top of page

Search Results

84 items found for ""

  • Eva Moses Kor, Interview I

    Eva Mozes Kor is a Holocaust survivor and the founder of CANDLES (Children of Auschwitz Nazi Deadly Lab Experiments Survivors). She also created the CANDLES Holocaust Museum and Education Center. She has worked with Indiana state legislators Clyde Kersey and Tim Skinner to gain passage of a law requiring Holocaust education in secondary schools. In May of 1944, the Mozes family, including ten-year-old identical twins Miriam and Eva Mozes, were loaded onto cattle cars. They were ultimately relocated from their home in Portz in Transylvania, Romania to the Auschwitz death camp. An SS trooper hurried by, shouting, “Zwillinge! Zwillinge!” (Twins! Twins!). Miriam and Eva became part of Josef Mengele’s 1500 sets of twin, subjects for experiments.

  • Judaism, the US Seal, and Medicine on the Fourth of July

    By MEIR SOLOVEICHIK (from the Wall Street Journal, July 1, 2016) Mr. Soloveichik is the rabbi and minister of Congregation Shearith Israel in Manhattan and director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought of Yeshiva University. See also: video lectures by Haas, Greenberg, Kass, and Pellegrino.

  • Why Are They Trying to Make Us Kill Our Patients?

    Why Are They Trying to Make Us Kill Our Patients? California’s new assisted-suicide law violates the U.S. Constitution’s equal protection clause. By PHILIP B. DREISBACH, July 25, 2016 Wall Street Journal This article was originally published in the Wall Street Journal. I am an oncologist/hematologist who has been practicing in California, primarily at Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, for 39 years. It has been my privilege to have treated and cared for more than 16,000 patients with cancer or blood diseases and to have provided pain relief and comfort for the dying. I am also one of six concerned physicians who, along with the American Academy of Medical Ethics, have sued in a California Superior Court to try to block as unconstitutional the state’s Physician Assisted Suicide law, which went into effect on June 9. More recently, a group of doctors and health-care professionals in Vermont joined a lawsuit filed July 19 to try to block the way that state’s 2013 assisted suicide law is being interpreted and misapplied. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown and voted against by every elected Republican member of the state legislature, California’s radical measure is part of an organized, nationwide, social-engineering campaign, heavily funded by big donors such as the leftist George Soros. Our state’s physician-assisted suicide law instantly removes penal-code protections from a vulnerable segment of the population deemed “terminally ill.” The law allows anyone labeled as terminally ill to request assisted suicide—but it also accepts heirs and the owners of caregiving facilities to formally witness such requests, even though the probate code does not even accept “interested” parties as witnesses to a will. The law does not require an attending physician to refer the patient for psychological assessment. It thus does not allow for screening for possible coercion, or for underlying mental conditions that could be behind the suicide request—unless the patient has signs of mental problems, which may not be visible to a suicide-specialist doctor they may not even know. In these and other ways, the law devastates elder-abuse law and mental-health legal protections, and it deprives those labeled as terminally ill of equal-protection rights that all other Americans enjoy. All of us in the practice of cancer care have seen patients, diagnosed with so-called terminal illness, who have experienced a marvelous remission of disease. Very little is absolute—except death itself. On the day that physician-assisted suicide was legalized, my hospital and the other local hospitals announced that they were opting out and would not facilitate the killing of any patients. Some local hospices informed me that they would continue to give palliative care, instead of helping patients kill themselves. Killing is never medical care. There is no circumstance when any compassionate, competent physician would prescribe a deadly drug to any patient. If “medical practice” has any meaning, it definitely does not include using drugs to willfully kill a patient or for a physician and pharmacist to supply a lethal drug so that a patient can kill himself. The American Medical Association has spoken for all physicians by stating: “Physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.” The irony here is that the medical community has strongly objected to facilitating the death of felons on death row, but that same medical community is now expected to help kill the innocent. One must ignore the false rhetoric, the clawing propaganda, used by the death-by-drugs advocates. Terms like “death with dignity” and “compassion in dying” are meant to obscure the fact that these death-march ideologues are targeting the doctor to become an instrument of death. And why must it be the physician who facilitates self-murder? Why not make the agent of death a non-physician who is given special permission to order and administer a regimen of lethal drugs? No, the advocates want to exploit the respect and trust accorded to the “good doctor” so that drug-induced deaths are viewed as “compassionate.” It is part of the marketing scheme for a small but influential necro-political movement. California and other states contemplating making this devastating change to their laws should heed the troubling example of what has happened in Oregon since its adoption of the “Death with Dignity Act” in 1997. Dr. William Toffler, a distinguished professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, Ore., testified before Congress in 2015 about abuses of the law and about the state health department’s negligence. “There is a shroud of secrecy enveloping the practice,” he said. “Doctors engaging in this practice are required by state law to fabricate the cause of death stating that the cause is ‘natural’ rather than suicide.” As the law took effect, Dr. Toffler noted, “the Oregon legislature implemented a system of two different death certificates—one that is public with no medical information and a separate one that is never made public. Thus, review and tracking of physician-assisted suicide deaths by anyone outside of the Oregon Health Division is impossible.” Equal protection is not a mindless bumper-sticker slogan. It is a pillar of state and federal constitutions and must not be corrupted. Under the law, equal protection must apply not only to the healthy and able but to the most vulnerable—the unhealthy, the disabled, the elderly—and all who might fall victim to those peddling physician-assisted killing. Dr. Dreisbach is the director of the Desert Hematology Oncology Medical Group at the Eisenhower Medical Center in Rancho Mirage, Calif.

