Search

This article focuses on the institutional development of neurology in Germany up to the rise to power of the National Socialists and the radical sociopolitical changes after 1933. A wide range of scattered secondary literature was assessed and evaluated. Additionally, some original sources are literally quoted and interpreted according to the context. Since the end of the nineteenth century a complicated process of separation from internal medicine and psychiatry led to the formation of a self-conscious discipline of neurology. The first generation of German neurologists succeeded in founding the German Journal for Neurology ( 'Deutsche Zeitschrift für Nervenheilkunde') in 1890 and their own neurological association, the Society of German Neurologists ('Gesellschaft Deutscher Nervenärzte', GDN) in 1907. On an international scale, however, the institutional implementation of neurology with only a small number of chairs and few neurology departments remained more than modest. The ambitions for autonomy ended 2 years after the change of power in 1933. Regulatory interventions by the government and psychiatric interests led to the fusion of the GDN with the psychiatric specialist society, the new association being called the Society of German Neurologists and Psychiatrists ('Gesellschaft Deutscher Neurologen und Psychiater', GDNP) in 1935. In this group psychiatrists dominated the discourse. The expulsion, imprisonment and murder of physicians declared as non-Aryan or Jewish along with the forced consolidation ( 'Gleichschaltung') at the universities prompted profound changes in medical and academic life. It remains an ongoing challenge of neurological historical research to measure the impact of this upheaval on the few neurology departments in hospitals and private practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are only a small number of studies dealing with the impact of eugenic theories and practices on the research of particular neurological diseases during the Third Reich. Thus, this contribution to the special issue on neurology in Germany between 1933 and 1945 focuses exemplarily on epilepsy research. By drawing on primary sources and secondary literature the article tries to reconstruct the scientific discourse of the time and consider the implications for patients. National socialistic ideology was based on eugenic thinking and the implementation of eugenic policies was a major political objective. An immediate effect of this policy was the passing of the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring ( Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) in 1933. According to this law 'hereditary epilepsy' along with various other neurological and psychiatric disorders was regarded as a mandatory indication for forced sterilization. Subsequently, funding of epileptological research was generously increased and extended, e. g. at the German Research Institute (Deutsche Forschungsanstalt) in Munich and the Rheinische Provinzial-Institut in Bonn. The main focus was placed on idiopathic forms of the disease, which were a priori considered as hereditary. At the annual meetings of the Society of German Neurologists and Psychiatrists (Gesellschaft deutscher Neurologen und Psychiater), lectures and debates on epilepsy repeatedly constituted a key topic. Some participants opted for a broad interpretation of 'endogeneity' and thus favored an extension of the practice of sterilization but others advocated a more differentiated and restricted attitude. Several neurology researchers showed a penchant for self-mobilization in line with the doctrine of the new government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The connection between systematic killing of the mentally ill and disabled, euphemistically called 'euthanasia' in the National Socialism ideology, and German brain research has been thoroughly investigated and in detail; however, the impact of this criminal nexus on the image and self-perception of German neurologists as well as the status of neurology as a medical discipline is still the subject of controversial debates. Between 1939 and 1945 the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (KWI) in Berlin along with other research centres were insofar enmeshed in the 'euthanasia' program as brains of killed patients were dissected in the guise of 'concomitant research' in order to generate medical knowledge. Affected were mainly individuals suffering from oligophrenia, early childhood brain atrophy, cerebral palsy and epilepsy. According to current historical research, collegial networks were instrumental in receiving brains of killed patients. Furthermore, civil research units were supplemented by military ones at the KWI. These, too, were concerned with the collection of medical knowledge, for instance on injuries of the brain and spinal cord. The historical approach to consider the Nazi organizations and medicine as 'resources for each other' seems, therefore, at least in part applicable to neurology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the consequences for neurology as a discipline which resulted from neurologists' participation in the crimes committed under National Socialism (NS). Chronologically, the current literature distinguishes mainly four overlapping stages: (1) a first phase was characterized by legal persecution and 'denazification', which was also the time of the Nuremberg doctors' trial in which no neurologists were on trial. A detailed documentation of the trial for the German medical profession was published by Alexander Mitscherlich. (2) In the subsequent practice of wide amnestying and reintegration of former Nazi followers during the 1950s, neurologists were no exception as its elite continued in their positions. The year 1953 was the year of the Lisbon scandal, when chiefly Dutch representatives protested against the participation of Julius Hallervorden in the International Congress of Neurology. The newly founded societies, the German Society for Neurology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie, DGN) and the German Society for Psychiatry and Neurology (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychiatrie und Neurologie, DGPN), unanimously supported their member. (3) The next period was characterized by a nascent criticism of the prevailing attitude of covering up the crimes committed by physicians during the Nazi period. The discovery of incriminating brain sections at various Max Planck Institutes brought neurology to the focus of the debate. (4) Since the 1980s and 1990s historians (of medicine) have been systematically examining medicine's Nazi past in a professional way, which resulted in a noticeable increase of knowledge. Additionally, a new generation of scholars provoked a change of mind insofar as they recognized medicine's responsibility for the crimes committed between 1933 and 1945. We expect that future historical research will further elucidate the history of neurology during the NS regime and have consequences for our current understanding of research ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]