The Bollinger Baby: A Case Study of Eugenics, Disability, and Ethics, in the Early 20th Century

Background & Purpose: In the early 20th century, eugenic ideology heavily shaped American views of disability, influencing both medical practice and public policy in ways that often devalued disabled lives. The 1915 case of Allan Bollinger marked a turning point in debates about medical ethics, eugenics, and disability. Dr. Harry Haiselden’s public refusal to treat an infant with a disability, based on eugenic beliefs, sparked national controversy over medical authority, disability rights, and child welfare. The objective of this study was to examine how the Bollinger case both reflected and shaped contemporary debates on eugenics through media coverage and public opinion. The central research question asks: How did the Bollinger Baby case influence early 20th-century discourse on eugenics, particularly through media narratives, medical ethics, and societal perceptions of disability? The Bollinger case underscores the lasting impact of eugenic thinking on medical decision-making and its relevance to ongoing conversations about disability rights and ethical practice. Methods: This study used a qualitative research design combining discourse and thematic analysis to examine public and medical responses to disability in the early 1900s. I collected data from primary sources, including newspaper articles, medical records, public statements, and the 1917 film “The Black Stork”, which dramatizes the Bollinger Baby case. Using purposive sampling, I selected materials directly related to the case or to early 20th-century views on disability and eugenics. Discourse analysis was used to explore how media framed the case and shaped public opinion, while thematic analysis identified recurring ideas and ethical concerns. Findings were situated in their historical and cultural context to better understand how eugenic ideology influenced medical practices and public attitudes. To support the analysis, I incorporated secondary sources from eugenics and social welfare history scholars which provides a comprehensive view of how the Bollinger case shaped debates on medical authority, disability, and public policy. Results: Results suggest that media coverage shaped public opinion of Dr. Haiselden’s decision in significant ways. Some individuals viewed his actions as morally justified and consistent with eugenic ideals, while others condemned him for disregarding the infant’s life due to his disability. Dr. Haiselden, who grounded his choice in eugenic ideology, ignited intense ethical debates about the medical profession’s authority to make life-or-death decisions for people with disabilities. This case reveals how eugenics influenced early 20th-century American medical practice and illustrates the broader mistreatment of individuals with disabilities—a pattern that aligned with the Medical Model of Disability, which often framed disabled lives through a narrow, deficit-based lens. Conclusions & Implications: This study concludes that modern medical professionals must make ethical decisions with full awareness of the societal, historical, and ethical contexts that affect individuals with disabilities. This study’s implications call for continued vigilance in enforcing disability rights laws to prevent discrimination and promote equal treatment in the medical field and society. Future research should investigate similar historical cases to understand how eugenics-driven medical decisions have shaped disability rights and public health policies. Future studies should also analyze how the media influences current debates surrounding these issues.