So as a result, the first sterilization law
 in 1935 and the renewed law in 1950, 
enacted that a person could be sterilized
 even against his or her own will, 
usually her own will, if that person's 
condition was such that it would either 
be passed to one's offspring or that it
 would prevent one from rearing the child 
properly. What amounts either to a forced
 or a voluntary sterilization is 
sometimes a matter of interpretation, 
but if the person was not informed about 
the operation and decision was made by 
a proxy, like the manager of an 
institution in question, I think it's 
quite safe, or it was considered that the 
person was incapable of understanding 
what the operation was all about, then I 
think its safe to classify these as 
forced sterilizations. I had a look at 
these, I was supposed to conduct research
 on the archive material of these 
decisions, but then I went into philosophy. 
 But, there were quite a few cases I 
remember, where women wrote to authorities, 
 like five or ten years after the 
sterilization, saying that they 
didn't know what was happening.
And yeah... So, abortion became also
 a eugenic tool in 1950s, because quite a 
few abortion permits were granted for
 eugenic reasons, and sterilization was a 
precondition for abortion. So if you wanted
 to have an abortion, you got it if
 you were sterilized as well. According to
 official Finnish statics, 7,530
 sterilizations were performed on eugenic
 grounds between 1935 and 1970 and only 
996 were performed between 1935 and 1950, 
 so the heyday of eugenic sterilization 
in Finland was the late 1950s and early 
1960s, where more than 500 people were 
sterilized annually on eugenic grounds. 
 And, it's hard to tell, I remember from 
the archives, there were these forms where
 people were asking "please sterilize 
me," but its kind of hard to tell 
whether that was actually the case, but 
formally they were voluntary sterilization, 
 but if you lived in an institution 
and you had an intellectual disability and
 you were told that it's for your own 
good, well, I don't know if
 that counts for a voluntary act.
Now this part of Finnish history is 
considered as troublesome and embarrassing 
and thus it's mostly kept in silence. 
 There was a, it was reported largely in 
the late 90s, so about ten years ago, 
and public reaction was really, people 
were surprised, most people didn't know
 about it, and then also it was a kind 
of, like all embarrassing things, all 
emotionally difficult things in Finland 
they kept quiet, so we just don't talk 
about it so then the problem doesn't 
exist. And when eugenics is mentioned, 
the discussion is immediately directed 
towards Nazi atrocities of which we had
 nothing to do with supposedly and how 
different everything is now. And drawing
 a parallel between a eugenic past and 
present medical practices is easily labeled
 as a logical flaw named playing the
 Nazi card and indeed simplified analogies
 between past and present should be 
avoided as unhelpful. And in my view, 
reminding about the eugenic past is not 
always the best way to start a discussion, 
 it's not a very good way to convince 
doctors or physicians that the practices
 are somewhat questionable, because when 
you mention eugenics, you lose your 
audience immediately. People are just "no, 
that's not what we're doing" and then
 when they refuse to listen, what do you 
say after that? So I think that sometimes
 a better was is to make an argument 
first and then boost it with emotionally
 charged analogy or then reminding about 
the past and possibly making a fair 
parallel to what's happening now.
Nowadays, the official policy is based
 on the principle of autonomy. For 
instance, in Denmark the National Health
 Service declared in 2003 that there has 
happened a paradigmatic... paradigm 
change in prenatal practice. Whereas 
previously, the main goal was prevention
 of disability but now the main-and this 
was based and it was even admitted that
 this goal was based pretty much on 
eugenic principles-but now the main 
goal is providing people with autonomous 
unlimited freedom for choice and so the
 success of prenatal genetic testing and 
various measures is measured by freedom
 of choice. So autonomy is the prominent 
value, everything is based on autonomy. 
 In practice this means that the more 
tests there are available, the more 
choices you have and the more freedom you 
have. This is the kind of logic, which can
 be... and people actually, I think, 
believe this, although of course it's 
not very credible, because more 
medicalized and technical pregnancy gets, 
 women are more and more at the mercy 
of doctors who are the only ones who 
actually know what's being tested and how 
to interpret and understand these test results.
