Buck vs. Bell Case

                                        
                                BUCK VS. BELL CASE

Eugenics is defined as

a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of race or breed.

                     There are positive eugenics and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics seeks to make the human beings the best they can be (more creative intelligence). An example of this is artificial insemination. Negative Eugenics attempts only to eliminate genetic weaknesses. Examples of this are genetic screening and sterilization.

 

                        This case was between Carrie Buck vs. James Hendren Bell, the superintendent of State Colony for epileptics and feeble minded.

 

Carrie was 18 years old with the mental capacity of a nine year old and
her mother had the mental capacity of an eight  year old child.  James Hendren Bell sued Carrie Bell for having a child because he did not believe feeble minded people should have children.  

 

 

 

 

The Supreme court basically ignored the 14th amendment by  

upholding a statute, instituting compulsory sterilization of the unfit for the protection and health of the state by stating:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for the entire world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.”

 

              Unfortunately, Carrie Buck lost the case and ended up being sterilized against her will. I found this case to be very interesting because it presents the question of how much does the law regulate humans? Lawmakers believe that “The state’s interest in improving the quality of a population’s genetic pool in order to minimize suffering, to reduce the number of economically dependent persons, and possibly, to save mankind from extinction arguably justifies the infringement of individual’s civil liberties.” But is this always fair?