Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32067089›Full record

ReviewDer Nervenarzt2020

[Between affirmation and negation: Karl Kleist and Viktor von Weizsäcker between 1933 and 1945].

Michael Martin, Axel Karenberg, Heiner Fangerau

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Michael MartinInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, Düsseldorf, Deutschland.
Axel KarenbergMedizinische Fakultät und Uniklinik Köln, Institut für Geschichte und Ethik der Medizin, Universität zu Köln, Joseph-Stelzmann-Str. 20, 50931, Köln, Deutschland.
Heiner FangerauInstitut für Geschichte, Theorie und Ethik der Medizin, Medizinische Fakultät, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Moorenstraße 5, Düsseldorf, Deutschland. heiner.fangerau@uni-duesseldorf.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 1954 Karl Kleist (1879-1960) became an honorary member of the German Neurological Society (DGN), an honor that was granted 2 years earlier to his colleague Viktor von Weizsäcker (1886-1957). The attempt to classify and assess their careers between 1933 and 1945 led to diametrically opposed results in historical research. This article summarizes the main lines of argumentation and draws a preliminary conclusion. After 1933 Kleist is said to have felt more and more accountable for his non-Aryan colleagues and that he treated his Jewish patients as long as he could. Publications and third party testimonies confirmed that he circumvented at least occasionally the Law for the Prevention of Genetically Diseased Offspring (GzVeN). Furthermore, he is said to have saved patients from "euthanasia" actions by prudently formulated diagnoses. Simultaneously, he worked as an expert at the Appelate Hereditary Health Court in Frankfurt am Main, in 1940 he joined the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP) and in 1942 the NS Medical Association. Von Weizsäcker used his scope of action in a similarly contradictory way. Certainly, he kept away from central Nazi organizations and was considered "politically unreliable" by those colleagues who had a penchant for the system. But as professor of neurology he formally headed from 1941 onwards exactly that Neuropathological Research Institute in Breslau (Wroclaw) where one of his colleagues examined the brains of minors who had been killed in the course of "child euthanasia", in what was called "concomitant research". To a certain extent von Weizsäcker was also an advocate of the GzVeN. In his lectures and publications between 1933 and 1935 he chose the pertinent NS terminology and he was the first to speak of a "theory of extermination". In either case, even meticulous research could not answer the question where to exactly assign both biographies in a spectrum between criticism and affirmation of National Socialism.

Indexed as

EuthanasiaNeurologyAcademies and InstitutesBrainGermanyHistory, 20th CenturyNational SocialismEugenics/historyEuthanasia/historyGerman Neurological SocietyMedicine in National SocialismNeurology/history

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.