Citation

van der Meer T. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2014; 37(1): 50-62.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

24596963

Abstract

Between 1938 and 1968 some 400 sex offenders in the Netherlands who by court orders had been put at 'the discretion of the government' and were incarcerated in asylums for the criminally insane, 'voluntarily' submitted themselves to 'therapeutic' castration, the surgical removal of their testes. Prior to 1938, inspired by a Danish castration act from 1929, and urged by asylums that were overcrowded by sex offenders, the ethics of the surgery had been discussed for nearly a decade amongst theologians, (forensic) psychiatrists, jurists and politicians, mostly in the context of eugenic sterilization. Discussions of conflicting Catholic, Protestant and non-denominational points of view vis-à-vis eugenics resulted in consensus about 'therapeutic' and 'voluntary' castration. Sexual deviancy, according to some, was like a tumor located in the testes, which could therefore be removed without moral objections and the person was thus cured of his disease. Although obviously related to forensic psychiatry and concerned with issues like protection of society and treatment of offenders, discussions were never held in a strictly forensic context. Unlike in other countries in which castration policies were enforced, in The Netherlands the surgery was never embodied in law but subject to an informal protocol that covered political accountability. To satisfy Catholic objections references to eugenic aims were omitted from the documents, as were references to castration as a penalty.Based on international and Dutch literature (from both before and after 1938) as well as case histories, this article will show that the compromise about the therapeutic value of castration had no basis in medical knowledge, while 'voluntariness' (as elsewhere) was an acknowledged fallacy once surgeries had started. It was also acknowledged that castration did not really cure deviancy, but curbed libido and helped the castrate to suppress his urges. Nonetheless, because of the eugenic origins of discussions, associated with persistent confusion about the difference between castration and sterilization, it never became fully clear whether the surgery was meant to curb libido or to prevent the offenders from begetting inferior progeny.

Language: en