Misusing the Nazi Analogy



Publish date

July 22, 2005

Topic(s): Uncategorized

Sixty years ago, Allied forces brought an end to Adolf Hitlers dream that Germany would rule Europe and
dominate the world. The death of Nazi Germany gave birth to a charge that still haunts the scientific community
what might be called the Nazi analogy. In ethical or policy disputes about science and medicine,
no argument can bring debate to a more screeching halt then the invocation of the Nazi comparison.

Whether the subject is stem cell research, end-of-life care, the conduct of clinical trials in poor nations,
abortion, embryo research, animal experimentation, genetic testing, or human experimentation involving
vulnerable populations, references to Nazi policies or practices tumble forth from critics. If X is done, then we are on
the road to Nazi Germany has become a commonplace claim in contemporary bioethical debates.

Sadly, too often those who draw an analogy between current behavior and what the Nazis did do not know what
they are talking about. The Nazi analogy is equivalent to dropping a nuclear bomb in ethical battles about science
and medicine. Because its misuse diminishes the horror done by Nazi scientists
and doctors to their victims, it is ethically incumbent upon those who invoke the
Nazi analogy to understand what they are claiming.

A key component of Nazi thought was to rid Germany and the lands under
German control of those deemed economic drains on the statethe mentally ill,
alcoholics, the feeble-minded, and the demented elderly. They were seen as
direct threats to the economic viability of the state, a fear rooted in the bitter
economic experience after the First World War. The public health of the nation
also had to be protected against threats to its genetic health. These were created
when people of inferior races intermarried with those of Aryan stock. Threats
to genetic health also included, by their very existence, genetic degenerates
Jews and Roma. Theories of race hygiene had gained prominence in mainstream
German scientific and medical circles as early as the 1920s.

What is important to keep in mind about these underlying themes that provided
the underpinning for Nazi euthanasia and eugenic practices is that they have little
to do with contemporary ethical debates about science, medicine, or technology.
Take, for instance, the case of Terri Schiavo, a massively brain-damaged patient
who was kept alive by means of artificial feeding for more than a decade. When
congressmen and religious leaders in the United States commented on her situation
during the weeks leading up to her death on 31 March 2005, soon after her
feeding tube was removed, they described it as analogous to what the Nazis had
done to Jews in concentration campsa complete misuse of the Nazi analogy.
Whatever one thought about the ethical issues raised by the decision to allow
the removal of a feeding tube from this woman, the decision had nothing to do with the belief that her continued
existence posed a threat to the economic integrity of the United States or that her racial background posed a
threat to Americas genetic health. The fight over her fate was about who best could represent her wishes so that
her self-determination could be respecteda moral principle not afforded those killed by deliberate starvation in
the Nazi euthanasia programs.

Similarly, when critics charge that allowing embryonic stem cell research permits the taking of innocent life to
serve the common good, and then compare it to Nazi research in concentration camps, the claims of resemblance are
deeply flawed; moreover, they demean the immorality of Nazi practices. Concentration camp prisoners were used
in lethal experiments because they were seen as doomed to die anyway, were seen as racial inferiors, and, given the
conditions of total war that prevailed, they were considered completely expendable in the service of the national
security of the Third Reich.

There are many reasons why a practice or policy in contemporary science or medicine might be judged unethical.
But the cavalier use of the Nazi analogy in an attempt to bolster an argument is unethical. Sixty years after the fall
of the Third Reich, we owe it to those who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazis to insist that those who
invoke the Nazi analogy do so with care.
– Arthur Caplan [an Editorial in the July 22 issue of Science]

We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Privacy Policy. By closing this message, you are consenting to our use of cookies.