Dealing with degeneracy: Michigan eugenics in context

This study examines how changes in the philosophical constructs, organization and practice of medicine interacted with evolving systems of social and institutional care to promote negative eugenics measures. As the legal climate changed in regards to such policies, physicians, directors of correctional, training, support and charitable institutions, and other social reformers sought to apply sterilization laws as a response to a perceived increase in the levels of social degeneracy.; Physicians were instrumental in providing “scientific” validation for eugenic policies, therefore the publications and personal correspondence of two eminent Michigan physicians, John Harvey Kellogg and Victor Clarence Vaughan, were examined to elucidate their respective eugenic beliefs and influences upon policies within the state. Both physicians possessed eminent reputations at the state and national level, and represented the two principal hereditarian perspectives in eugenic thought, in effect, Lamarckian versus Mendelian inheritance.; National and state records on the number of compulsory sterilizations as compiled by the Human Betterment Foundation, the Association for Voluntary Sterilization, Birthright, Inc., and the Sterilization Records of the Archives of the State of Michigan were analyzed to determine the range of policy variation between states. Individual sterilization request records and the included supporting information from Michigan records along with collateral communications between state departments, courts and institutions in conjunction with contemporary professional and lay literature on eugenics show the evolution of contemporaneous practice and philosophical constructs within the state and nation. This analysis demonstrates the wide range of variation in policy between counties, states and nations. Practices varied over time with regard to patient categories and the extent to which such policies were applied to the relevant patient populations. Issues of institutional management (i.e. available personnel, parole, behavioral management), changing public discourse and judicial findings acted to modify programs throughout the period of study.