Alberta Eugenics Board

In 1928, the Province of Alberta, Canada, passed legislation that enabled the government to perform involuntary sterilizations on individuals classified as mentally deficient. In order to implement the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta in 1928, a four-person Alberta Eugenics Board was created. These four individuals were responsible for approving sterilization procedures. In 1972, the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed, and the Eugenics Board dismantled. During the 43 years of the Eugenics Board, it approved nearly 5,000 individual sterilizations, and 2,832 procedures were actually performed.

Historical context
The province of Alberta was the first part of the British Empire to adopt a sterilization act, and were the only ones who vigorously implemented it. The western provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, were close to the United States and highly influenced by American trends - during early debates regarding a sexual sterilization bill in Alberta, there were many references made to the U.S. legislation. Canada was rapidly becoming populated by immigrants, and the theme of Eugenics was emerging - supported by sponsors such as J.S. Woodsworth, Emily Murphy, Helen MacMurchy, Louise McKinney, Irene Palby, Nellie McClung, and the president of the University of Alberta, Dr. R.C. Wallace. In Alberta, Eugenics had seemingly positive intentions with the goal of bettering the gene pool.

In 1918, the Canadian National Committee on Mental Hygiene (CNCMH) was established by Dr. Clarence Hincks. The aim was to fight “crime, prostitution, and unemployment” which it claimed was strongly tied to feeblemindedness. One of the projects that the CNCMH and Hincks took on, along with Dr. C.K. Clarke, was conducting provincial surveys of institutions, and making subsequent recommendations to the provincial government  In 1919, Hincks and the CNCMH carried out a survey in Alberta, visiting several mental institutions. The results of their survey, published in 1921 attributed the frightening social inefficiency and corruption to mental inadequacy, and fervently recommended sterilization as a preventative measure. Indeed, they claimed to have found a link between mental abnormality and immorality.

At a United Farmers of Alberta convention in 1922, in response to the survey by Hincks and the CNCMH, the government was called on to draft and implement legislation for the segregation of feebleminded adults. As well, they were asked to investigate the feasibility of implementing a sterilization program in Alberta. R.G. Reid, the United Farmer’s of Alberta Minister of Health, assured the activists that the government was in favor of a sterilization program, and were only waiting for public opinion to catch up.

The United Farm Women of Alberta were one of the most powerful forces pushing for sterilization laws, and used their connections with the UFA government to aid in getting the legislation passed. At a campaign in 1924, president Mrs. Margaret Gunn proclaimed, “democracy was never intended for degenerates.” The reasoning that supporters of involuntary sterilization gave was that families with defective offspring were a financial burden on the province, especially in times of economic adversity.

On March 25, 1927, Honorable George Hoadley, the new Minister of Agriculture and Health in John E. Brownlee’s UFA government first introduced a sexual sterilization bill. Hoadley himself was not trained in either biological or agricultural science, so it was unusual that he pursued the eugenics movement so vehemently. The bill faced enormous opposition, primarily from the Conservative and Liberal Parties, and did not pass the second reading. Hoadley promised to reintroduce it the following year. He reintroduced the bill on February 23, 1928 and it was subsequently passed. On March 21, 1928, Alberta adopted what would forever be known as the Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. It was passed by parliament in Edmonton, and ratified by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Brought in by the U.F.A., the Act remained in place under the Social Credit governments of William Aberhart and Ernest Manning. It was not until Peter Lougheed’s Progressive Conservative government came into power in 1972 that the Eugenics Board was dismantled and the Sexual Sterilization Act repealed.

Like begets like
Although Mendelian inheritance principles were well understood by geneticists in 1928, advocates of the Eugenics movement held onto the belief that “like begets like.” They believed that the mentally ill would procreate and the result would be offspring who were in a sense replicates their parents. However, it is known (and was known at the time) that for recessive disorders, like doesn’t beget like, and even with dominant disorders, there is only a 50% risk of inheritance to the child. Often, the progeny of parents with mental deficiencies turn out to be completely normal. In addition, many of the mental disorder phenotypes witnessed in the patients were due to environmental interactions, such as German measles, and were independent of an individual’s genetic code.

