on, two in men and two in women, performed--with the permission of
the patients and the civil authorities--for social reasons; both women had
previously had illegitimate children who were a burden on the community,
and all four patients were sexually abnormal; the operation enabled the
patients to be liberated and to work, and the results were considered in
every respect satisfactory to all concerned.[450]

The introduction of castration as a method of negative eugenics
has been facilitated by the use of new methods of performing it
without risk, and without actual removal of the testes or
ovaries. For men, there is the simple method of vasectomy, as
recommended by Naecke and many others. For women, there is the
corresponding, and almost equally simple and harmless method of
Kehrer, by section and ligation of the Fallopian tubes through
the vagina, as recommended by Kisch, or Rose's very similar
procedure, easily carried out in a few minutes by an experienced
hand, as recommended by Zuccarelli.

It has been found that repeated exposure to the X-rays produces
sterility in both sexes, alike in animals and men, and X-ray
workers have to adopt various precautions to avoid suffering from
this effect. It has been suggested that the application of the
X-rays would be a good substitute for castration; it appears that
the effects of the application are only likely to last a few
years, which, in some doubtful cases, might be an advantage. (See
_British Medical Journal_, Aug. 13, 1904; ib., March 11, 1905;
ib., July 6, 1907.)

It is scarcely possible, it seems to me, to view castration as a method of
negative eugenics with great enthusiasm. The recklessness, moreover, with
which it is sometimes proposed to apply it by law--owing no doubt to the
fact that it is not so obviously repulsive as the less radical procedure
of abortion--ought to render us very cautious. We must, too, dismiss the
idea of castration as a punishment; as such it is not merely barbarous but
degrading and is unlikely to have a beneficial effect. As a method of
negative eugenics it should never be carried out except with the subject's
consent. The fact that in some cases it might be necessary to enforce
seclusion in the absence of castration would doubtless be a fact exerting
influence in favor of such consent; but the consent is essential if the
subject of the operation is to be safeg