Library Collections: Document: Full Text

Still another factor enters into the problem -- the personal equation of the parties to a marriage contract. For when two persons contemplate matrimony, it can usually be taken for granted that their judgment has, for the time, taken wings. Professor McCready, in his lectures at the College of Physicians and Surgeons, used to say his case records showed that for various reasons he had advised one or both parties against marriage some sixty-eight times; and his records also showed that sixty-eight times the couples went almost straight to the altar.

But temporary obsessions by those who ask an opinion is no excuse for inability to advise intelligently, or, if necessary, to restrain persons from a fatal mistake. Therefore the other four factors in our problem demand all the more careful study. While the difference between a simple deformity and blindness is evident, it is not easy to say whether the recurrence of a given defect is "possible" or "probable." Our decision, then, must be based on three groups of data: first, whether the defect is inherited as a dominant or a recessive; second, whether it is a sex-linked characteristic, and, third, whether both families show the defect.

A few illustrations will show how these four cardinal conditions in our problem may serve as the basis for an opinion by an ophthalmologist when he is called on to give advice in the case of a proposed marriage. Thus:

(a) When we have to do only with a deformity, and its reappearance is doubtful, no special objection need be raised.

(b) When we have to do only with a deformity, and its reappearance is probable, the parties to the marriage should both be warned of the probability of the reappearance of that defect in their offspring.

(c) When we have to do with blindness, and its reappearance is doubtful, a stricter attitude toward the union can be assumed.

(d) When we have to do with blindness, and its reappearance is probable, the question assumes its most serious aspect. If the family history shows that this defect is in reality dominant, then half the children on the average will develop the defect; or even if the defect is recessive, but occurs in both families, the danger is practically the same.

Another phase of the same problem is presented when a couple is already married, and with little or no history on either side of eye defect; yet in spite of that, for reasons which we do not know, one child after another, blind or partly blind, is born to these parents. This congenital blindness is in one way quite different genetically from hereditary blindness, but from the standpoint of eugenics, families with hereditary and with congenital blindness may be considered together as one group and classed as hereditary. It is desirable to appreciate how important this group is, but space permits here only the categorical statement of a few facts, which, properly presented, would fill a small volume. These facts are:

(a) The number of this group in the United States is considerable. It has been estimated at about 8,000 and upward. According to the census of 1910, the total number of blind was 52,272. Counting unavoidable and ad- mitted errors in that census, the results of subsequent surveys, and increase of population, the National Committee for the Prevention of Blindness estimated the number of blind in 1917 at from 100,000 to 110,000. According to the data given by Best in his exhaustive and recent study of the blind in this country, the proportion of hereditary and congenital blind is considerably larger than here stated. But in giving estimates, the minimum limit is evidently the safest.

(b) The cost also is considerable. According to statistics carefully collected in Massachusetts and elsewhere, the average cost per year of each blind person in and out of institutions is at least $475. This gives us a total annual cost of some $3,800,000.

(c) It is unjust to the blind to allow them to be brought into existence simply to lead miserable lives.

(d) It is unjust to taxpayers to be compelled to support them.

(e) The longer we delay action to prevent this blindness, the more difficult the problem becomes.

(f) A large part, if not all, of this misery and expense could be gradually eradicated by sequestration or by sterilization, if the transmitter of the defect preferred the latter. An idea of this plan is given by the somewhat similar one for dealing with feeblemindedness. In 1913, laws for sterilization, under certain circumstances, had been passed in twelve states and proposed in nine others. Bulletin 10 of the Eugenics Record Office, Cold Spring Harbor, L. I., N. Y., gives a map showing the status at that time of such legislation. Where such eugenic laws have been enacted or favorably considered, probably existing laws could be properly amended or new laws passed to prevent this form of blindness. The same bulletin gives the form of a model law for this purpose. It was prepared by committees composed of the most eminent physicians, surgeons, sociologists, students of genetics and similar experts in this country. That law could be made applicable to the prevention of hereditary blindness, but with an important difference, which makes the prevention of this form of blindness comparatively easy and inexpensive. No legal action is essential until after a marriage has been found to produce blind children, and even then sequestration of the transmitter of the defect may be substituted for sterilization. Moreover, if this sequestration is of a kindly nature, with congenial occupations suited to the intelligence and social tastes of the subject, the sense of restraint is slight, since it is reduced to the minimum. This is not theory but experience, as shown especially by the colonies for the feebleminded established by Dr. Charles Bernstein of the State Custodial Asylum at Rome, N.Y.