How do you deal with Krueppeln


On the history of the cripples

I use the word cripple throughout my contribution, although according to the scientifically made division, for example, the mentally handicapped do not fall under this term. If I still only speak of the cripple, it is because the discrimination and special treatment apply in a more or less strongly modified form to all disabled people.

When people talk about the cruel treatment of cripples today, it usually happens in connection with what happened in Germany at the time of the National Socialist dictatorship. The contempt of the cripples, which ended in sterilization and murder, is interpreted as a unique historical accident. That this assessment is a mistake will be shown in the following. Because the degradation, the singling out or the physical annihilation of cripples is not a phenomenon of the recent past, but a continuous process in which the thinker of their epochs, the clerical dignitaries and, last but not least, doctors or special educators carry their share. On the other side are the cripples: humiliated to the object, placed on the same level as the animal, forced to ingratiate themselves with normality, forced to despise one's own otherness - there is no history of the cripple as an accepted person.

The manifold ways of dealing with cripples in the past centuries should only be briefly presented here. What is decisive is the image that the non-handicapped environment makes of the cripple, the social functions assigned to the cripple and the effects on the cripple himself.

Physically Weakness were given a chance of survival after the other members of a tribe were able to obtain an economic surplus, especially in food. However, the survival of the cripples did not only depend on economic conditions. Rather, the prevailing customs, rites or magical ideas were decisive.

Some examples:

Various Eskimo tribes killed their crippled children because the harsh living conditions (constant hunting, often rapid igloo building, nomadic life) apparently ruled out any additional attention to the cripples. However, the Paiute tribe in the United States lived in similarly adverse circumstances, but crippled children were neither excluded nor killed. The cause of this behavior is likely to be the disdain for the value of performance while at the same time appreciating the support of Weaknesses be.

Certain tribes of East Africa expose deformed children at low tide to allow the tide to "take them where it came from" [1]. In another tribe in East Africa, the extended family is traditionally obliged to look after the crippled relatives. In addition to this traditional requirement, age is the overriding value here, so that cripples can also achieve a recognized position in the tribe (it remains questionable, however, to what extent non-handicapped and crippled old people receive the same recognition).

In summary it can be said that a physical deviation was always a shortcoming among primitive peoples. Whether the cripple was allowed a life at all was decided by the ideas of the environment into which he was born.

Some Germanic tribes are known to kill newborn cripples if the father did not accept it. The question here is whether the development of patriarchy had a direct influence on killing practices. In this context it would be interesting to investigate the causes and consequences of a Frisian people's law from the 9th century, according to which only the mother was allowed to kill her child with impunity. Further research is required to answer the open questions about the role of patriarchy in connection with the murder of cripples.

With the emergence of the first class societies, the question of treating the cripples was given a new quality. With the division of the people into rich and poor, the factor that comes to the fore is whether the rich considered the survival of a cripple to be necessary. Such thinking can be found 5000 years ago in Mesopotamia, the first high culture.

The temple was at the center of life at that time; Priests therefore had overriding power. They acquired medical and surgical knowledge and only passed it on to pleasant scholars. Only those who could pay were treated, the poor and cripples fell by the wayside. Religion sustained injustice: "Those who live in harmony with the gods are healthy and happy; those who disobey the commandments get sick." Sickness as a sin - an old image. Cripples were seen as harbingers of doom. A clay tablet prophesies: "If a slave gives birth to a child without a mouth, the sick mistress of the house will die."[2]

The discrepancy between the possibilities for help and the reality for cripples is clearly evident in ancient Greece: on the one hand, groundbreaking scientific findings in the field of medicine, on the other hand, humiliation, hiding or killing of the cripples.

In Sparta, state experts assessed the newborns. Asked a physical one defect firmly, the children without exception were thrown to death on the rock of Taygetus. In the warrior state of Sparta they were considered useless and burdensome; Strong fighters were needed to consolidate the central state power in order to be able to expand the sphere of influence to other regions. These strivings determined all actions and thoughts of the Spartans. So health was considered a virtue, while illness was a crime.

