If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.
It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.
Wiley InterScience | ||
![]() Australian and New Zealand Journal of PsychiatryVolume 36 Issue 5, Pages 585 - 594 Published Online: 13 Sep 2002 © 2006 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2006 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
Abstract | References | Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 119K) | Related Articles | Citation Tracking Psychiatrists as a moral community? Psychiatry under the Nazis and its contemporary relevance Copyright 2002 Blackwell Science Asia Pty Ltd KEYWORDS denial • ethics • Holocaust • Nazism • psychiatry • social responsibility ABSTRACTObjective: In Nazi-occupied Europe, substantial numbers of psychiatrists murdered their patients while many other psychiatrists were complicit with their actions. This paper addresses their motivations and actions, and with particular reference to Australia, explores issues of contemporary relevance. Methods: The events are reviewed in their historical context using mainly secondary sources. Results: The assumption that the term 'Nazi' denotes a closed and unrepeatable chapter is questioned. As with the Holocaust that followed, medical killing of psychiatric patients was an open secret with gradations of collective knowing. Perpetrators were impelled by pressure from peers and superiors, unquestioning obedience, racist ideology and careerism. Perpetrators and bystanders' denial was facilitated by use of deceptive language, bureaucratic and technical proficiency, and notions such as 'a greater cause' or 'sacred mission'. Dissociation and numbing were common. Psychiatrists were the main medical speciality involved because Nazi race and eugenic ideology (accepted by many psychiatrists) targeted mentally ill people for sterilization and euthanasia, and because psychiatrists were state-controlled and tended to objectify patients. Few psychiatrists resisted. Implications: Nazi psychiatry raises questions about medical ethics, stigma and mental illness, scientific 'fashions', psychiatry's relations with government, and psychiatrists' perceived core business. Psychiatric resistance to future similar threats should be based on commemoration, broad-based education and reflection on cultural values, strong partnerships between psychiatrists and patients, and willingness to question publicly policies and attitudes that disadvantage and stigmatize groups. The principle fundamental to all these practices is an orientation to people as subjects rather than objects. Received 26 April 2001; 2nd revision 26 April 2002; accepted 30 April 2002. |