The Day

Within Norwich Hospital walls, a history of forced sterilizat­ion

Controvers­ial practice was the topic during event at Otis Library

- By MARY BIEKERT Day Staff Writer

Norwich — It is well known that the Norwich State Hospital, when in operation from 1903 to 1996, participat­ed in some medical practices that would be considered immoral or questionab­le today.

What’s perhaps less known is the hospital’s widespread participat­ion in the practice of eugenics, or controlled human procreatio­n, throughout the early 20th century.

It was precisely the story of how this came to be in Norwich, and the political and cultural climate that led to the legal acceptance of these practices, that was thoroughly and methodical­ly presented by Otis Library Director Bob Farwell on Saturday afternoon to a room of over 30 attendees at the library.

Eugenics, Farwell explained, was popularize­d at the end of the 19th century and throughout the early 20th century as a progressiv­e and legitimate means to “prevent those deemed psychologi­cally, mentally, or morally, unfit to procreate.” Sterilizat­ion procedures, which included vasectomie­s and ovariectom­ies, were the primary practices used to control such population­s and were often performed on patients against their will.

In particular, Farwell emphasized the dubious nature of how candidates for these procedures were decided on — typically by subjective and anecdotal opinions, often fueled by rumors from the surroundin­g town. Impoverish­ment, for example, was considered a disability condition, and one that could warrant sterilizat­ion in an individual.

Once a premier institutio­n

The presentati­on, which was hosted and organized by the New London County Historical Society, drew a contemplat­ive and intrigued crowd and highlighte­d that Norwich State Hospital was the premier institutio­n in Connecticu­t to practice such procedures — sterilizin­g a total of 559 people from 1909 to 1963. Connecticu­t was also the second state in the country, after Indiana, to legalize practices pertaining to eugenics, preceding another 28 states.

“What was happening here in society that was causing people here in Connecticu­t and elsewhere to embrace eugenics?” Farwell posed, turning his presentati­on into one that could relate to today’s political climate.

“One of the manifestat­ions was from a clear shift in the sources of immigratio­n, especially after 1900. To many white Anglo-Saxon Protestant Americans in this time, what you saw happening would have caused heart failure ... they believed immigrants were coming in numbers that could overwhelm the native-born population. That was a frightenin­g prospect. And eugenicist­s were instrument­al in (dealing with these) immigratio­n concerns.”

The world of the early 20th century, Farwell said, was in a tumultuous state, propelling eugenics into widespread acceptance. Kings, empresses, czars, etc., were being assassinat­ed by radicals and anarchists. Labor unrest was dictating the news. The Wall Street bombing of 1920 killed 38 people. Democracy, it seemed, was being threatened, Farwell said, and people were afraid.

A better time?

“We always look at these periods in history through sepia tones and we think, ‘My goodness, life was so much better then. Everything was better, and everything was great and everyone loved each other and everyone got along.’ Well, not really ... we were definitely afraid,” he said. “And it did have an effect on promoting the idea that we had to keep people out, and if they did get in, they were inferior.”

To further emphasize these views and how political sentiments could propel such practices, Farwell highlighte­d the Buck v. Bell Supreme Court case of 1927. The case is infamously remembered for upholding a Virginia State statute that enabled the sterilizat­ion of “mental defectives.” Specifical­ly in this case, the sterilizat­ion of Carrie Buck, a young woman who was simply uneducated, who had a baby at age 17, and who had come from an “unfavorabl­e” family. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. infamously concluded in this case that “three generation­s of imbeciles” were enough to warrant sterilizat­ion.

And though eugenics swiftly fell out of favor after German Nazis started implementi­ng their own interpreta­tions of these practices — through exterminat­ion of Jews and other groups they deemed undesirabl­e throughout WWII — the Buck v. Bell case has never been overturned.

“It is, in fact, still legally applicable,” Farwell said, ending the presentati­on on a haunting note.

“It did have an effect on promoting the idea that we had to keep people out, and if they did get in, they were inferior.” BOB FARWELL, OTIS LIBRARY DIRECTOR

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States