MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411177700 · doi:10.1093/pch/5.8.451

Confronting the past: Contemporary German paediatric response to medical practice in the Third Reich

2000· article· en· W2411177700 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Shevell

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMedical History and Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGermanNazi GermanyMedical practiceMedicineHistoryMedical educationArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1995, the German Society of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine undertook an initiative to document publicly the suffering that was endured by its German-Jewish paediatric colleagues from 1933 to 1945. At the society's annual meeting in Dresden, Germany in the fall of 1998, the memory and suffering of those colleagues were recalled. In the presidential address, Lothar Pelz acknowledged the society's collective guilt, both as an active participant in the National Socialist policies of racial purification, and its failure to stand by and speak out for German-Jewish colleagues who were being persecuted (1). A commitment to describe events that occurred in paediatrics during the Third Reich was also undertaken by the society. The events recalled by the initiative launched in 1995 illustrate vividly that medicine does not exist in a vacuum. It is subject to the same historical and political influences as are any other elements of a society. Sometimes, these influences converge to alter the practice of medicine grotesquely in ways that can appear on the surface to be beyond comprehension and understanding. Expressions of medicine's ‘dark side’ recur repeatedly throughout history. For physicians in the present, they are extremely discomforting to consider, and we often choose to ignore and distance ourselves from such expressions by citing separations of time, space and personality. We frequently adopt a defensive and comforting “it cannot happen here” mind frame when considering previous medical abuses. Medicine's dark side was no more evident than during Germany's Third Reich. Racial reform of the German Volk was at the core of the Nazi social and political agendas. Borrowing heavily from the ‘pseudo science’ of racial hygiene for objective justification, the Nazis envisioned and implemented biological solutions (ie, sterilization, elimination) to a perceived problem of racial fitness, which was framed in medical terms. Individuals with disabilities and Jews were specifically targeted for marginalization and, then, elimination (2). German medicine at the dawn of the Third Reich was the envy of the world (3). No country had produced more Nobel Prize winners in physiology (3). German research laboratories attracted the best and the brightest fellows from overseas (3). Germany's combined private and public payer systems provided an enviable, near universal access to health care services (3). Germany's educational structure had served as the model for the Flexner report, which had reformed North American medical education (3). Against this backdrop of medical sophistication, the number of physicians who joined the Nazi party and its elite formations was greater in terms of percentage than that of any other professional group (4). Physicians were attracted to the prospect of greater professional powers and prestige under a Nazi regime. Physicians became the “guardians of the nation's genetic constitution”, trusted agents of the state's array of biological solutions (2). Physicians administered the policy of compulsory sterilization. Physicians served as arbitrators of the Nuremberg Race Laws. Physicians formulated and implemented a policy of active euthanasia for those with mental and physical disabilities, which necessitated the development of novel means of mass extermination. Physicians segregated the living from the soon-to-be dead on the arrival ramps of concentration camps (2,5). The actions of physicians as agents of the state have primarily occupied the attention of medical historians of the Third Reich. The ‘purification’ of German medical ranks through the removal of Jewish practitioners has largely been ignored (6,7). Through the systematic and rigid application of escalating bureaucratic rules, the rights of German-Jewish physicians were steadily narrowed. Academic appointments and research grants were rescinded. Salaried positions were revoked. Hospital privileges were lost, and practices were closed. The end result was a ‘de-judification’ of the profession that led to the emigration of many German-Jewish physicians; those who were not able to emigrate were, ultimately, caught in the web of the ‘Final Solution’ (6,7). The practice of paediatrics was no exception to the developments outlined above. The first systematic attempt to eliminate a defined population group in the Third Reich targeted children with disabilities (8). Paediatricians formulated the guidelines and protocols for the child euthanasia program, reported children to state authorities, staffed the expert clinics and carried out euthanasia protocols on selected children. More than one-half of all academic and practising paediatricians experienced Nazi persecution, largely because of their religious affiliation or heritage (9). The tragedy of their personal suffering, displacement, pain and loss is enormous, and so very difficult for us to comprehend adequately from a contemporary perspective. It is not easy to grapple publicly with such a painful past. The German Society of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine should be commended for doing so. Its efforts are poignant and should serve as a paradigm for other groups in German medicine to engage honestly in dialogue, and confront previous institutional and personal actions, and indifference. It should, however, be noted that any mention of paediatricians' involvement in the child euthanasia program that selectively targeted German children with disabilities is missing from the society's actions. It is all too easy to ignore and forget – to believe that the abuses all happened a long time ago, in a place much different from our own, with actions committed by marginal, extremist physicians to people who are not like us and, thus, not worth remembering. An open and frank dialogue about the Nazi epoch is necessary to honour truly the victims' memories. We can only do so by lessening, in some tangible way, the chance that such abuses will ever happen again in such a noble profession as medicine.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.025
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child HealthSame topicMedical History and ResearchFrench-language works237,207