Structure of the Alberta Eugenics Board
The Alberta Eugenics Board was constructed in order to administer the sexual sterilization program.1 In section 3, the Act called for a four person Eugenics Board to determine, on a case by case basis, whether sterilization was appropriate for a particular individual. The Act gave the Board power to examine people discharged from mental health institutions, and to direct sterilization if deemed necessary. Not only was unanimous decision required, but consent, either from the patient, parent, or guardian, was essential for the surgical procedures to proceed. The Act put in place specific requirements for the board members: Two of the Board members were required to be medical practitioners, nominated by the Senate of the University of Alberta and the Council of the College of Physicians. The other two non-medical practitioner members were appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and had to be well-known and of prominent reputation.

The original four members
The original four members appointed to the board by Kevin Waugh and Thomas Mortimer were:


 * Dr. E. Pope, Edmonton,
 * Dr. E.G. Mason, Calgary,
 * Dr. J.M. MacEachran, Edmonton, and
 * Mrs. Jean H. Field, Kinuso.

Dr. MacEachran, a philosopher and professor at the University of Alberta, was appointed Chair, and he served continuously in this position for nearly 40 years, resigning in 1965. He was succeeded by Dr. R.K. Thompson, a medical doctor who was head of the Board until the Sexual Sterilization Act was repealed in 1972. Over the 43 years that the Eugenic Board was in operation, there were only 21 board members. Between 1929 and 1972, all four board members were present for approximately 97% of the 398 Alberta Eugenics Board meetings that were held.

The first meeting of the Board was held in January 1929. At their second meeting, in March 1929, the Board established protocol to be followed during it’s quarterly meeting. The superintendents of the mental health institutions were to present the cases to the Board, along with prepared presentation summaries for each individual. These presentation summaries documented family history, sexual history, medical history and diagnosis, personality, social development, educational status, results of IQ testing, criminal record, ethnicity, religion, age, and whatever else could be used to guide the Board in making their decision. The patients were then interviewed by the board, and if the patients were not well enough to debut in front of the Board, the Board sometimes made visits to that patient’s institutional ward. Presenting institutions in Alberta included the Alberta Hospital in Ponoka, the Provincial Training School in Red Deer, the Alberta Hospital in Oliver, and Deerhome. Consent was initially required for all operational procedures, either from the patients or their parent or guardian. A competent surgeon was appointed to the case, however he was “not to be liable to any civil action by reason of such operation.”  Types of operations performed included vasectomies, salpingectomies (tubal ligation), orchidectomies (removal of testes), oophorectomies (removal of ovaries) and sometimes hysterectomies. Operations were performed in approved hospitals designated by the Board. In addition to the appointed Board members and presenters, it was not uncommon for other professionals, support staff, or visitors be present during the interviews.

Typically, there was attendance of 4 – 15 people per meeting, averaging 8.4 persons per meeting. On average, the Board spent approximately 13 minutes reviewing each case, and were able to discuss approximately 13 cases per meeting. The Board retained individual-level files for all of the cases considered. One of their main concerns was keeping tabs on the number of people processed. In addition to the routine case reviews, the Board also spent time during 63% of their meetings discussing general issues, signing forms, and examining correspondence.

By 1937, 400 operations had been completed. In 1937, and 1942, amendments were made to the Act. The first amendment came shortly after the Social Credit government came into power in 1934. The new Minister of Health, Dr. W.W. Cross, was dismayed that only hundreds of individuals had been sterilized, when thousands could have. He proposed an amendment that increased the authority of the Board, and widened the application of the Act. Dr. C.A. Barager, the Director of Mental Health for Alberta and a participant and presenter at Board meetings also urged the Board to remove the consent requirement from the Act. Following the change in legislation, if individuals were regarded as mental defectives, consent was no longer necessary for their sterilization. Another portion of the 1937 amendment increased the power that the Board held over individuals – sterilization procedures could now be performed if the Board deemed an individual “incapable of intelligent parenthood.” The success of this amendment was celebrated in 1937 in an article published by two mental health professionals, R.R. MacLean and E.J. Kibblewhite, where they noted the increasing simplicity with which they could proceed with their business. There was a high correlation between absence of consent requirement and subsequent sterilization: 89% of all presented and passed individuals whose cases did not require consent were sterilized, as opposed to 15% of cases where consent was necessary. A month after the 1937 amendment to the act, a special meeting was held in order to bring up cases presented in the past, where individuals were previously outside the scope of the Eugenics Board, but now were within the Board’s jurisdiction.

The 1942 amendment further increased the efficiency of the Board. Non-psychotic individuals with syphilis, epilepsy, and Huntington's Chorea were now encompassed by the Act, however for an unknown reason, the Board maintained that consent was still required in these cases.

