Law for the Prevention of Hereditarily Diseased Offspring

Definition and legal-historical classification of the Hereditary Health Act

Das Hereditary Health Act (Law for the Prevention of Offspring with Hereditary Diseases, GzVeN) was a law of the German Reich enacted on 14 July 1933 during the National Socialist seizure of power. Its aim was to allegedly prevent “hereditarily ill” offspring through forced sterilization. The law is among the eugenic measures of the Nazi regime and marks a severe encroachment on personal rights as well as the family lives of countless people. Today, it is a central example of National Socialist racial policy and eugenically motivated legislation.

Content and structure of the Hereditary Health Act

The Hereditary Health Act consisted of 25 paragraphs and regulated, among other things, the prerequisites and procedure for compulsory sterilization. The law defined which diseases and disabilities were considered “hereditarily ill” from the perspective of the Nazi state and for which persons could or should be sterilized.

Hereditary diseases as defined by the law

The diseases explicitly mentioned in the law included:

• Congenital feeblemindedness
• Schizophrenia
• Circular (manic-depressive) insanity
• Epilepsy
• Hereditary blindness
• Hereditary deafness
• Severe hereditary malformations

Chronic alcoholism could also be used as grounds for forced sterilization.

Requirements for an order

The law permitted sterilization if “based on scientific knowledge there is a probability that the descendants will suffer from serious hereditary diseases” (§ 1 GzVeN).

Right to apply and course of the procedure

An application for sterilization could be made by doctors, institution directors, and certain authorities, but not by the affected persons themselves. The decision was made by a specially established Hereditary Health Court, consisting of one judge and two medical assessors. Appeals against the decision were possible at the Higher Hereditary Health Court. The medical procedure itself could only be performed by specialists.

Constitutional analysis and criticism

From today’s perspective, the Hereditary Health Act stands in diametric contrast to the fundamental rights of the Federal Republic of Germany, particularly human dignity (Art. 1 GG), the right to bodily integrity (Art. 2 para. 2 GG), and the protection of the family (Art. 6 GG). The law became a central instrument of National Socialist population policy and gravely violated the principles of the rule of law and the protection of individual freedom.

Effects and implementation of the law

It is estimated that between 1933 and 1945 around 400,000 people were forcibly sterilized, with numerous health consequences and many deaths related to the procedures documented. The sterilizations were often enforced without or against the will of those affected and were frequently associated with social exclusion and discrimination. Particularly impacted were people with cognitive, psychological, and physical disabilities.

Further development and subsequent repeal

Continuation in the Third Reich

The Hereditary Health Act formed the basis for further inhumane laws, such as the Law for the Prevention and Destruction of Life Unworthy of Life, as well as numerous measures involving the murder of people with disabilities and mental illnesses as part of Aktion T4.

Legal status after 1945

After the end of the Second World War, the Hereditary Health Act was no longer applied in the Federal Republic of Germany. For the GDR, the law of 29 January 1946 repealed Nazi legislation (“Control Council Law No. 1” in the Soviet Occupation Zone). In the territory of the Federal Republic, the law was effectively nullified by Allied regulations and subsequent German legislation, but formal repeal only occurred later.

Rehabilitation and compensation of the victims

Recognition of the injustice and compensation for the victims was only achieved decades later in the German legal system. The victims of forced sterilization were formally rehabilitated by the Law for the ‘Compensation for National Socialist Injustices in Criminal Justice’ (NS-StrRehaG, 1998) and were granted compensation and support services under certain conditions.

Significance in current law and social reappraisal

The Hereditary Health Act is now seen as a prime example of human rights-violating legislation and is the subject of comprehensive academic, ethical, and legal examination. The law represents one of the gravest intrusions into bodily self-determination and personal rights in the German constitutional state and is often discussed in the context of Nazi medical crimes, eugenics, and bioethics.

Literature and further references

Important legislative materials

• RGBl. I 1933, p. 529
• NS-StrRehaG, BGBl. I 1998, p. 1605

Further reading

• Udo Benzenhöfer: Medical Sterilization of the Mentally Ill 1934-1945. 1991.
• Gisela Bock: Forced Sterilization under National Socialism. 1986.
• Michael Wunder (ed.): Nazi Forced Sterilization. Victims, Perpetrators, Consequences. 2005.

Conclusion

The Hereditary Health Act marks a dark chapter in German legal history. Its introduction and implementation illustrate the possibilities and dangers of politically motivated legislation when basic fundamental rights are suspended. Thorough legal, societal, and moral examination remains a duty and warning for future rule-of-law actions.

Frequently asked questions

What legal requirements had to be met for sterilization under the Hereditary Health Act?

Very specific legal requirements had to be fulfilled for an order for sterilization (“hereditary health sterilization”) under the Hereditary Health Act. First, the measure could only be carried out if a person had a hereditary disease catalogued in the law or it was assumed that this was the case. Relevant diseases included, for example, congenital feeblemindedness, schizophrenia, circular insanity, hereditary epilepsy, hereditary chorea (Huntington’s disease), hereditary blindness/deafness, as well as severe hereditary malformations. The decision as to whether these conditions were met was not made by the affected person themselves, but by a special Hereditary Health Court, acting upon application by authorities, a doctor, or close relatives.