  • Fritz Haber: Jewish Chemist Whose Work Led to Zyklon B

    I just finished reading the heartbreakingly tragic story of Fritz Haber’s life as told by Vern Thiessen in his play Einstein’s Gift. The story of his remarkable life is beautifully summed up by his friend, colleague, and fellow Nobel Laureate Albert Einstein in a letter to Haber’s family following his death in 1934: “You can only imagine, how heavy the news of Fritz Haber’s death hit me. It seems that now almost all my real friends are dead. One feels like one is made of stone and not a living creature…Haber was the most spirited, the most complex, most generous of all my friends. I did not see him often, but I always thought it a gift when I could spend even an hour with him…(Haber’s was) the tragedy of the German Jews, the tragedy of unrequited love… You can read more about Haber in two biographies, Mastermind: The Rise and Fall of Fritz Haber, the Nobel Laureate Who Launched the Age of Chemical Warfare by Daniel Charles and Fritz Haber: Chemist, Nobel Laureate, German, Jew by Dietrich Stoltzenberg. You can also hear a podcast from the BBC about him, including interviews with his relatives.

  • Poland Moves to Strip Jewish Holocaust Scholar of Award

    Polish-born Princeton University history professor Jan Tomasz Gross was awarded the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland in 1996 for his extensive work documenting the fate of Polish Jews in Nazi-occupied Poland. His acclaimed 2001 book Neighbors examined the massacre of 1,500 Jews from Jedwabne and concluded that it was the Poles, not the Nazis, who committed the atrocity. Polish nationalists have been critical of the book as well as the excellent, recent, Polish movie Aftermath which dramatizes the responsibility of local residents for the massacres of Jews during the Holocaust. The immediate cause for efforts to strip Gross of his award is his explanation of Poland’s wariness to accept Syrian immigrants: “The Poles, for example, were indeed rightfully proud of their society’s resistance against the Nazis but, in fact, did kill more Jews than Germans during the war.”

  • Restoration of the "Lost" Biography of a Physician Victim of the Holocaust

    Abstract from journal article: At a time when the last direct witnesses of the Holocaust are passing, new approaches to the restoration of ‘lost’ biographies of victims need to be considered. This investigation describes the potential of an international collaboration including surviving family members. Archival documents discovered in Jerusalem in 1983 concerned a discussion on the cancellation of a medical licence for a German Jewish physician, Dr. Leo Gross of Kolberg, who had been disenfranchised from medical practice under Nazi law. After applying for a medical licence during a 1935 visit to Palestine, Gross remigrated to Germany, where he was imprisoned in a concentration camp. No further information was found until 2014, when a group of scholars linked a variety of archival and internet-accessible sources and located a nephew of Gross. The nephew’s testimony, cross-referenced against data from other sources, enabled the reconstruction of the ‘lost’ biography of his uncle and family, in fact a posthumous testimony. The resulting narrative places Dr. Leo Gross within his professional and social network, and serves his commemoration within this context of family and community.

