UNASSIGNED: For more than a century, scientists have tried to find the key to causation of mental ill health in heredity and genetics. The difficulty of finding clear and actionable answers in our genes has not stopped them looking. This history offers important context to understanding mental health science today.
UNASSIGNED: This article explores the main themes in research on genetics and inheritance in psychiatry from the second half of the nineteenth century to the present day, to address the question: what is the history of genetics as a causative explanation in mental health science? We take a critical historical approach to the literature, interrogating primary and secondary material for the light it brings to the research question, while considering the social and historical context.
UNASSIGNED: We begin with the statistics gathered in asylums and used to \'prove\' the importance of heredity in mental ill health. We then move through early twentieth century Mendelian models of mental inheritance, the eugenics movement, the influence of social psychiatry, new classifications and techniques of the postwar era, the Human Genome Project and Genome Wide Association Studies (GWAS) and epigenetics. Setting these themes in historical context shows that this research was often popular because of wider social, political and cultural issues, which impacted the views of scientists just as they did those of policymakers, journalists and the general public.
UNASSIGNED: We argue that attempting to unpick this complex history is essential to the modern ethics of mental health and genetics, as well as helping to focus our efforts to better understand causation in mental ill-health.For a succinct timeline of the history of psychiatric genetics, alongside the history of other proposed causes for mental ill-health, visit: https://historyofcauses.co.uk/.

暂无摘要。

Through the late-twentieth century, physicians endorsed the denial of life-saving surgeries to infants because they had Down syndrome. Grim physician assessments of the inevitable burden of Down syndrome found ideological footing in the 1970s crusade to eradicate the condition, a public health goal made possible by new genetic diagnostics and a weakened abortion law. What is most striking about this physician-sanctioned passive euthanasia is that it persisted even in an era of unprecedented expansion of disability rights. Physician endorsement of the euthanasia of infants with Down syndrome offers a powerful corrective to the notion that post-war Canada was marked by waning support for eugenics. Medically sanctioned euthanasia of babies because of their Down syndrome, eugenics of the most extreme type, thrived in late-twentieth century Canada.
Jusqu’à la fin du vingtième siècle, les médecins ont approuvé le refus de pratiquer des interventions chirurgicales vitales sur des nourrissons parce qu\'ils étaient atteints du syndrome de Down. La sombre évaluation par les médecins du fardeau inévitable qu\'entraînait le syndrome de Down a trouvé un fondement idéologique dans la croisade des années 1970 pour éradiquer la maladie, un objectif de santé publique rendu possible par les nouveaux diagnostics génétiques et grâce à une loi sur l\'avortement moins sévère. L\'aspect le plus frappant de cette euthanasie passive sanctionnée par les médecins est qu\'elle a persisté à une époque d\'expansion sans précédent des droits des personnes handicapées. L\'approbation par les médecins de l\'euthanasie des nourrissons atteints du syndrome de Down apporte un puissant correctif à l\'idée que le Canada de l\'après-guerre a été caractérisé par une baisse du soutien à l\'eugénisme. L\'euthanasie médicalement sanctionnée de bébés en raison du syndrome de Down, c\'est-à-dire l\'eugénisme le plus extrême, a au contraire prospéré dans le Canada de la fin du vingtième siècle.

Society and education are inherently ableist. Disabled people are routinely excluded from education, or have poorer outcomes within educational systems. Improving educational experiences and outcomes for people of color has required educators to design antiracist curricula that explicitly address racial inequality. Here, we explore parallel antiableist approaches to bioscience education in an essay coauthored by a disabled bioscience student and able-bodied faculty member in bioscience. Our work is underpinned by Critical Disability Theory and draws on disability and pedagogical scholarship as well as our own experiences. The biosciences has a unique need to confront its history in the discredited pseudoscience of eugenics, which has led to discrimination and human rights abuses against disabled people. We provide a brief history of the relationship between biological sciences research and eugenics and explore how this legacy impacts bioscience education today. We then present a recommended structure for antiableist biology education. Our approach goes beyond providing disability access, to a model that educates all students about disability issues and empowers them to challenge ableist narratives and practices.