The court also had to examine whether the reproduction of the affected person would almost certainly result in offspring with severe physical or mental disabilities. It was further intended that the interests of the affected person in the procedure—sometimes through a so-called curator—should be protected. The intervention could also be refused if it involved a serious risk to the life or health of the affected person. Legal remedies against the court’s order could be lodged (appeal), but in such cases a judicial review would again take place, which was also primarily medical in nature and gave precedence to “hereditary health” over self-determination rights.

Who was allowed to apply for sterilization under the Hereditary Health Act?

The application for sterilization under the Hereditary Health Act was not limited to the affected person. Rather, the law enabled other persons or institutions to apply for sterilization as well. This particularly included doctors involved with the diagnosis or treatment of hereditarily burdened diseases. Legal representatives of the affected person, especially parents or guardians, could also submit an application if the affected person was not eligible to apply, for example, due to minority or lack of legal capacity. State institutions and health authorities were also empowered to apply if they became aware of cases where “risk to hereditary health” was suspected. Institutional and individual applicants had to credibly demonstrate that the legal requirements for sterilization were met. The actual decision-making authority then rested with the Hereditary Health Courts, which reviewed the applications.

How was the procedure before the Hereditary Health Court structured?

The proceedings before the Hereditary Health Court were characterized by strict legality and a formalistic process, which, however, took the rights of the affected persons into account only to a limited extent. Once an application was received, it was handled by a special chamber consisting of at least one judge and two medical assessors. The chamber reviewed medical opinions, conducted further medical examinations if necessary, and at least formally granted the affected person the right to be heard. In practice, however, the possibilities for effective defense were very limited. A curator could be appointed to represent the interests of the affected, but their role was often marginalized by the courts and authorities. An appeal (complaint) to the competent Higher Regional Court was provided for, but this generally reviewed the decision from a medical-hereditary biological and not a constitutional perspective. The procedure was subject to special acceleration to rapidly implement the legislator’s intended goals.

Were there possibilities to contest a decision of the Hereditary Health Court?

Decisions of the Hereditary Health Court could be appealed within a certain period. The appeal led to a higher court, usually a chamber with a similar composition (judge and doctors) at the Regional Court, re-examining the case. In the course of this review, however, the medical and hereditary-biological requirements were primarily reassessed. The possibility of invoking fundamental rights such as the right to bodily integrity was almost non-existent in law, since these were largely hollowed out, particularly after the Gleichschaltung (coordination) of the judiciary in the Third Reich. In rare cases, interventions were rejected for medical reasons, but a fundamental annulment due to constitutional objections to the law practically never occurred, as the law was deemed constitutional in the Nazi state.

What role did medical reports play in the decision-making process?

Medical reports were of central importance in the procedures under the Hereditary Health Act. Usually, a medical report had to be attached to the application, which provided the diagnosis and the alleged or actual hereditary nature of the disease. The Hereditary Health Court appointed at least one additional expert, who gave an independent assessment apart from the initial doctor. The experts were required not only to diagnose but also to provide a probability-based justification that the affected person’s offspring would be at significant risk of serious health damage. The reports were regularly the decisive evidence for the court’s decision, as the courts typically gave priority to medical assessments and an independent legal evaluation often did not take place. In practice, this medical dominance often led to hasty decisions to the detriment of the person concerned.

What legal consequences did a judicial order for sterilization have for the affected person?

A judicial order cleared the way for a permanent medical sterilization procedure, which was generally considered obligatory. The procedure was performed—usually after the expiry of the appeal period or after confirmation by the appeals court—regardless of the affected person’s will. Anyone who refused the procedure had to expect to be forcibly brought in and to have the measure performed. The order was binding in that it was not revoked or appealable after the conclusion of the process. The actual consequences ranged from severe physical and psychological health effects to lifelong social exclusion. Furthermore, upon remarriage or marriage of the sterilized person, the law excluded any reversal or correction of the procedure, resulting in lasting disenfranchisement.

Was the Hereditary Health Act declared retroactively void or rehabilitated after 1945?

After the collapse of the Nazi regime, the Hereditary Health Act was initially suspended by the Allies in the Federal Republic of Germany. Legally, however, there was no general retroactive declaration of nullity for a long time; instead, the law was repealed by Control Council Law No. 1 and the application of similar laws was withdrawn. Only decades later were victims of forced sterilizations formally recognized as persecuted persons of the Nazi regime and rehabilitated under the Federal Compensation Act. The civil and criminal assessment of interventions was often complicated in the early post-war years by the fact that courts and authorities regarded the then legal situation as formally “lawful.” Full political and social rehabilitation and recognition of the illegality of the measures was a lengthy process, which was only largely achieved from the 1980s onward.