  • Eugenics: Science as Morality

    After WWII and the revelations of the Nazi Doctors’ Trial, eugenics was looked upon with disfavor. American eugenicists still believed in eugenics exported sterilization, abortion, and population to Third World countries like India, Korea, and the Philippines through the United Nations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). They also consciously transformed the discredited (pseudo)science of eugenics into medical genetics, which seemed avant garde, scientifically sound and, most importantly, culturally acceptable. Because of recent scientific advances such as assisted reproductive technologies and the Human Genome Project, concern about eugenics, biological determinism, and dehumanization in medicine have resurfaced. Reflecting on the resurgence of eugenics, Baylor College of Medicine student Zane Foster expresses his hope “that as modern physician-scientists we would make better decisions that were made in the early 20th century” and his fear that “in another century, who knows what actions today will be considered barbaric.” Eugenics: Science as Morality By Medical Student Zane Foster Today, it seems completely obvious that eugenics is morally unjustifiable. However, this was not the case historically. In the early 20th century, it was a controversial, yet still widely accepted idea. Why was it accepted then, yet so abhorrent now? I seriously questioned this myself throughout this term of medical school. I decided it came down to a combination of two major factors: the culture of science and the culture of the times. As early as grade school, we are taught that science is a tool that we use to observe nature, and philosophy and religion tell us what matters or what is important. This is as idealistic as it is untrue. In anthropology and society, we learn that culture is always being built and reinforced in us from the day we are born until our last breath. Interactions with others modify our habitus, which in turn shapes our outlook on the world. Science is a community much the same as any communities in the world, and the interactions of scientists produce a culture of science. This culture has its creation myths – who can forget Galileo and Darwin, and their stands against the establishment? or Newton and his encounter under the apple tree? – and this culture has its philosophies. In order to conduct science, we must operate under a single philosophical maxim: that which is observable and quantifiable is meaningful, and that which is not observable or quantifiable does not exist and/or does not matter. Put simply, the philosophical framework of science is raw materialism. This works very well for sciences such as physics and chemistry, but causes problems when used in medicine, where the subjects are not mere atoms or chemicals, but living humans with their own sets of values and meaning. The response by the physician-scientists is to label them as “subjects” or “patients”, tolinguistically and symbolically rob them of their human value and turn them into a quantifiable number which can be studied materially. This dehumanizing of subjects for research isn’t necessarily a bad thing: it must be done, or scientific studies could simply not be conducted at all, and the field of medicine would be at a standstill. However, it has the effect of psychologically priming the researcher to treat the subject as a mere statistic, paving the way for mistreatment, if the conditions of the community are just right. In addition to being materialists, scientists are also idealists. Science as a whole is founded on the fundamental idea that nature can be tamed, and obstacles can be overcome. It is this process of overcoming that defines the culture of science. This narrative is so pervasive and so fundamental that it takes on a moralistic tone. That which produces scientific progress, that is to say, intellectual advancements, is thought of as “good”, and whatever stands in the way of this progress is “bad”. Science, like all cultures in the world, is ripe with its heroes such as the aforementioned Darwin, Galileo, and Copernicus, all valiantly fighting against the forces of ignorance. Like materialism, this cultural mindset is mostly harmless. However, what happens if, for example, traditional morality prohibits a study from being conducted? The reaction of the scientist is frustration, as their moral code doesn’t recognize this alien morality. How dare the objections of mainstream culture stand in the way of intellectual progress? An example of this today is the subject stem cell research. In my own undergraduate education, professors always approached the topic from the perspective of stem cell research as a wonderful, untapped research opportunity. The surrounding controversy of the topic was only ever mentioned in a frustrated tone, as something getting in the way of progress. Stem cell research is incredibly difficult to conduct, due to ethics and grant committees set up by individuals often more in tune with the surrounding controversy. No doubt, many researchers would enthusiastically pursue stem cell research if they had the opportunity to do so. This is not to say that scientists are amoral monsters, waiting to be unleashed on the world. No doubt, nearly every scientist in the country today would decry eugenics as a horrible evil. It is just that they have an additional moral code that they follow, which society at large may not necessarily follow. Whenever an individual encounters a new topic, they approach it with whatever moral or philosophical frameworks they were raised or trained to follow. In the early 20th century, eugenics was a new idea. Scientists and academics approached it with the aforementioned moral frameworks, and concluded it was a very good, very progressive, idea. This brings us to the final piece of the puzzle: the culture of the world in the early 20th century. At this time, the western world achieved unprecedented wealth and power – and unprecedented scientific achievement. Within a very short amount of time, physicists had applied theories of their field and provided the world with electricity, telephones, cars and planes. Chemists did likewise and gave the world plastics and petroleum. Economists provided a blueprint for solving the economic boom and bust cycle (or so they thought). Nothing was outside of the reach of science, or so it was thought. Biology promised to apply Darwinian theory to humanity, to improve not just the population of a country but the entire human race. It was an incredibly progressive and innovative idea – and it has a very logical, scientific grounding. Were there those who objected? Most certainly. But at the time, society was so caught up in the idea of human progress that the promises of eugenics captivated the imagination of a vast number of people. This is why eugenics was possible merely a hundred years ago. As materialists, scientists were trained to see humans as scientific subjects, not as people. Their indoctrination into the culture of science trained them to pursue scientific advancement as a moral good in and of itself. Because eugenics existed in a grey, morally ambiguous, area at the time, scientists approached it with this framework, and saw it as a wonderful, untapped opportunity to improve the world. The culture at large was equally receptive of this narrative, also believing it would lead to progress akin to what they had already witnessed from the other scientific fields. It wasn’t until after the horrific images of Nazi Germany were widely disseminated that culture began to shift and eugenics was universally decided upon as morally abhorrent. We hope today that as modern physician-scientists we would make better decisions that were made in the early 20th century, but the truth is, we haven’t a clue. Hindsight alone is what leads us to know today that eugenics is barbaric, and in another century, who knows what actions today will be considered barbaric.

