Global maternal health and newborn health: Looking backwards to learn from history.

The late appearance of the 'M' on the international health agenda - in its own right and not just as a carrier of the intrauterine passenger - is thought-provoking. The 'M' was absent for decades in textbooks of 'tropical medicine' until the rhetoric question was formulated: 'Where is the "M" in MCH?' The selective antenatal 'high-risk approach' gained momentum but had to give way to the fact that all pregnant women are at risk due to unforeseeable complications. In order to provide trained staff to master such complications in impoverished rural areas (with no doctors), some countries have embarked on training of non-physician clinicians/associate clinicians for major surgery with excellent results in 'task-shifting' practice. The alleged but non-existent 'human right' to survive birth demonstrates that there have been no concrete accountability and no 'legal teeth' to make a failing accountability legally actionable to guarantee such a right.

Eugenics concept: from Plato to present.

All prospective studies and purposes to improve cure and create a race that would be exempt of various diseases and disabilities are generally defined as eugenic procedures. They aim to create the "perfect" and "higher" human being by eliminating the "unhealthy" prospective persons. All of the supporting actions taken in order to enable the desired properties are called positive eugenic actions; the elimination of undesired properties are defined as negative eugenics. In addition, if such applications and approaches target the public as a whole, they are defined as macro-eugenics. On the other hand, if they only aim at individuals and/or families, they are called micro-eugenics. As generally acknowledged, Galton re-introduced eugenic proposals, but their roots stretch as far back as Plato. Eugenic thoughts and developments were widely accepted in many different countries beginning with the end of the 19th to the first half of the 20th centuries. Initially, the view of negative eugenics that included compulsory sterilizations of handicapped, diseased and "lower" classes, resulted in tens of thousands being exterminated especially in the period of Nazi Germany. In the 1930s, the type of micro positive eugenics movement found a place within the pro-natalist policies of a number of countries. However, it was unsuccessful since the policy was not able to become effective enough and totally disappeared in the 1960s. It was no longer a fashionable movement and left a deep impression on public opinion after the long years of war. However, developments in genetics and its related fields have now enabled eugenic thoughts to reappear under the spotlight and this is creating new moral dilemmas from an ethical perspective.

Johannes Heinrich Schultz and National Socialism.

BACKGROUND: Johannes Heinrich Schultz (1884-1970) established the set of techniques known as "autogenic training." From 1936 until 1945 he worked as assistant director of the Göring Institute. His role during National Socialism has been underestimated in our opinion. METHOD: We considered Schultz's academic publications and his "autobiography" from 1964. RESULTS: Schultz publicly advocated compulsory sterilization as well as the "annihilation of life unworthy of life" and developed a diagnostic scheme which distinguished between the neurotic/curable and the hereditary/ incurable. In fact, this classification was then employed to decide between life and death. In order to justify the "New German Psychotherapy" alongside eugenic psychiatry, Schultz carried out degrading and inhuman "treatments" of homosexual prisoners of concentration camps who were in mortal danger. LIMITATIONS: This study was based on written documents. We were not able to interview contemporary witnesses. CONCLUSION: By advocating compulsory sterilization and the "annihilation of life unworthy of life" and by the abuse of homosexuals as research objects Schultz violated fundamental ethical principles of psychiatry.

A darker shade of green: medical botany, homeopathy, and cultural politics in interwar Germany.

In 1941 a proposal was made to Nazi SS Reichsführer, Heinrich Himmler, that extracts of a South American plant, Dieffenbachia seguine, might be used for the mass sterilization of racially undesirable war prisoners. The proposal was based on published animal fertility research conducted by Dr Gerhard Madaus, co-founder of a firm that produced and marketed natural medicinals. His fertility experiments were part of a broader series aimed at evaluating the scientific validity of ethnobotanical folk-knowledge. This article traces the historical background to the Madaus research: first, the role of homeopathy in the introduction of Dieffenbachias to western medicine; secondly, the social context of German 'alternative' medicine in the interwar period; and finally, the role of Madaus himself, whose homeopathically-oriented research on botanical medicinals inadvertently initiated the chain of events described here.