
Fake doctor saved thousands of infants and changed medical history (2018) - Alex3917
https://nypost.com/2018/07/23/how-fake-docs-carnival-sideshow-brought-baby-incubators-to-main-stage
======
Animats
_“You had a raging climate of eugenics which did not directly target preemies,
but did directly target children who had severe disabilities. It was an
environment where we only wanted to produce the fittest babies. That was a
very strong cultural undercurrent. People just felt like these children were
not worth saving.”_

Yes, the US used to have quality control on people. Ellis Island was a quality
control checkpoint for immigrants. The sick were rejected and sent back where
they came from.

~~~
cdev_gl
I'm always impressed by the way a simple turn of phrase can hide
disproportionate impact on human lives.

Specifically interesting in this context is that the turn of the 20th century,
and the 1920s in particular, is really the birth place of modern immigration
policy.

Of note is the fact that the requirement of visas for entry and quotas on
point of origin appeared around this time- if you read newspaper op-eds for
the immigration act of 1924 (or the earlier chinese exclusion act), these
measures are specifically pointed out as a way to maintain the racial makeup
of the country.

Prior to that point, visitors could just turn up at Ellis island for entry.
Afterwards, the island itself served more as an offshore detention center for
what were then classified as radicals, anarchists, and those "likely to become
a public charge"— awaiting deportation.

Citizenship, too, could once be had for as little as the price of a dozen
eggs-- check out this booklet published 1921:
[https://archive.org/details/howtotakeoutyour00metrrich/page/...](https://archive.org/details/howtotakeoutyour00metrrich/page/5)

"All it costs is $1, not a penny more. No witnesses, no examination, no pull
required." \-- 2 years of residence later, another set of papers (also on
Archive.org) and a short literacy test (added in 1917) and you could be a
citizen-- but this rapidly changed as additional quotas and restrictions were
added.

The history of immigration law is a fascinating topic, and there's a lot of
interesting primary sources available.

~~~
ekianjo
A literacy test in early 20th century would already exclude a lot of poor
people by definition. not sure why you make it sound like it was a formality.

~~~
ltbarcly3
The literacy test was to gain citizenship after you had already been granted
permanent residency, so while they wouldn't be eligible to vote in federal
elections, illiterate people would still enjoy almost the benefits and rights
of any other US person. Almost anyone can learn to read, it's not that hard,
almost every 5 year old learns to do it. If an adult in the early 1900's
wanted to be a citizen, but were blocked by a basic literacy test and still
didn't learn to read it's because they weren't interested in putting the
effort into it (there are people with severe disabilities, that is a totally
different situation and i'm not addressing that). Of course it's way easier to
be born rich, but if you think someone who is poor but motivated can't learn
to read you are insulting their intelligence.

~~~
lazyasciiart
The literacy test was a barrier to entering the country, not to citizenship.
[https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-a...](https://history.state.gov/milestones/1921-1936/immigration-
act)

And while that one didn't have a very large effect, the one that did block
people from voting managed to filter out black people very well:

[https://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/could-you-pass-this-test-
give...](https://metro.co.uk/2017/09/20/could-you-pass-this-test-given-to-
black-people-registering-to-vote-in-america-in-1964-6941338/)

------
leoc
For context, 1920 is five years after Chicago doctor Harry Haiselden murdered
disabled baby John Bollinger to widespread public support from all the best
people (Clarence Darrow ofc, Hellen Keller ...), and three years after he
released a film about it. [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-black-
stork-9780...](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-black-
stork-9780195135398)

~~~
homonculus1
Whatever your ethical stance may be, refusing to perform a surgery is not
murder.

~~~
leoc
When have a duty of care to them, refuse surgery with the specific intention
of causing their death, and prevent others from assisting them, then yes it
is.

------
playing_colours
I cannot even express how much love and gratitude I feel to him and people
like him. He is like the father to all those people whose lives he saved.
Something inside me is longing to be able to do similar deeds, and have such a
meaningful, impactful life!

~~~
pjkundert
Perhaps championing Adoption is one such strategy?

Today, young women who find themselves pregnant face a similar stark choice,
as mothers of preemies did back then: they're given the choice of either
Abortion, or Abandonment in state institutions, both of which dehumanize the
lost children.

Adoption of children faces the same cultural ambivalence that preemies and
slaves faced historically, even though there are millions of adoptive parents
who wait years for a child!

In my province of Canada, the number of adopted infants is in the _single_
_digits_ , while thousands of families wait for years without a child, and
thousands of babies are aborted -- and the mother is never given the choice to
allow the child to grow up in a loving family...

Perhaps we can make the loss and abandonment of children as unthinkable as
slavery and discarding preemies to die was!

~~~
deftnerd
I imagine that one of the difficulties is that a woman who gets pregnant and
doesn't want to have the child finds that the process of pregnancy and birth
is very difficult financially. It increases expenses, and decreases available
time for employment which affects their finances from the supply side too.

Many people find that practical concerns, like finances, override any moral
qualms they might have on the concept.

If the US ever gets a socialized medical system, it'll be interesting to see
if abortions decrease and babies available for adoption increase. Pregnant
people will still face a decrease in finances on the supply side because
they'll have to take time off work, but removing the expenses could reduce the
problems with the practicality of basically being an incubator for needy
parents who want to adopt.

------
savingGrace
The title 'Fake doctor' makes this piece sound very negative from the get-go.
I assumed I was going to be reading about people abusing the medical field.
Instead it was about a man trying to help save babies.

------
dev_dull
> _Woolsey recalled a sideshow exhibit featuring prematurely born babies whose
> lives were saved right there on the Boardwalk. Resting in new machines
> called incubators, the babies made medical history while serving as a prime
> attraction for gawking tourists._

I read that and thought "what in the world. A spectacle? Can you imagine such
a thing today?" Then I finished reading and saw this line:

> _Visitors were charged a quarter to view the babies, and the money went to
> their care._

------
srge
TL;DR: "Martin Couney, a self-appointed “doctor” — his credentials turned out
to be nonexistent — who nonetheless saved thousands of infants, and introduced
incubators to the modern world."

~~~
ewidar
> to the modern world

To the USA, the technology was apparently already in use in Europe.

~~~
Sharlin
Yeah, that was a weird turn of phrase in the article.