  • Teaching About the Holocaust: Influencing How Generations Will Learn from the Past

    As Holocaust survivors are dying out, and as Israel, the Jewish State, is viewed more and more as an oppressor, there is a shift from study of the Holocaust to the study of genocide, intolerance, human rights, and hate. The essential but little known role of the German medical profession, and the even less well-known moral, legal, and philanthropic support provided by American eugenicists for German eugenic policies, are very likely to be forgotten. Dismissing or covering up the public health policies and medical practices of German physicians would be another way of forgetting both the Holocaust and its medical crimes, one aspect of the Holocaust that distinguishes it from other genocides. William Porter states in this essay a sentiment that is widely held by students who study medicine and the Holocaust: “…a more realistic portrayal of the Holocaust in our education seems like a profound way to take meaning from its atrocities as we shape tomorrow’s leaders.” Read his perspective in his paper below. Teaching About the Holocaust: Influencing How Generations Will Learn from the Past By Medical Student William Porter When I reflect on the way my perception of the Holocaust has changed over the course of this elective, I cannot help but feel astounded by how many of the ideas we explored were completely new to me. Despite addressing this topic many times before throughout my educational journey thus far, I found myself taken aback by a more critical analysis of the events leading up to the atrocities we are all so familiar with. For example, the fact that Eugenicism in Germany had large American influences seems to contradict my perception of how the Holocaust came about. Such discrepancies led me to think back on the way I was taught about the Holocaust in the first place. I believe that careful examination of the way we teach our youth about the Holocaust can have a profound impact on our ability to learn as much as possible from this terrible failure in human history. As we discussed in class, it is important to remember that the physicians and other party members who participated in the Holocaust were not “aliens” who came from another planet or purely evil humans who woke up every day planning to commit murder out of pure hatred. The Holocaust was a calculated and rationalized progression of ideology gone awry, slowly developing in a step-wise progression which culminated in the horrors we now reflect on. The Final Solution represented the last step in a very gradual progression stemming from beginnings in seemingly rational practices. Moreover, the underlying eugenic framework was not a purely German sentiment at the time. The Germans were able to bring these ideas to the forefront of the global scene in a far more pronounced way, yet they cannot be credited entirely for the desire to sculpt their society into a uniform and superior machine. The role of some of the greatest minds in other countries, such as the U.S., in sculpting this thought process cannot be overlooked. These ideas, among others, shed light on the need to dig deep into the forces at play in the Holocaust in order to fully understand it and learn from it. Thinking about my early and secondary education, I have realized that all my knowledge about the Holocaust resided in a look at that end result: fathoming the atrocities and plans of an irrational and evil regime. The farthest my analysis ever went was to put the events in the context of the German post World War I depression, explaining how Hitler was able to gain support for his cause so easily. Yet that thought process still aligns with the idea that the Nazis were an “alien” and evil group who came and went, simply taking advantage of the German people’s desperation to enact a plan that had been intended from the beginning. Outside of school, I had a real fascination with the Holocaust growing up, but even all of the supplementary reading and media I was exposed simply served to paint the Nazis as the ultimate enemy against which the Americans fought as the “good guys.” Growing up, the Nazis were always used as an end-all description of evil and everything that is wrong in the world. I remember a real fear that I experienced when learning about some of the more terrible facets of the Holocaust, only finding consolation in the fact that Americans were the saviors and would never be capable of such destruction. With my own experience as a