Proceedings of the Eugenics Board
Between 1929 and 1972, 4785 cases were presented to the board, and 99% of these cases were approved. The 60 cases that were not approved were deferred cases that were later re-considered, and 14 of them were eventually passed. Only 60% of all cases that were sanctioned by the Board were actually completed, resulting in 2832 sterilization procedures performed in Alberta during the 43 years that the Alberta Eugenics Board was in power.

The 1930s were the shaping years of the Board, and they often turned to the Attorney General’s Department and the Minister of Health for advice. The young Eugenics Board was cautious and spent a considerable amount of time on each case. They seemed concerned with patient welfare, and were simply a group of educated people who wanted to improve the quality of the province. However, the 1930’s were still responsible for the most patient presentations – 1470 out of the 4785 presented.

In 1939, a depletion of staff due to the Second World War resulted in less time being spent per patient, and a drop in the sterilization rate. Beginning in the 1940s, women were more likely to be presented to the Board, even though they constituted less than 40% of all patients in the feeder institutions. On average, 64% of all women who were presented were sterilized, in comparison to 54% of men. There was a noticeable gender bias in the decision to present an individual. Out of the 2832 sterilization procedures completed, 58% were performed on females. Dr. J. Grekul has suggested that this inequality was due to women being more easily convinced to agree to sterilization.

The late 1950s and 1960s were characterized by sterilizations at younger ages, and a higher approval rate than in previous decades. The 1950s and 1960s combined resulted in 2034 presentations. Over 70% of all individuals presented were sterilized, as compared to 40% and 50% in the 1940s and 1930s, respectively. This increase in activity was partially due to the escalation of activity at the Provincial Training School in Red Deer, where they sustained enthusiasm for the sterilization program. The Board had become streamlined and were able to process more cases per meeting. They had become so efficient that sometimes operations were scheduled before patients had even been presented.

Although teenagers and young adults made up less than 20% of the Albertan population at the time, they comprised 44% of all presented cases, and 55% of all sterilization cases. Children and Albertans who were 40 years of age or older were greatly under-represented in the whole picture, as the Eugenics Board focused their efforts on individuals in the ‘child bearing years’ – those who were able and most likely to reproduce.

Over all decades, aboriginals were the foremost targets of the Eugenics Board’s attention. Although they were only responsible for 2 – 3% of the population, they were 6% of all presented cases. In the last few years that the Act was in place, Indians and Métis comprised about 27% of the sterilizations, although they were only accountable for 2.5% of the population.3  Furthermore, 74% of all aboriginal cases presented resulted in sterilization, which was alarmingly high – 14% above the average for all cases.

The Alberta Hospital in Ponoka was responsible for roughly 60% of all cases considered, followed by the Red Deer PTS with 21%, the Alberta Hospital in Oliver with 14%, and Deerhome with 4%.

Board controversy
The majority of the Board’s activities were conducted in secrecy, away from the criticism of the public eye, and even away from legislative inquiry. This secrecy, combined with the cooperation of the Social Credit government, resulted in the Board pursuing illicit activities not encompassed by the Act. The fact that the Board approved nearly every case it examined might suggest that their meetings and interviews were ineffectual, and they didn’t perform any serious investigation before approving a patient for sterilization. Some cases were passed even when patient IQs were above the cutoff point established by the board.

At times, surgeons performed operations without the approval of the Board, and other times they were given the power to decide which operation should be performed. Board also approved sterilization procedures for individuals who were already infertile – most notably a group of 15 Down syndrome boys where testicular biopsy tissue was surgically removed for the purpose of outside research experiments.

The end of the Eugenics Board
In 1972, Mr. King introduced the bill that revoked the Act. He cited three reasons for doing do:
 * 1) The Sexual Sterilization Act was based on medical and genetics theories which are now of questionable scientific validity.
 * 2) The Act was full of legal ambiguities, most notably in the section exempting surgeons from civil liability.  A legal opinion provided to the government suggested that this exemption was most likely ineffective.
 * 3) The primary reason for repealing the act was that fundamental human rights were in violation.2

In the mid-1990s, Leilani Muir, a victim of involuntary sterilization in 1959, sued the Alberta government. The case went to a full trial in 1995, and she was awarded nearly one million dollars Canadian including damages and legal costs. Since her trial, over 700 victims of the Alberta Eugenics Board have attempted to contest the Alberta government for similar reasons; the majority of these have been settled out of court.