Woman's World

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 214, 10 March 1914, Page 6

Woman's World

EUGENIC MARRIAGE AMEIiK AX LEGISLATION! FOR TUB UN 150 UN. IS IT COlXd TOO FAR? No couple can, now lie married ia Yi without a health certificate : showinjr that their mental ami physical • 111 no- is ;iiHeiunt, for them to briny iiiio the \vor!u sane and sound children. The maximum medical fee allowed for t!ii' it''cc-s;■ : 'y ''xaniination is lis. T!ie doctors, lur.wvcr, arc saying that it is not and are refusing to make the tc.-t- that the law requires. As the are declining to issue, any j licenses without the health certificate, it looks as though, until the new law Nettles into shape, marriage will he a difficult matter in Wisconsin. .Special mamagc laws, however, are hy no means a new condition of life in Ani"rica. A most comprehensive '■bulletin" of them has been published ij t)i\ rliarles ]!. Davenport, tile (lis-tiiiuui-hcil -biologist, who is secretary ami rcsMciit director of the Eugenics Kccoi-il Oilicc of Cold Spring Harbor Long 1.-l-init. So great has been the interest ai'ou-cd by the publication that llie \i ,v Vi.rl. timi's vwTirtly devoted a «I:i>!ii ];agc to its review, showing hi'sl there are certain good provisions, many of the States are legislating somewhat unwisely for the unborn child, ami that there are now laws in force which, if they had beetl enacted univei.-"!ly. would have deprived the world of many useful citizens. I.Kii.-U. IiKASOX FOU I'KOIIIIUTION. Dr. Davenport points out that the laws of many Stales forbid issuing marriage licenses to persons who belong to any one of certain socially unlit classes I —mo-,1 commonly the insane and the ['.imbecile, idiots or I'eelile-minded. Tlie I reason tor the prohibition is a legal one, namely, that marriage is a eon- - | tract, and that the affected person ia incapable of making a contract. Thus the law of North Carolina provides that marriages between persons, either of whom at the moment is incapable of contracting for want of will or understanding, shall be void. For the same reason Ohio denies a license when culler of the parties at the time of milking the application for it is under the influence of intoxicating liquor . or narcotic drug. (leorgia and Pennsylvania have each a similar law. And the Maine law says that "no insane person, or idiot, or such person having a lii.sband or wife living is capable of contracting marriage, and such marriages are absolutely void." 'HAD GERMI'LASM." On the other hand, the prohibition is 'apparently made primarily on eugenic grounds—"for the purpose of cutting oil' the 'bad' germplnsm"—-to diminish I the number of children who will oven- | tually require State aid. This seems to be the aim in part at least of the laws of Connecticut, Delaware. Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Utah, and Washington:— Delaware excludes even the "cured" insane and any child of a parent who 1 became insane before the child was born. .Michigan has" the proviso that the disability is removed when a regularly licensed physician will certify that the afflicted person is ''completely cured of such insanity, epilepsy, imbecility, or fceble-mindedness, and that there is 110 probability that such person will transmit any of such defects or disabilities to the issue of such marriage." New Jersey excludes epileptics and even former inmates of insane asylums and .poor-iiouses. Utah also excludes epileptics, except women over the age of 45. . Washington excludes, besides the usual classes, the common drunkard,, habitual criminal, epileptic, or person who is afflicted with pulmonary tuberculosis in its advanced stages. { In all of these special prohibitions, as Dr. Davenport points out, we have ample evidence of a recognition of the danger of continuing strains with inheritable weakness. ARE THEY JUSTIFIED. But are these prohibitions, after all. biologically or cugcuicaih justified, and is there any good roa,o:i lor a universal prohibition of the marriage with a normal person of a iVeb.c-mindcd, epileptic, or insane person? 111 answering this question Dr. Davenport first describes ike otlspi ug of twelve such unions, timl -how-, lhat had these twelve defeitive person.-, been denied parcnia.'je cud actualh l.ep: from reproduction, lifiv i-1.-r-kni, ail 'imiiial, except for one «|iri m-I-.r:n-. one avoliolie, and one nmon., weald mn have been born—at Ic.i-t n» le-;i i-nate children. T!!i: I'iJdi'Ki: MA'i'i.V'. I'nl, i- argued, though the offspring of Mich mating are themselves normal, they will in turn have neuroIpathic progeny. This, Hsscrtion. Dr. Davenport declares, in not correct. They can have neuropathic offspring only if iliey marry person-; who. like llicuN.'lvrs. bilong to a neuropathic strain. The worst nn'.'iig for them to make is with a cousin who belongs with the same weak strain. The proper mating is with a per-: - a in whose ancestry I here is no trace of ncuropathhic tendency. Dr. Davenport adds: - 'lf only the mating be carefuUv ni.i-.'.e so thai the immediate children of the neuropathic parent shall avoid- marrying a consort with a neuropathic taint there will he no neuropathic children or grandchildren, and hardly a greater chance of neuropathic grcat-grand-child-l'en than though the marriage in i|ue-;-tion had been made. l "\Vere the grandchildren also to avoid marrying a person with neuropathic taint their progenv would be freer than the population at large from neuropathic taint, and less liable in random mating* to have nenropathie oli'sMriir;.'' l'lltsT-( "I si "SIN MAl;i!i.\i:l-;-s. Legislation against the marriage of epileptics, like lhat against I lie "ma rriage of (|„. feeble-minded, is largely futile, and, on the whole, injurious, he .concludes, since it directs' attention away from the proper i|uarter. The proper action in the case of imbeciles or the gross epileptics who wish to marry is, lie contends, not to decline them a marriage licence', but to place them in an ill-dilution under Slate care during at least the entire rcproduelinn period. "No cheap device of a law against marriage will take the place of compulsory segregation of gro.vs defectives." Fifteen Stall's are mentioned in which the marriage of lh-sl cousins is illegal. Tf Charles Darwin and Kmnia wooil had lived ui either of |hem (heir marriage would have been void, anil •their children pronounced illegitimate. -And yet. as |)r. Davenport points out, Ihoy produced offspring „f I than ordinary capacity of good vitality 1 and without defects. There is no hanii! | in fact, in first cousin marriages where , the strain is not impoverished.