lens for analyzing the way in which children are exposed to the Holocaust, I can see the huge discrepancy between the perception we cultivate in our society and the truth that has recently come to light through this course. How can we hope to learnanything from the atrocities of the Holocaust if we refuse to see the Nazis as human beings just like us? Distancing ourselves from the ideologies underlying the development of the Holocaust only serves to quiet the cognitive dissonance that occurs internally when we entertain the idea that we would ever be capable of committing similar acts of hatred. Armed with the knowledge of America’s lack of infallibility throughout history, in addition to the true nature of the German rationale behind the Holocaust, it is easier to see how we could travel down a dangerous path similar to the one that Hitler led the Germans down so many years ago. Our overwhelming thirst for progress must be checked as we continue to uncover new frontiers in medicine, genetics, and societal attitudes. I think a very effective means for enacting this would be to provide a more critical look at the American role in the Holocaust to students earlier in education. Children in Germany grow up with the knowledge and guilt burdened on them by generations past. The benefit of such a thorough education for German children is that they are able to develop a greater respect for the value of all human life in the context of a political system. American children, coddled from a young age to embrace the infallibility of the “greatest country in the world” could benefit from a more realistic portrayal of the Holocaust in which our role in, and susceptibility to, its ideas are more fully explored. With everyone believing in American supremacy, it would be harder to question any ideas which gain popular traction, just as many Germans allowed nationalism to supersede morality. Thus, I think looking to our education of younger generations as a vehicle for societal critique is a valuable endeavor worth exploring, keeping in mind the need to provide an age-appropriate presentation that recognizes the developmental milestones in our capacity to think critically. To that end, a look at how schools are handling the Holocaust is a valuable launch point for future implementation of this framework. In a cross-sectional analysis of Holocaust education in textbooks from 1970 through 2008, Patricia Bromley and Susan Garnett-Russell outline the degree to which different countries address the Holocaust. They found that more globally connected countries were more likely to teach their students about the Holocaust. Of more interest to me was the notion that there has been a “shift in the nature of discussion, from a historical event to a violation of human rights or crime against humanity,” in presenting the Holocaust to students (Bromley and Russell 2010). This development seems to demonstrate a changing focus away from the distancing sort of treatment we would give to the Holocaust, describing it as a historical event to which we are unconnected. I am comforted by the fact that this study implies we have begun to realize the importance of keeping such events connected to human rights and a modern context, rather than dismissing them as historical events without contemporaneous relevance. In looking at the current American perspective on Holocaust education specifically, the United States Holocaust Memorial website demonstrates a promising initiative to educate teachers on how they can handle the Holocaust in a manner which does not shy away from addressing the complexities of such a difficult topic. An appreciation for the complexity is vital to being able to critically evaluate the Holocaust, and thus I think this is a very important facet of education to be cultivated. Regardless of how we treat the Holocaust in an educational context, being critical of our own perspective should be at the very foundation of how we educate futuregenerations. In order to make sure we do not go down a similar path, we need to keep in mind that as a country we are susceptible to something similar happening, and it may occur slowly over time without us even noticing. Vigilance and a critical eye are essential in moving forward as we continue to turn over stones in our quest for the progression of humanity. Fostering this awareness through a more realistic portrayal of the Holocaust in our education seems like a profound way to take meaning from its atrocities as we shape tomorrow’s leaders.

