Motherhood, Mental Incompetence, and the Denial of Reproductive Autonomy in the Early Years of Israeli Statehood

Marco Di Giulio
{"title":"Motherhood, Mental Incompetence, and the Denial of Reproductive Autonomy in the Early Years of Israeli Statehood","authors":"Marco Di Giulio","doi":"10.1093/jsh/shad087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n As the State of Israel defined citizenship rights for its Jewish population after independence in 1948, it also began to articulate the rights of those affected by disabilities of the mind—i.e., psychiatric, cognitive, and learning disabilities—by issuing, for example, the “Law for the Management of Institutes” (1952) and the “Law for the Treatment of the Mentally Ill” (1955). Due to haphazard state-building and insufficient funding, however, this process was slow and uneven. In the meantime, people with mental and cognitive disabilities often remained vulnerable to abuse and sexual violence in domestic and institutional spaces and suffered from a lack of proper care and accommodation. Operating on the assumption that disability of the mind could be transmitted from generation to generation, some medical professionals contemplated sterilization as a way to prevent the reproduction of mental disability in the children of affected parents, but the lingering trauma caused by the Holocaust and Nazi racial hygiene hindered their plan. This article examines a 1954 case involving a cognitively disabled woman who was brought to court for neglecting her children. Due to her delinquent parenting, she was slated to undergo sterilization, but her legal incompetence raised a host of ethical questions that tested the psychiatrists’ and judicial authorities’ assumptions about cognitive competence, civic fitness, and reproductive autonomy. By examining contemporary press reports of the legal proceedings, their larger context, and their consequences, this article shows how the woman remained hostage to male-dominated power structures that devalued her dual status as a mother and as a cognitively impaired citizen. While this case study shows how easily overridden were the liberties and protections of those affected by disabilities of the mind, it can also be viewed as a situation that impelled the Israeli public to contemplate the rights of the cognitively disabled, foreshadowing later movements aimed at expanding the boundaries of society to include members of many degrees of ability.","PeriodicalId":508714,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social History","volume":"833 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jsh/shad087","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the State of Israel defined citizenship rights for its Jewish population after independence in 1948, it also began to articulate the rights of those affected by disabilities of the mind—i.e., psychiatric, cognitive, and learning disabilities—by issuing, for example, the “Law for the Management of Institutes” (1952) and the “Law for the Treatment of the Mentally Ill” (1955). Due to haphazard state-building and insufficient funding, however, this process was slow and uneven. In the meantime, people with mental and cognitive disabilities often remained vulnerable to abuse and sexual violence in domestic and institutional spaces and suffered from a lack of proper care and accommodation. Operating on the assumption that disability of the mind could be transmitted from generation to generation, some medical professionals contemplated sterilization as a way to prevent the reproduction of mental disability in the children of affected parents, but the lingering trauma caused by the Holocaust and Nazi racial hygiene hindered their plan. This article examines a 1954 case involving a cognitively disabled woman who was brought to court for neglecting her children. Due to her delinquent parenting, she was slated to undergo sterilization, but her legal incompetence raised a host of ethical questions that tested the psychiatrists’ and judicial authorities’ assumptions about cognitive competence, civic fitness, and reproductive autonomy. By examining contemporary press reports of the legal proceedings, their larger context, and their consequences, this article shows how the woman remained hostage to male-dominated power structures that devalued her dual status as a mother and as a cognitively impaired citizen. While this case study shows how easily overridden were the liberties and protections of those affected by disabilities of the mind, it can also be viewed as a situation that impelled the Israeli public to contemplate the rights of the cognitively disabled, foreshadowing later movements aimed at expanding the boundaries of society to include members of many degrees of ability.
以色列建国初期的母性、精神上的无能以及对生育自主权的剥夺
以色列国在 1948 年独立后为其犹太人口确定了公民权利,同时也开始阐明那些受精神残疾(即精神病、认知和学习残疾)影响的人的权利,例如颁布了《机构管理法》(1952 年)和《精神病治疗法》(1955 年)。然而,由于国家建设杂乱无章,资金不足,这一进程缓慢而不平衡。与此同时,有精神和认知障碍的人在家庭和机构中往往仍然容易遭受虐待和性暴力,并且缺乏适当的护理和住宿。一些医疗专业人员认为,精神残疾可能会代代相传,因此他们考虑通过绝育手术来防止父母有精神残疾的子女再现,但大屠杀和纳粹种族卫生所造成的创伤挥之不去,阻碍了他们的计划。本文探讨了 1954 年的一个案例,该案例涉及一名有认知障碍的妇女,她因忽视子女而被送上法庭。由于她在养育子女方面的过失,她被指定接受绝育手术,但她在法律上的无行为能力引发了一系列伦理问题,考验了精神科医生和司法当局对认知能力、公民适格性和生育自主权的假设。通过研究当代新闻界对法律诉讼程序的报道、其大背景及其后果,本文展示了这位妇女是如何受制于男性主导的权力结构,这种结构贬低了她作为母亲和认知障碍公民的双重身份。虽然这一案例研究表明,那些受智力残疾影响的人的自由和保护是多么容易被架空,但也可以将其视为促使以色列公众思考认知障碍者权利的一种情况,预示着后来旨在扩大社会界限以纳入多种能力程度成员的运动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信