In the Athens city-state it is first noticeable that there was medical treatment here. Even the slaves received medical help, but only if this made their labor usable again: the treatment was cheaper than buying a new slave. This economic perspective alone gave the cripple little chance. He stayed alive when he was used, offered, or used. The deaf and mute were seen as willing workers who did not cause unrest, crippled women were left with nothing but prostitution; The blind were often pushed into the special position of the prophet, etc. The ideas of the decisive philosophers and statesmen of Athens also speak a clear language. Plato, representative of the aristocratic-oligarchic party, says: "...if one is born mutilated, they are, as befits, hidden in an inaccessible and unknown place "[3] and "He who cannot live does not need to be cared for, since he is of no use to himself or to the state"[4]. In Plato's basic idea, the procreation and upbringing of the best regulated by state regulations, there is no place for cripples. It is not without good reason that Plato is viewed as a precursor of idealistic-reactionary currents in medicine.

Aristotle criticizes this idealism, but he advocates something similar about Krüppeln. So "the children must also be physically in the condition desired by the legislature" [5]. Aristotle further determines: "As for the abandonment or admission of children, it should be a law that nothing mutilated is brought up."[6] This provision runs counter to the general prohibition on suspension. Accordingly, a physical difference outweighs other social rules.

In addition to the ideal of a beautiful physique, the overriding values ​​of war ability and economic usability also apply to the Roman Empire. Rome needed warriors and slaves in order to maintain its military and economic power over many peoples. Those who could not serve that were put aside. The Spanish governor Cato recommended, "old oxen and other living inventory as well as old equipment, old and sick slaves and other superfluous things for sale "[7]. Unsaleable slaves were abandoned on the Tiber Island and left to their fate. With such rigid segregation practices the Weaknesses it is not surprising that in Rome the killing of deformed children was for the first time approved by law. According to the law of the 12 tablets, it was sufficient for legal killing if five witnesses had declared the child to be a freak.

The consul, educator and philosopher Seneca reveals the different attitudes towards the old slave on the one hand and the cripple on the other. Here he stands up for the care of the slaves, since they are also people, there he denies the cripple the life of all things matter: "We kill great dogs, we kill a wild and irrepressible bull ... We eliminate freak births, we even drown children when they are born weak and deformed, and it is not anger, but reason, what is unsuitable to part with healthy. "[8] The mention of wild animals and cripples in one breath says enough about the appreciation of the Romans. The killing of the children was justified with the view that every disturbance in the course of nature was unfortunate. Brutal, but fitting the living situation of the cripples, the Roman vernacular: "Bread for cripples means double misfortune: once you lose what you give, and secondly you prolong your life."[9]

For Rome the problem arose of providing (medical) care for its standing armies. For this purpose, hospitals were built in which, among other things, those who had been mutilated during the war were cared for. This concession to the soldiers, necessary to maintain combat morale, confirmed the separation into war cripples and those who were crippled. If they received minimal support, the newborns were already affected by the devastating Roman legal system. The hierarchical structure of the cripples that still exists today has one of its origins here.

Wherever military and economic criteria often meant the end of the cripple, the spreading Christianity began. The cripple was no longer constantly cast out or killed, but became a suffering brother who had to be cared for out of pity. However, the new relationship with the cripple was not unselfish. Because Christianity took on more and more state-supporting functions, so it was worthwhile to demonstrate Christian sentiments. Against this background, love for one's neighbor developed into a veritable competition between the monks, the wealthy merchants, for the greatest benefit they had achieved. Foster homes were built to publicly testify to Christian activity. This hustle and bustle was taken to extremes when almsgiving for a cripple was tantamount to buying ransom for sins committed (give the cripple a piece of bread and it will be forgiven that you robbed the baker!).

The cripple was only a means to an end. There was no alternative for him to get out of the role of the sufferer, the helpless object. Christianity saved him from death, but did not give life to the cripple. The nursing homes that are emerging are the harbingers of an increasingly perfectly functioning segregation.

With the slow decline of feudalism, Christianity is openly misused as a means of power to silence critics as magicians, witches or heretics. Cripples were often burned at the stake of the Inquisition, demonized as beings of strange worlds.

It turns out that the princes of the church never saw the cripple as a human being either. Martin Luther also believed in the hand of the devil, because he caused "deafness, dumbness, lameness and fever" [10]. Luther himself wanted to drown a crippled child with his own hands to take it away from the devil.