  • Galilee Declaration

    In May 2017, almost 100 scholars, educators and medical professionals from around the world met in Western Galilee, Israel to discuss medicine during and after the Holocaust. The conference resulted in the drafting of what is now known as the Galilee Declaration, which affirms the Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust and supplements it for health professions. It calls upon medical schools and other healthcare institutions to incorporate the study of medicine and the Holocaust. Below is the full text of the Galilee Declaration. The Galilee Declaration The participants in the Galilee Second International Workshop on Medicine after the Holocaust pledge the following: We unequivocally support the universal principles of the 2000 Declaration of the Stockholm International Forum on the Holocaust, namely: The Holocaust (Shoah) fundamentally challenged the foundations of civilization. The unprecedented character of the Holocaust will always hold universal meaning. The magnitude of the Holocaust, planned and carried out by the Nazis, must be forever seared in our collective memory. With humanity still scarred by genocide, ethnic cleansing, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils. Together we must uphold the terrible truth of the Holocaust against those who deny it. We must strengthen the moral commitment of our peoples, and the political commitment of our governments, to ensure that future generations can understand the causes of the Holocaust and reflect upon its consequences. We pledge to strengthen our efforts to promote education, remembrance and research about the Holocaust, both in countries that have already undertaken such initiatives and in those that choose to join this effort. We unequivocally assert that a moral imperative compels all health professions to supplement the Stockholm Declaration as follows: Professionals from science, medicine and other healthcare and social science fields played decisive roles in justifying, developing and carrying out some of the most appalling atrocities of the Third Reich, including the compulsory sterilization and medicalized murder of Germans, Austrians and other lives deemed unworthy of living; unethical, brutal experimentation on hospital patients and prisoners; and the unprecedented persecution, including mass murder and the Holocaust – the unique, partially-medicalized genocide of Jews and many others.Health professionals were prominent among the Nazi perpetrators and their collaborators with these heinous crimes, which were ostensibly designed to improve the health of the German population. Most of them remained unrepentant long after the Nuremberg trials. Acknowledging these medical atrocities is a continuing responsibility for all health professionals, their societies, and institutions. We acknowledge that the destructive potential of science focused solely on knowledge acquisition and population health without care for individual human beings peaked during the Third Reich with its extreme dehumanizing political conditions and profound moral failures of its health care and scientific establishments. These failures pose a major challenge to contemporary medicine, and they compel us to ensure that the lessons of the Holocaust are integrated into the identities of present and future physicians and other health professionals. We share a commitment to encourage the study of the roles of health professionals in medical atrocities committed during the Nazi period, leading up to and including the Holocaust, and the many implications that this legacy holds for us for today. This study should also include the achievements in maintaining high professional and human standards by some physicians and other persons entrusted with health care during the Holocaust. We share the general obligation of humanity to remember all the victims of medical atrocities during the Nazi period including the Holocaust and to honor all those who stood against it. We also share a special obligation to prevent the abuse of power in our healing professions. We therefore believe in recognizing the unique and critical roles played by health professionals, remembering those who were their victims, and honoring those who held true to their healers’ oaths in extreme circumstances. We share a commitment to shed light on the still obscured shadows of physicians and other health professionals, societies and institutions that perpetrated medical atrocities during the Nazi period. We will take all necessary steps to facilitate the opening of archives to ensure that all documents relevant to the role of medicine in the Holocaust are available to researchers. We call on institutions of higher learning in all healthcare professions and allied fields to incorporate into their curricula courses and programs on medicine and the Holocaust and its implications for contemporary practice, research and healthcare policy, and to support each other in implementing this Declaration. *emulating the Stockholm declaration

  • Overview of Nazi Medicine and the Ethical Violations During National Socialism

    By Susan Benedict, CRNA, PhD, FAAN Objectives: Describe the practice of medicine in Nazi Germany. Analyze medical practice and governmental policies that became united in their focus. Discuss ethical violations that were perpetrated upon people deemed to be inferior.

  • The Conditions and Antecedents

    Part I: Racism and Anti-Semitism Part II: Eugenics and "Racial Hygiene" in Europe and America By Susan Benedict, CRNA, PhD, FAAN Objectives: Describe anti-Semitism at the time Hitler came to power. Analyze how Hitler used racism and anti-Semitism as a basis for blame for economic, social, and health threats. Discuss racism and anti-Semitism as bases for eventual Nazi policies regarding marriage, sterilization, and legal and economic sanctions against “inferior” people.

  • Roles of Physicians, Nurses, and Caregivers in the "Final Solution"

    Dr. Susan C. Benedict, CRNA, PhD, FAAN acts as Professor of Nursing, Director of Global Health, as well as Department Chair at University of Texas Health Science Center in Houston School of Nursing. She also serves Co-Director of the Campus-Wide Program in Interprofessional Ethics. This module covers the role of physicians, nurses, and caregivers in the destruction of the Jews in Europe. It includes suggested readings, discussion points, and synopsis.

bottom of page