User:Gameking69/NDH

Propaganda interview with Dr. Karl Kötschau, discussing the aims of German New Medicine. Illustrierter Beobachter (1936)

New German Medicine (German: Neue Deutsche Heilkunde) was a movement in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s that aimed to integrate conventional scientific medicine with various forms of alternative medicine, including naturopathy and homeopathy. Driven by prominent Nazi leaders such as Rudolf Hess and Heinrich Himmler, who were ardent supporters of alternative healing practices, the movement sought to create a unified German medical system that emphasized natural and holistic approaches to health.

Medical crisis

Medical freedom laws

Reichstag of the North German Confederation passed the Commercial Code of 1869 which reinstates Kurierfreiheit, allowing both licensed and unlicensed practitioners medical freedom. While academically trained practitioners are restricted to using the term "medical practitioner" under §29, Heilkunst (the art of healing) can be practiced by anyone without specific qualifications. Pressure from physicians leads to the addition of §56 in 1883, prohibiting "traveling healers," with subsequent restrictions.

Crisis in 1920s

The rising number of lay practitioners exacerbated medical ignorance, prompting the Reichstag's attention in 1909, though a drafted law fails. In the 1920s, doctors face a significant crisis as inflation pushes health insurance companies to financial ruin. Settlement of accounts shifts to quarterly, prompting doctor strikes as they blame the social system for inadequate financing. To address such pressing issues such as the so called "Crisis of Medicine" and the "Quackery Problem" it was widely acknowledged (by Healthcare professionals, policymakers, and scholars) that the strictly natural science-based approach to medicine was deficient and needed to incorporate insights from psychology, psychoanalysis, and naturopathy.

Furthermore, there was a growing lack of trust in the medical profession among the public, attributed in part to the reductionist perspective of medicine and the widening gap between diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities, as well as social insurance systems. Among the most prominent critics of contemporary medicine was Erwin Liek (1878-1935), a renowned surgeon and gynecologist, who argued for doctors to assert leadership in health policy, which should also encompass eugenic considerations.

Amalgamation

The naturopathy movement and scientific medicine's growing confrontation led to the amalgamation of naturopathic organizations in 1926. The "Reich Committee for the Nonprofitmaking Organizations of the Movement for Health in the Population" served as the umbrella organization, bringing together leading associations such as the German Biochemical Association, Association of Homeopathic Lay Practitioners, German Association of Organizations for Natural Living and Healing, Kneipp Federation, Bund der Felkevereine, and Central Association for Parity in Medical Practice.

New health policy

History of policy

Frankish leader Julius Streicher in conversation with Reich Medical Leader Dr. Wagner (1935)

With the rise of National Socialism in 1933, recognition from conventional medical practitioners was achieved with government support. Dr. Gerhard Wagner, the head of the National Socialist Physicians’ League, played a crucial role, as he had the backing of other National Socialist politicians, which paved the way for success in recognition. Moreover, there was official recognition of natural therapies, including homeopathy, by the establishment of the Reichsärzteordnung (Medical Regulation of the Reich) in 1937 which introduced a new professional statute, redefining medical specialties. Within this framework, a new health policy called Neue Deutsche Heilkunde (New German Medicine) was introduced, aiming to integrate conventional medicine, natural therapies, and homeopathy.

On issue number twelve of "Internationales Ärztliches Bulletin" dated December 1935, the Reich Physicians' Leader Dr. Wagner, declares:

If we want to build a new medical science today, the foundation of this medical science can never be exact natural science, but the foundation can only be our National Socialist worldview.

In May 1935, an organization called the Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft für eine Neue Deutsche Heilkunde (Health Association for a New German Medicine) was formed in Nuremberg, led by Dr. Karl Kötschau. It comprised seven corporate members, including leading associations of homeopathic and naturopathic physicians, alongside the League for Biodynamic Healing.

The New German Medicine Association was dissolved in 1937 due to pressure from the medical establishment.

Areas of practice

Anthroposophy

With the assistance of Hess, Müller, and other Nazi officials, anthroposophist medicine became one of the central constituents of the Neue Deutsche Heilkunde. Dr. Friedrich Husemann led the doctors within the anthroposophical movement, which later became the League for Biodynamic Healing. They advocated for anthroposphist medicine within Nazi health policies, receiving support from government officials like Dr. Eugen Stähle and Ludwig Müller. The movement also established institutions which found support from Nazi leaders like Julius Streicher.

Streicher in his publication "Deutsche Volksgesundheit aus Blut und Boden" covered anthroposophist health initiatives. Reporting on a meeting of naturopathic physicians in June 1934, the periodical gave special attention to Husemann's presentation on "the threefold nature of the human organism" as well as Dr. Wilhelm Pelikan's final presentation on "anthroposophical medicine." Reports on the November 1934 meeting of naturopathic doctors at the Rudolf Hess Hospital in Dresden highlighted the role of biodynamics and praised Dr. Josef Schulz's presentation on Demeter products.

