Sterilization of Carrie Buck. David Smith

Чтение книги онлайн.

      LLUSTRATION 3: Albert Sidney Priddy. Reprinted from History of Virginia, Vol. V, Virginia Biography. New York: The American Historical Society. Courtesy of Jones Memorial Library, Lynchburg, Virginia.

      Priddy disdainfully turned the question aside, “I have performed and assisted in the performance of 90 or 100 operations on female patients in this institution for pelvic diseases involving the removal of diseased tubes which necessarily required sterilization which is a more radical operation in that the tubes themselves are removed, than salpingectomy performed on sound tubes for sterilization, which is simply a division and ligating the Fallopian tubes without any serious consequences whatsoever.

      Patients as a rule leave their beds in from two to three weeks and none of their womanly functions are in the least impaired except that of conception and procreation. The operation for salpingectomy is as harmless as any surgical operation can be, and not a single death has occurred in any of the cases so operated on.”

      Shelton weighed this answer: “Might not this girl, Carrie Buck, by some course in proper training in your institution, and without this operation, be brought to such sense of responsibility as that she might be restored to society without constraint and harmful effects both to herself and society?”

      Priddy rebuffed this idea. “This would be an impossibility, as mental defectiveness, self-control and moral conception are organically lacking (in her) and cannot be supplied by teaching or training, she being congenitally and incurably defective.”

      Shelton persisted, “If this operation be not per formed, do you know of any other way in which this patient might be restored to society?”

      “I do not,” Priddy replied confidently.

      “Are we to understand,” Shelton said soberly, “that unless this girl is so operated upon it is likely that both for her protection and the protection of society she must be kept in custody and confinement until her childbearing age is past?”

      All eyes fastened on Priddy. His answer left no doubt: “It is necessary that she be kept in custody during the period of childbearing.”

      With a sigh and a hint of boredom, Aubrey Strode turned to Carrie. “Do you care anything about having this operation performed on you?”

      The slight, angular, sharp-featured girl looked at him soberly, pondering the question for several minutes. She seemed surprised that anyone had spoken to her. A silence fell in the room. Then, in the only words she uttered aloud during the entire course of the trial, Carrie said with dignity, “I have not, it is up to my people.”

      It would have been perfectly normal for Carrie to have assumed that her family would be involved in making the decision of what was best for her. It was a reasonable assumption of trust for her to make: that somehow, someone would look out for her best interests. Tragically, Carrie had no “people” to help her. She was alone.

      The Board’s conclusion came quickly, declaring that:

      Carrie Buck is a feeble-minded inmate of this institution and by the laws of heredity is the probable potential parent of socially inadequate offspring likewise afflicted, that she may be sexually sterilized without detriment to her general health, and that the welfare of the said Carrie Buck and of society will be promoted by such sterilization.

      Aubrey Strode remembered the atmosphere at the end of the hearing sometime later when he wrote to Don Preston:

      The board then inquired if it might safely proceed under the Act, but I had to advise that the Virginia Act had yet to stand the test of the Courts, whereupon I was instructed to take to court a test case.

      By the middle of September, not long after the Board had voted that Carrie Buck should be sexually sterilized by Dr. Priddy, the die had been cast in the selection of Carrie for the test case.

      Dr. Priddy immediately began accumulating information. On September 19th he wrote to Caroline Wilhelm asking for her help in collecting background information on Carrie. He reminded Miss Wilhelm that she had not only been responsible for Carrie’s admission to the Colony, but her mother’s admission as well. Only a day earlier he had written to Miss Edith Furbish of the National Committee for Mental Hygiene, requesting her help in conducting a study of Carrie’s heredity. The major assistance in this particular area, however, was eventually to come from Harry Laughlin, who worked for the Eugenics Record Office in Long Island.

      Aubrey Strode, the chief administrator of the State Colony and the legislator who had drafted Virginia’s sterilization law, himself challenged the right of the State to perform the operation. Years later, following Priddy’s death, Strode recalled his original participation introducing the sterilization law:

      “Some eighteen years ago, as I recall it, the late Dr. A. S. Priddy, then Superintendent of the Virginia State Colony for Epileptics and Feebleminded, who had shortly before that been sued in a Richmond court for a large amount of damages for having sterilized a feeble-minded woman patient in the Colony, and could successfully defend only on the ground that the operation was indicated for therapeutic purposes rather than eugenically, came to me as counsel for the Colony to convey the request of the State Hospital Board that I examine the question and advise the Board upon the prospect of having the Legislature legally enact that inmates of State Institutions for the Epileptic, Feeble-minded and Insane might, after proper proceedings, be sterilized for eugenical purposes.

      In the several states in which the legality of similar enactments had been drawn in question in the courts, in every case that I could find, the Acts had been declared unconstitutional on grounds as being class legislation, if confined in operation to patients in state institutions, as not affording due process of law, if the sterilizing was done without proper previous notice and reasonable opportunity to defend against its need, and as depriving a person of the natural right of procreation beyond the power of the state legally to take away.

      So, reporting to the Board, I added that several years before that I recalled that when I was a member of the State Senate, Dr. Carrington, Surgeon to the State Penitentiary, had come before the Committee on Public Institutions to suggest the СКАЧАТЬ