the Rev. W. R. Inge, D.D., speaking as an Anglican eugenist, says: ‘We can only defer to the moralist so far as to place virtue above brains and brawn we cannot allow him to have everything his own way. We certainly do not want a society so plethoric in altruistic virtue, and so lean in other goods, that every citizen wishes for nothing better than to be a sick-nurse to somebody else.' And, as showing how unmistakably the religious ideal is to be subordinated to the eugenic ideal, take the following quotation from the same authority. Speaking of celibacy and virginity, Dr. Inge says: ‘ We do not think it wicked to encourage, a beautiful and glorious specimen of womanhood to become a nun or Sister of Mercy with vows of perpetual virginity. Here surely, is a case in which the Eugenics Education Society ought to have something to say. A man or woman belonging ,to a good stock ought to be told by public opinion that it is a duty to society for him or her to marry and have children.’ From this it is but a step—and not such a very far step—to the brutal dictum of G. B. Shaw What we need is freedom for people who have never seen each other before and never intend to see one another again, to produce children under certain definite public conditions, without loss of honor.” (3) Many of the methods proposed by the eugenists are open to serious objection, either as being wrong in themselves, or, while perhaps morally permissible, as being unnecessary in the actual circumstances of the case,. To the former class belongs the proposal put forward by a typical American eugenist at the Australasian Medical Congress which has just concluded its sittings at Sydney. We quote from the cabled Press Association report: *Dr Stevens (America) favored the Spartan idea of putting to death the feeble-minded early in life. He had no use for anybody whose moral aspect was doubtful. The question simply resolved itself into a survival of the fittest. The mental balance of the nation must be maintained.’ In the second class of dubious eugenic methods may be included some of the more drastic applications of compulsory surgery. Assuming that, under exceptional circumstances, some of these measures may be morally justifiable, the question arises, Are they necessary ? ‘ Now, with regard to surgery,’ says Father Thomas J. Gerrard in an excellent article in the Dublin Review, to which we are indebted for most of the quotations we have given, ‘ the preponderance of both theological and medical evidence is that it is not only useless but harmful. It hinders one evil, but it produces a whole brood of others'. .' . . Indeed, such an enthusiastic eugenist as Dr. Saleeby himself declares: ‘‘We are dubious as to the help of surgery. ... It to.be,reasonable, ‘ and in seeking the super-man to remain at least human.” Father Gerrard has no scruple in ‘ brushing aside as anti-eugenic and anti-human the proposal for the application of surgery.’ * It would be possible to showand we may perhaps yet take occasion to do so—that there is no institution which is doing so much, and which has done so much

all down the centuries, to promote true and sound eugenics, as the Catholic Church. ■' The ideal at which the Church aims,' says Father Gerrard, '' and actually does accomplish is the production of genius in morality. Intellectual power may minister to this end as in the case of St. Augustine, or poetical inspiration as in the case of St. Francis, or warrior prowess as in the case of the Maid of Orleans. But all these other accomplishments must be subordinated to the one supreme accomplishment, eminence in sanctity.' ... ' The Catholic with this ideal,' he concludes, ' has no fear for the eugenics of the future. His belief in the Communion of Saints is his guarantee. He knows that in every age in the past his Church has produced the only super-men worthy of the name, the great experts in moral excellence. If the nineteenth century can witness a Cure d'Ars and a Don Bosco, the twentieth and every other century can do likewise.'