The New German Medicine Association was dissolved in 1937 due to pressure from the medical establishment. However, anthroposophy continued to be a part of National Socialist health measures. A conference held in July 1938, sponsored by the Nazi public health authorities, featured prominent anthroposophist Franz Dreidax as a presenter. Most of the attending doctors were members of the Nazi Party, including Dr. Ernst Harmstorf, an early adopter of anthroposophical medicine.

Heilpraktiker

See also: Heilpraktiker

Heilpraktikergesetz is the first regulation to the law governing the professional practice of medicine without a medical license. It was issued on 18 February 1939, and outlines conditions and procedures for obtaining a permit to practice as a Heilpraktiker (non-medical practitioner) in Germany.

According to Historian Michael H. Kater, the law introduced specific certification requirements and made membership in the regime-approved natural healers association mandatory. Although this gave Heilpraktiker a veneer of professionalism, it did not make them truly respectable. To control the profession, no new entrants were allowed. However, concessions were made to the unlicensed due to the Nazi health leaders' empathy for them. Unlicensed persons could become legitimate physicians or enter medical faculties without the usual qualifications, while others could continue practicing as long as they did not charge fees. Traditional doctors were required to assist registered nature healers upon request, adding to their frustration. The traditional medical establishment saw this as a threat, with regular doctors being forced to cooperate with unqualified healers.

Naturopathy

Gerhard Wagner and Dr. Kurt Blome thought that combining traditional medicine with naturopathy helped better study the cause (aetiology) and treat cancer, which was increasingly recognized as a common ailment in the general population also known as Volkskrankheit (people's disease.)

Physicians and lay healers were encouraged to lead by example and promote a healthier lifestyle, with an emphasis on natural eating for racial health. (Gesundheitsführung.)

This ideological shift influenced various health institutions, which became platforms for integrating natural diet practices into Nazi ideology. Government bodies like the Division of Public Health and the Ministry of Education supported research and propaganda promoting natural eating. For example, the Department of Nutritional Physiology conducted basic research, while organizations like the German Society for Nutritional Research and the Study Group for Public Nutrition aligned nutritional studies with Nazi principles and disseminated them widely.

Universities, such as the University of Berlin, also embraced the natural lifestyle ethos. At the Institute for Nutrition Doctrine, led by physician Sigwald Bommer, advocacy for a "healthy, natural, and simple" diet for racial hygiene was prominent. The Nazi Party itself endorsed natural diets, with the Main Office for Public Health spearheading efforts in the 1930s.

According to Heinrich Himmler, leader of the Schutzstaffel, eliminating "the artificial" was central to this vision. He was an advocate of select aspects of natural living, and he is quoted as saying:

We are in the hands of the food industries ... the artificial is everywhere, everywhere food is adulterated, provided with ingredients which are said to make it last longer or look better or enrich it or anything else that the advertisers of the food industry care to say.

Arthur Scheunert, a prominent nutritional physiologist in Nazi Germany, stirred controversy in 1933 by asserting that preserved fruits and vegetables were as nutritious as fresh ones. His claims were met with skepticism in Hippokrates, the main journal of New German Medicine, where Erwin Liek countered with a passionate defense of fresh foods. Scheunert's support for synthetic vitamins further fueled the debate, with proponents of natural diets arguing that artificial preparations could never match the quality of natural vitamins. This discourse reflected a broader effort to make the German diet more natural, not only by eliminating artificial elements but also by aligning food with racial and economic goals, emphasizing domestic production as vital for racial fitness and national preparedness for war.

Homeopathy

After the 1937 Homeopathic World Congress in Berlin and amidst political backing from the Nazi regime for ideological purposes, homeopathy gained favor, and the Imperial Ministry of Health (Reichsgesundheitsamt) endorsed homeopathic pathogenetic trials. These trials were intended to be conducted in a blinded and placebo-controlled manner. However, it appears that the publication of the trial results was suppressed. Fritz Donner, a German physician and homeopath, candidly documented both the trials and concerning practices within clinical medicine. In clinical settings, patients with conditions such as ulcers, pernicious anemia, gonorrhea, and hyperthyroidism were administered homeopathic remedies. Advocates of homeopathy were inclined to highlight remarkable symptoms observed during the pathogenetic trials when confronted with placebos, while disregarding the lack of therapeutic efficacy in their patients.

Himmler's interest in folk medicine, particularly homeopathic treatments, prompted him to initiate experiments to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy in treating purulent diseases. Under the direction of Prof. Grawitz, a medical team, including Dr. Heinrich Schütz, Dr. Hermann Kiesewetter, and Prof. Theodor Laue, conducted tests supervised by concentration camp physicians like Karol Babor and Waldemar Wolter. Despite meticulous execution, the results, reported to Himmler in August 1942, showed no significant improvement in the condition of most experimentees. While some cases exhibited positive outcomes, Prof. Grawitz noted difficulties with administering homeopathic tablets, which sparked Himmler's displeasure.

