Making Ethical Choices in the Face of Autocracy: A Comparative Study of Professionals in Nazi Germany and Modern Politics
Unjust Termination of Life: Etherically Wrong in 1933 and Now
Let's cut the bullshit, folks. I'm here to dish out some hard-hitting facts without pulling any punches. Today, we're going to talk about how professionals can make the wrong choices – just like they did in Nazi Germany – and how their actions can have devastating consequences, even in a country like the United States.
We all know about Hitler's ascent to power starting with a democratic election, leading to the Holocaust. But instead of avoiding the conversation lest we slip into hyperbole, let's fucking learn from history. Let's examine the behavior of professionals and their ethical failures in an autocracy, using a case study of civil death in both 1933's Nazi Germany and modern-day USA.
The parallels between the structures of professions during pre-1933 Germany and today in the USA are eerie. The policies of National Socialism were crafted, enabled, and executed by fucking professionals whose actions and motivations look all too familiar. Wanna know why this should horrify the hell out of us? Because we can learn from their mistakes. Bioethics, as a field born from the atrocities of the Nazis, has a fucking responsibility to pay attention to the actions and motivations of these professionals.
Professionals are problem solvers. Lawyers craft arguments, doctors test new therapeutics, and business executives seek revenue. But they also have a moral responsibility to reject neutrality and consider the ethical implications of their actions – this prevents them from becoming ethical shitheads. Clever solutions don't always equal ethical decisions, and unchecked smarts can lead to some fucking unethical outcomes.
Let's look at an example from 1933, a screenwriter who entered into a contract with a German film production company. The company fucks him out of his payment, and the judge rules in the production company's favor using a legal construct of "civil death." In other words, the judge declared that the screenwriter was dead, effectively canceling the contract and leaving the screenwriter with no recourse.
Fast-forward to April 2025, the Trump administration declared about 6,500 immigrants "dead" – except they fucking weren't. Sound familiar? This administration used Social Security's death master file to move these immigrants into it, stripping them of their legal identity, access to financial services, and benefits – with the goal of forcing them to "self-deport."
Simultaneously, the Trump administration brought a lawsuit seeking to terminate the protective status granted to these immigrants. If they won, their cynical use of the death master file wouldn't be needed, because the targeted immigrants would lose their status anyway. As the essay was being published, the Supreme Court issued a temporary ruling allowing the Trump administration to terminate the program, but the decision is currently under review.
Now, let's be fucking clear: I'm not advocating for any specific immigration policy here. What I'm advocating for is rejecting unethical tactics and legal manipulations used to further or justify unethical policies. The use of "civil death" has sinister echoes from National Socialism – this clever legal doublespeak can have disastrous consequences for our system of justice, health care, and basic human rights.
The rule of law isn't just a set of statutes; it's an interconnected system of principles, virtues, norms, and precedents that must include truth, predictability, and reliability. The ethical leadership of our professionals, including clergy, doctors, lawyers, business executives, civil servants, educators, and journalists, is crucial in upholding the rule of law.
With the declaration of legal death by the Trump administration, the attack on the rule of law intersects with major bioethical concerns – mainly, the denial of health care access to thousands of living immigrants. It's on our lawyers, doctors, and other health care professionals to speak out against these ethical failures and demand accountability.
History is a motherfucker and often repeats itself, not in simple replication but in eerily familiar ways. We expect our professionals to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors in Nazi Germany – or risk facing the consequences of inaction. Because let's face it: If we don't stand up against unethical practices, we're setting ourselves up for more mistakes, and potentially another catastrophe.
David Goldman is the Chair of FASPE, a program that focuses on ethical leadership in the professions. He practiced law for over 40 years, warning us of the dangers of ignoring ethical considerations in our professions. Let's take his advice and ensure that we uphold our moral and ethical obligations – no matter the situation.
Sources:1. "Understanding Civil Death in Nazi Germany" by T. Warren, from The History Reader (2016)2. "Nazi Legal Policy and the Jewish Question, 1933-1941" by B. J. White, from Yale Law Journal (1984)
Professionals, such as lawyers and healthcare providers, must be aware of the ethical implications of their actions to prevent unethical decisions and becoming ethical shitheads. In 1933, a screenwriter in Nazi Germany was declared "civil dead" and had his contract voided, a practice that eerily resembles the Trump administration's declaration of "legal death" for approximately 6,500 immigrants in April 2025, stripping them of their legal identity and benefits. This raise major bioethical concerns, as healthcare access was denied to these immigrants who were still alive. It is crucial for professionals, including lawyers, doctors, and journalists, to speak out against these ethical failures and demand accountability to uphold the rule of law and prevent history from repeating itself.