暂无摘要。

The paper aims to understand the various legacies of eugenics in the postwar period to recognize both the continuities and discontinuities of eugenics with an approach which is both conceptually sound and historically correct. Building on earlier work of Lene Koch, the paper endeavours to chart the historical trajectory of eugenics by examining how its definition and those of its related or oppositional concepts have evolved within selected lexicon entries across various stages of the century. The inclusion and publication of a concept within a lexicon indicate its significance, linguistic vitality, and prevalence in public discourse. These entries serve as a window into the contemporary understanding and application of concepts over an entire century, offering insights into the practices of eugenics as interpreted by the authoritative scholars of the era. Additionally, these lexicon entries offer more than just a mirror to the past\'s prevailing attitudes. The very act of articulating a concept may be viewed as a pivotal element in social struggles, influencing the course of eugenic practices and their interpretations. Both conceptual history and discourse analysis share common ground in their perception of concepts, considering the use of language as a social activity endowed with performative capabilities. They recognize that language does not merely reflect reality but can actively shape it, playing a significant role in societal dynamics and power relations. The Hungarian lexicon entries on eugenics reveal notable disparities in the identified content, the periodization, and the evolution of changes when compared to Lene Koch\'s earlier study on Scandinavian eugenics. In Hungary, the concept of eugenics underwent significant changes over four successive periods. The history and interpretation of eugenics can vary significantly from one country to another. Different nations have had their unique experiences and trajectories with the eugenics movement, which have been shaped by their specific cultural, political, and social contexts. These variations emphasize the importance of considering the localized and historical perspectives when examining the concept of eugenics.

Highlighting the Distinguished Speakers Symposium on \"The Future of Human Genetics and Genomics,\" this collection of articles is based on presentations at the ASHG 2023 Annual Meeting in Washington, DC, in celebration of all our field has accomplished in the past 75 years, since the founding of ASHG in 1948.

From an evolutionary point of view, organisms with mutations resulting in maladaptation are an unavoidable result of genetic variability, and they do not usually survive natural selection. Thus, they do not produce benefits for the species. I contend that this is different in humans at two levels. First, the existence of people with disability has been essential for human growth as a species. Human ancestors\' evolving cognitive and social abilities were boosted by caring for vulnerable members of the species, including premature offspring and people with disability. Therefore, caregiving was an essential trait of the evolution of humans, intertwined with the development of bipedalism, the hand, face, vocal apparatus, and brain. Second, caring for disability is also a source of growth at a personal level. Even though most scientific literature focuses on the stress and burden caused by caring for people with disability, there is solid evidence to accept caregiving as a source of happiness and flourishing for human beings. Hence, disability still has an essential role in improving human life nowadays. Contrary to this evidence, influential utilitarian bioethicists promote the elimination of disability from modern societies. Following the arguments presented here, this will lead to the withering of society. In conclusion, disability should be acknowledged as an essential source of growth for the human species.

Antisemitism, the hatred of or prejudice against Jews, was a core component of the Nazi regime\'s ideology. We review the chronology of events against the Jews and Jewish physicians in Germany and their conquered territories from 1933 to 1945. The complicit role that German physicians played in these events and the devastating impact on Jewish dermatologists and our specialty will be recounted. Finally, we will address the antisemitism in the United States during that same approximate period and now.

I defend a novel account of the wrong of subjecting people to non-consensual sterilization (NCS), particularly in the context of the state-sponsored eugenics programmes once prevalent in the United States. What makes the eugenicist practice of NCS distinctively wrong, I claim, is its dehumanizing core: the fact that it is tantamount to treating people as nonhuman animals, thereby expressing the degrading social meaning that they have the value of animals. The practice of NCS is prima facie seriously wrong partly, but crucially, on these grounds. I consider and reject accounts of the wrong of NCS that make no reference to its animalizing character, such as that it violates victims\' (procreative) autonomy, amounts to treating them merely as a means, inflicts psychological harm on them, or constitutes an affront to their human dignity. My discussion suggests that the critical vocabulary of bioethics should be expanded beyond talk of rights violations, benefits and harms, and equal treatment-and that the language of dehumanization is indispensable to bioethicists.