One such case of misuse involves the homeopathic manufacturer and physician Gerhard Madaus (1890-1942), who conducted experiments with the plant Dieffenbachia seguine, demonstrating its capacity to induce sterility. These experiments were conducted for scientific purposes and possibly for commercial reasons. However, Heinrich Himmler took an interest in Madaus' research after Dr. Adolf Pokorny, a dermatologist with connections to Himmler, brought two of Madaus' publications to his attention. The prospect of using Dieffenbachia to sterilize the three million Bolsheviks in German prisons, rendering them as laborers but incapable of reproduction, was deemed appealing and offered "the most far-reaching perspective. An aide to Himmler considered this a highly classified project of national significance and arranged for representatives from the large industrial giant I.G. Farben to visit the Madaus company and acquire a supply of the plant. Madaus was instructed not to publish any further findings on the subject but was given the opportunity to continue working with criminals who would have been sterilized under existing law regardless. Madaus declined this offer, and the project ultimately fizzled out due to a lack of plant supplies.

Other practices

The National Socialist Regime was interested in Hydrotherapy and Nature Therapy. Proclaiming ‘Air, light, a healthy diet and exercise were recognised as the basis of good health’.

The Nazis' relationship with radiotherapy during the 1930s was marked by discriminatory policies targeting Jewish physicians with the revocation of medical licenses. International participation in medical conferences, including those focused on cancer and radiotherapy, showcased the growing importance of these fields.

Dachau concentration camp hosted an experimental herb garden, which the plantation measured about 150 hectares (370 acres) and comprised of the largest medicinal herb garden in Europe at the time. It was part of the Nazis' efforts to reduce medical costs in anticipation of the war. The garden contained a variety of plants, including gladioli, peppergrass, chili, blackcurrant, sage, and thyme. The Nazis systematically tested around a thousand plant varieties, aiming to find cheaper herbal remedies for minor ailments. The herbal remedies were tested on camp inmates.

Heliotherapy was designed for patients at the Speisehaus, a building at the 1936 Berlin Olympic Village. The wide balconies of the Speisehaus were specifically intended for patients’ beds to be rolled outside to benefit from sun therapy. This practice was appreciated by the athletes staying there, as it allowed them to socialize and enjoy outdoor entertainment on the lawn after meals.

Modern analysis & reception

Reception

According to German Historian Norbert Frei, the reception of the "New German Medicine" concept among doctors was mixed and often resistant. The National Socialist regime aimed to transform the medical profession into one where physicians were primarily National Socialists and "political soldiers" before being healthcare providers. The focus was to shift from treating individuals to prioritizing the health of the "body of the people." However, the general acceptance of such social Darwinist practices was limited, particularly among those who were not ardent National Socialists. There was little evidence to suggest widespread acceptance of harsh everyday medicine among the population or the medical community in peacetime.

Many Germans, including doctors, supported drastic cuts for "antisocial" individuals but were not enthusiastic about a rigorously social Darwinist approach that also affected them. This concept clashed with the traditional image of physicians as helpers and healers, undermining the trust between patient and doctor. This trust was crucial, as demonstrated by the popularity of general practitioners who maintained high reputations independent of political affiliations. For example, in 1934, Dr. Reichard, a well-liked general practitioner, made offensive remarks against National Socialism without causing disturbances, indicating the population's trust in their doctors over political ideologies. From 1934 to 1943, the number of doctors in the German Reich increased significantly, and most treated their patients in traditional ways, maintaining the established doctor-patient relationship.

In workplaces, however, Nazi demands for maximizing performance often compromised health, and wartime conditions worsened this. Yet, even here, many doctors' traditional values acted as a counterbalance, and complete enforcement of Nazi health policies was not achieved. This disparity between Nazi goals and their implementation highlights the persistence of traditional medical ethics against the regime's ideology.

Intentions

According to Prof. Dr. Heribert Hofer and Prof. Dr. Hans-Peter Kröner, besides this ideological intention of the New German Medicine, there was also a more tangible one: Many medications of "conventional medicine" relied on the import of certain raw materials that could not be grown in Germany. Therefore, behind the "New German Medicine" was also the economic intention of testing cheaper and, above all, domestic therapeutic agents with the aim of achieving economic self-sufficiency. Ultimately, the ideas of the New German Medicine didn't gain traction. Mainstream medicine, favored by the National Socialists, especially for military purposes, held more sway in the end.

Negative results

See also: Alternative medicine § Risks and problems

According to Dr. Edzard Ernst, historical evidence suggests that the scientific validation of Contemporary/Alternative medicine (CAM), such as homeopathy, conducted by the Nazi government yielded negative results. Despite this, proponents of alternative medicine persisted in promoting their practices. Ernst highlights the parallels and differences between CAM in the Third Reich and contemporary alternative medicine.He also emphasizes the importance of evidence-based medicine and criticizes the integration of non-evidence-based treatments into conventional medicine.

Ernst argues that the Nazi atrocities stand as unparalleled violations of medical ethics in history. These egregious acts were made possible due to doctors' disregard for fundamental principles of medical ethics. Similarly, the utilization of unproven, debunked, or unsafe treatments on ill-informed patients, as seen in alternative medicine, represents a glaring ethical breach in healthcare. This approach starkly contradicts Hippocrates' foundational dictum of "first do no harm."