The cripples lived from begging, the ransom of sins still flourished, although with the increasing poverty of the population the alms became noticeably less. In addition to the humiliating waiting for the gifts of passers-by, the cripple had the choice of surrendering himself to the mockery of the nobility as a court jester or to the pleasure of the people as a circus sensation. In all this, they were not only laughed at, they were still considered to be carriers of calamity: pregnant women spat in the cripple's face to avert evil. Significantly a notarial order of the Emperor Maximilian I from the year 1512, which says in § 4: "Anyone who cannot speak or write is respected like a dead man."[11]

With the development of the industrialized countries, the aspects of productivity, physical and mental integrity dominate the foreground. The cripples fell victim to the established rules of public order; the streets were cleared by beggars, and the welfare work was increasingly taken over by central urban offices. The cripples disappeared more and more systematically behind the walls of the institution. The number of disposal facilities increased with the increasing medical and social hygiene knowledge, specialization moved for the cripples your Special treatment after itself: the insane were put in special rooms, leprosy sufferers completely shut off from the environment, epileptics had been given separate departments since the 12th century. Another form of segregation was the poor and workhouses that emerged at the beginning of the early capitalist epoch. Anyone who could not freely sell their labor was interned here and forced into forced labor. Many cripples were among the inmates of these houses. The cripple disappeared from the street scene.

The French Revolution brought about the final independence of the bourgeoisie; With the age of the Enlightenment and humanism, the individual moved into the center of the world view. For Krüppel, this new point of view initially meant that doctors and middle-class educators turned to them with interest and dealt with them. The living conditions of the cripples, however, by no means improved. Although they were no longer a means of acquiring salvation, they now received their purpose as the subject of scientific discussions and economic considerations. The cripple remained an object that had to be allowed to happen.

German law always aptly reflects the rank assigned to the cripple in the social system. Until the 19th century, the "killing of cripples was not considered to be the killing of people" [12]. It was not until 1840 that the paragraph appeared in the Braunschweig law book: "Whoever kills cripples without authorization is punished with imprisonment for up to 6 weeks or a fine."[13] Of course, this bears no relation to other penalties, such as the murder of non-disabled people. Also note the inset in the paragraph unauthorized - by order of third parties, the murder appeared to be legal.

From around the 18th century, medical professionals began to separate the cripples into the physically crippled, the feeble-minded and idiots. The aim of this division was to remove the reliable and usable cripples from the economically Useless to separate. At the same time and with the same background, the construction of the special schools begins. With the political stabilization of the German Reich, the growing industry demands more and more workers. The demand falls back on the cripples, who receive training for this purpose in the special schools. The steadily advancing breakdown of special schools results from the increasing specialization of the requirements in the profession. The majority of doctors and educators saw their highest goal fulfilled when they had succeeded in making a cripple fit for work, i.e. having trained him for a certain function. Failure of longstanding programs primarily stained professional honor; what destructive consequences they left in the personality of the cripple, at least seldom interested. The focus of all efforts was not the cripple, but the helper himself, who wants to reap the merit of his deeds.

At the turn of the century, the ideas of hereditary and racial doctrine found their way into the care of cripples. With the new ideas, the Help the helpless very quickly the Sacrifice of the helpless. Medical professionals wanted to cure cripples by seeking the annihilation of the cripples. Significantly involved in the spread of the anti-cripple ideology were lawyers, doctors and special educators.

Based on the theories of Darwin, the doctor and zoologist Haeckel sees the development of man as a breed in the struggle for existence in which only the Best survived. In addition there is the artificial breeding, as it was carried out in Sparta in an exemplary manner. On the other hand, selection by modern medicine has a negative effect, since its level of knowledge allows the consumptive or the mentally ill to survive and the chance of reproduction persist. These basic features of social Darwinism have been continuously expanded since 1900 and - apparently scientifically substantiated - also propagated at universities.

Social Darwinism was divided into racial anthropologists and racial hygienists. The doctor Woltmann should be mentioned here as a representative of the racial anthropologists. His point of view: The Germanic race is the noble and healthy one, which absolutely must be protected from the hereditary mixture. In order to keep the existing genetic material pure, a structure of society must be created in which the upper class dominates as the bearer of this genetic material. For Woltmann, class antagonisms are therefore only latent racial antagonisms. The industry injections into the advocates of the racial anthropological approach are certainly not accidental.

For the racial hygienists the principle was that "all signs of degeneration" had to be fought according to the selection principle. The doctor Schallmeyer demanded that everything "that is weak or hereditary" must absolutely be excluded from reproduction. The carriers of the inferior Hereditary material - primarily cripples for racial hygienists - should therefore be forbidden. Forced asylation (admission to an institution with departments separated by gender) was proposed as a further measure. The compulsory sterilization concluded Schallmeyer's deliberations on how to get rid of the cripples step by step. Schallmeyer was not alone in his point of view. Quite a few colleagues not only supported his suggestions, but went beyond them. The leading racial hygienist and nationally and internationally recognized physician and economist Alfred Ploetz, who typically received a chair from the National Socialists, wrote: "If it turns out that the newborn is a weak and miserable child, the medical college ... will prepare him for a gentle death, let's say with a small dose of morphine."[14]

The traditional view of the cripple as inferior receives a scientifically substantiated foundation with the theories of social Darwinism. The claims and inferences work because the cripple has always been seen as unnatural, inexplicable, or outrageous. The segregation, which has long since been carried out, is finally given the legitimation that can be invoked. The cripple is finally denied human rights (prohibition of a relationship between man and woman; general internment in institutions; conditions that still exist today - perhaps in a more subtle form).

If one could not speak of a life within the prison walls anyway, the time of the First World War already proved that the inmates, isolated from the outside world, were at the mercy of the staff until they died. Because when drugs and food became scarce in Germany, the allocations to the institutions remained below the subsistence level. Countless cripples died - ignored by the population - from malnutrition or from a lack of medicines.

After the First World War, social Darwinism remained the basis of the ruling ideology. His ideas were summarized and finally formulated for fascism in 1922 by the lawyer Karl Binding and the professor of medicine Alfred Hoche.

In her thought structure for Release of the destruction of life unworthy of life was the principle that injecting a fatal overdose "in truth a pure healing act"[15] is. "So the action must be regarded as un forbidden, even if the law does not mention it in the sense of recognition. (...) That there are living people whose death is a redemption for them and at the same time for society and the state in particular is a release from a burden, the carrying of which ... does not bring the smallest benefit, can in no way be doubted. "[16] For Binding and Hoche, cripples only fulfill the function of creating a profession, "who is absorbed in living life absolutely unworthy of life for years and decades. That there is a terrible absurdity, an abuse of life force for its unworthy purposes, cannot be denied."[17].

If in the following the cripple was presented as an "empty human shell" and "negative existence", this was certainly not against the judgment of the general public opinion. However, the evidence of the financial burden is more likely to have found recognition in the leading business circles: "It results from the fact that the average cost per head and year for the care of idiots was up to now 1,500 marks. If we add up the number of idiots simultaneously present in Germany who are in institutional care, we arrive at an estimated total of about 20 - 30,000. If we assume an average lifespan of 50 years for the individual case, it is easy to assess what immense capital in the form of food, clothing and heating is withdrawn from national wealth for an unproductive purpose. "[18]

In this ice-cold cost-benefit calculation, the cripple degenerates into a purely objective factor with which calculations are made. Consequently, Binding and Hoche came to the conclusion that the cripples should be allowed to be exterminated. The characteristics for unworthy life were "Foreign body character ... in the structure of human society, the lack of any productive services, a state of complete helplessness with the need for care by third parties"[19]. This catalog of criteria was so broad that it applied to every cripple. In fact, no cripple was left out when German fascism began to implement the ideology of the unworthy of life.

In the Weimar Republic, regulations came into force that treated war cripples and civil cripples differently. Here, too, the rule was: Those who had already achieved something, sacrificed themselves for the fatherland, received some recognition and could expect (albeit meager) support. For those crippled from birth, life in the institution remained as a perspective. The division of the cripples has been reflected in the steadily increasing number of special schools and classes since 1918. The creation of a hierarchy was also reflected in the emergence of numerous interest groups, each of which only dealt with the issue of their Represented cripple species. Even then, cripples themselves had few opportunities to organize themselves within the associations, to bring forward their own ideas or even to enforce them. They remained the administrated ones. Approaches of own political initiative, based on the blind privileged under cripples, were very quickly smashed. Partly because the associations did not have the backing, and partly because they were too committed to specific requirements for the blind. The decisive factor, however, was that the political involvement of those affected was not dealt with.

In the course of the global economic crisis, the Reich Interior Minister issued an "Emergency Program for Cripple Welfare". The main goal was to drastically reduce welfare expenses. Therefore, only the cripple should be supported who had the prospect of "becoming gainfully employed". The savings increased the lower the person concerned was classified in the hierarchy of cripples. For example, it says about spasticity: "In view of the financial need, all cases with athetoses and greater involvement of the upper extremities, all cases with dementia and epileptic seizures are to be excluded from any treatment (including the prescription of orthopedic appliances) at the expense of care."[20]

What was already becoming apparent here, the abandoning of the cripples, the turning away from all support when nothing productive in return was in prospect, found its conclusion in the euthanasia programs of the National Socialists. On June 14th, 1933 the "Law for the Prevention of Hereditary Diseases" was promulgated. Escape from the provisions of the law was impossible for those at risk, all the less since large sections of the medical profession and special educators supported the sterilization and worked hand in hand to carry it out. The following quote proves the doctor's unconditional will to vigorously implement the compulsory provisions, the submissive demeanor towards state orders while at the same time rejecting any responsibility:

"The legal regulations, however, tied our hands. Today the spell is broken and the roles are assigned. Today, thank God, we are completely relieved of personal responsibility. The test and the." Responsibility rests entirely with the hereditary health court. We gynecologists are now executors and enforcers of the will of the law. "[21] (Prof. Dr. Seitz, Director of the Frankfurt University Women's Clinic at a conference in 1934)

The special educators to whom the cripples were delivered at school received the sterilization law overwhelmingly enthusiastically. Their only concern was to demonstrate their loyalty to the goals and programs of the fascist state. A spokesman was Alfred Krampf, city school councilor in Hanover:

"We first recognize from this that a damaged genetic material cannot be inherited in any direction ... We cannot approve of this in the interests of our breed: because we see the heavy burden daily, under which not only the children themselves and theirs Parents, but the people as a whole suffer. (...) If we want this healthy national body not to be burdened by welfare burdens that it has to raise for unworthiness of life, then we must fundamentally affirm the elimination of all hereditary diseases from the hereditary structure. " [22]

According to Krampf, the special pedagogues assess their fields of activity as "collecting basins for the hereditary disease" from which they can give the doctor "the opportunity to make it easier to eliminate". "We auxiliary school teachers welcome it all the more happily as we have long been calling for it together with the doctors." After this greeting of the Sterilization Act, the offer of active cooperation follows, because "On the other hand, the net of capture must be drawn so tightly and in all directions that it would not be possible for anyone with inherited damage to slip through the mesh."[23]

Even before the law was promulgated, teachers had put racial hygiene ideas on the curriculum. A special education teacher reports: "From Easter 1930 I had the opportunity to try out the stimulated lessons practically in various final classes. (...) However, since I did not want to give up the idea of ​​influencing racial hygiene even these children, I had to look for new ways. (...) ) In this connection everyone agreed that they were poorly gifted ... I also explained that poorly gifted people do not get good jobs, that they cannot do many jobs at all because they do not learn enough because of their poor talent that with little money you can only get one or two people. If such unskilled people have children, they need more money because children cost money. Of course, I gave a lot of examples, which I colored in drastically so that they were easy to understand .This led to the observation that it would be better if poorly gifted people did not have children (...) It depends to awaken the right feeling in the children. "[24] The aim of this lesson, that as many cripples as possible apply for sterilization themselves, was not achieved in practice. However, the self-esteem of the students suffered a break, as they were even given their uselessness by school pedagogy. Forced sterilizations had to pay for many with their lives.

The following report of a funeral of a young woman, in which the procedure ended fatally, gives an impression of the indignation and the thinking of the population. Significant remarks were made such as: "that's direct murder"or"that's a shame, you'd better take an ax and kill the girl." [25] Today there are only a few cripples left who can report on the abuse they have experienced in the asylums. One of them is Albert Huth from the Hamburg Alsterdorfer Anstalten. (cf. eyewitness report by a resident - from Albert Huth's diary in this book.)

It must be mentioned that the basis for the extermination of cripples did not disappear with the end of the Second World War. Just briefly the following paragraphs.

In school essays about Hitler, 14-year-old youngsters recently wrote: "I agree with Hitler in putting the physically and mentally handicapped to sleep in certain cases." "Hitler had all the mentally ill killed ... He created the ideal person.", "But he also had good sides, he let living beings that were mutilated, paralyzed, blind, deranged, killed, because these living beings had nothing of life had." or finally, "But the war also had advantages. Hitler purified Germany by ... simply gassing the disabled."[26]

If at the same time 63% of those questioned in a survey are in favor of not keeping a crippled child alive by all means, this shows that the cripple is still assessed as unworthy of life.

More and more homes, special kindergartens, special schools or therapy centers are being created, which supposedly serve a better promotion and integration into society. In fact, the special facilities and treatments only solidify the existing isolation and segregation from society.

The deportation of many cripples to ghettos created for them is all the more threatening as it says in a draft law of the Ministry of Health for a possible disaster:

"§4 (2) The health authorities are to be involved in measures

1. to register and set up suitable objects as auxiliary hospitals and sanitary material stores (...)

2. for the evacuation and relocation of hospitals and care facilities, homes for children and the disabled, facilities for the elderly ... including social services ... "[27]

If, in addition, the supporters of civil institutions that are currently taking care of cripples in whatever way (e.g. DRK, Malteser-Hilfsdienst or the Diakonisches Werk, the German Paritätische Wohlfahrtsverband), are obliged to make their forces available to the endangered population or the Bundeswehr it becomes clear that the provisions are not about saving the lives of cripples. In this sense, the advanced training events of the medical associations should also be seen, at which selection procedures are discussed. Since it is only a matter of treating those whose performance and operational capabilities appear to be recoverable in the foreseeable future, little imagination is required to see the life of the cripple in the nowhere defined Disaster to fear. The judgment of Prof. Röttgen about a paraplegic gives an idea of ​​where these regulations can lead to the view of man of the conservative medical profession: "Without a body, this head is worthless." [28]

The forced sterilizations of the cripples during fascism are not consistently condemned. The only criticism is: "The consequences that were drawn in the Third Reich to prevent hereditary offspring were scientifically weak."[29] Particularly in the case of people in large institutions, who are treated from the outset as unlawful, underage beings, there is a risk that the sterilization will be extended in an unforeseen way. There are complaints about compulsory sterilization[30].

Of course, the contempt for cripples does not stop at the politicians. In extreme cases, this leads to statements like those of the Minister of Social Affairs from Schleswig-Holstein about untenable conditions in an institution for children who have not developed mentally according to current ideas: "Taking the children out in the sun has no therapeutic or psychological benefit; we also have a portable sunlamp in use."[31] This inhuman language suits the living conditions one has Euthanasia in installments equal.

At a time when cripples are noticeably withdrawn from financial support, when the need for savings is being spread, the renewed widespread discussion about the means euthanasia, led on a moral level, in reality a threat to cripples. Quotes from a doctor again: "Since some miserably crippled newborns would live on for a long period of time even without treatment, we should not add to the number of tragedies by treating those who would not go on without medical help. The fact that euthanasia is illegal is for this insignificant. (...) We do hard work to keep a miserable organism without human characteristics alive ... We have to justify this existence, which will still be dehumanized in the future, the right to maintain this life, against suffering and Weighing up the cruelty that it means for parents and siblings to have to live with such a dehumanized organism. "[32]

The press takes up the subject in a way that simplifies the inexperienced reader: "A paralyzed man asks: Kill me! ... dependent on the help of his wife, who washes and feeds him like a small child ..." [33] The description of the condition applies to very many cripples, the conviction that life under such conditions is meaningless and without joy is confirmed by the population.

The opinion of the Braunschweig regional court president Wassermann: "But this is not about euthanasia, it is about Compassionate disorder. And that should go unpunished. " [34] lets fear the worst and at the same time proves the historical continuity in thinking: What 60 years ago pure healing was called is called today Compassionate disorder. Then as now the statement is made that the killing of the cripple was not murder, but an act of mercy. The words have changed, the attitude has remained.

(The publisher recommends from the "Forum for Medicine and Health Policy", issue 18, February 1982: Eberhard Weber, "Thoughts on the Health Assurance Act", Ulrich Schultz, "Doctors Between War and Peace" and Klaus Waterstradt, "About the Right to Die" .)


Udo Sierck: Disregarded - Separated - Destroyed: On the history of the cripples

Taken from: You call it welfare: the handicapped between annihilation and resistance; with contributions from the Hamburg Health Day 1981 / ed. by Michael Wunder and Udo Sierck. - 2nd Edition; Frankfurt am Main; Dr. med. Mabuse 1987.

bidok - Full text library: republication on the Internet

Status: 04/27/2006