Family History Woes

The Genealogue recently pointed me to this interesting story. Apparently, a family historian named Delia published to her blog a quotation from her grandmother's diary and is now being sued by other family members for copyright infringements and defamation.

The story raises interesting questions, particularly for those of us who have published letters and documents to the web or in other formats. However, I think that there is still hope for us.

To begin with, you can almost always publish a portion of a work under the "fair use" clause to the copyright law. Otherwise, critics, teachers and others would never be able to use quotations from works they cite. The exact amount that can be used has never been precisely defined, but based on the fact that Delia apparently only used a paragraph, she's probably okay.

I haven't just published a portion of these works, however. In general, I've published the entirety of the letters, diaries and so forth. Which brings me to my next thought, one that applies to what I've published, but not to what Delia published.

In general, genealogists are discouraged from publishing any information about the living, particularly online. For privacy reasons, it seems apparent why birth dates, maiden names, etc. shouldn't be easy to find online.

However, it seems to me that we should also be extremely careful about what we publish that involves the living: anything written by someone living obviously and anything written ABOUT someone living. This is particularly true if what was written might be controversial. What Delia published was a quotation from her grandmother that applied to a living individual, and which was not terribly favorable to that individual. You can see how that would rankle (whether or not there is a legal case).

In general, I have made it my practice to leave out anything on my site that was written by someone living or that is about someone living. Sometimes this has been hard. Still, the closest I have gotten to knowingly publishing about the living is publishing The Letter from Mother which includes some not-very-flattering portraits of "recently" departed family members (recently in this case meaning that some people in my family still remember them).

In terms of other copyright laws, I hope that I haven't broken them. I always volunteer to take down information if the copyright holder asks (no one ever has). Just contact me!

Stirpiculture

The Oneida Community was a communal living experiment (one of many such experiments around the country) begun in Putney, VT and later moved to Oneida NY (where the mansion still stands). The group was founded by John Humphrey Noyes in 1841. Like the Shakers with whom they share some similarities, there were religious teachings behind many of the practices adopted by members.

One of the practices that caused a great stir at the time was "complex marriage" (aaah, Vermont, so many marriage controversies!). Although begun as early as 1846, only leaders of the community initially practiced it. Essentially, complex marriage was group marriage, where men and women did not have to practice monogamy with one another and were, in fact, discouraged from forming monogamous, exclusive relationships. Prior to cohabitation, both parties also had to agree through a third party. This practice was ended in 1879, and monogamous unions were again the norm.

Several of John Noyes religious teachings were related to child-bearing. John Noyes is quoted as saying in 1849:

"We are not opposed to procreation. But we are opposed to involuntary procreation. We are opposed to excessive, and, of course, oppressive procreation, which is almost universal."

By 1868, Noyes had already begun the practice of "male continence" in which men refrained from ejaculation during sex in order to prevent unintended pregnancies. Male teenagers were paired for sex with women in menopause until they learned to do this. As a form of birth control, it laid the foundation for other religious tenets.

In 1868, Noyes pioneered some of the earliest experiments in eugenics through a practice he called "stirpiculture". Essentially, this was a way to precisely control how many children were born and which individuals would become parents. The "central members" of the community initially controlled who was allowed to have children and with what partners. In 1875, a 12 member committee made up of equal numbers of men and women took over the responsibility of pairing child-bearing couples.

In 1869, 38 men and 53 women in the Oneida Community made the following resolutions to John Noyes in support of stirpiculture:

By the men:
The undersigned desire you may feel that we most heartily sympathize with your purposes in regard to scientific propagation, and offer ourselves in forming any combinations that may seem to you desirable. We claim no rights. We ask no privileges. We desire to be servants of the truth. With a prayer that the grace of God will help us in this resolution, we are your true soldiers.

By the women:
1. That we do not belong to ourselves in any respect, but that we do belong first to God and second to Mr. Noyes as God's true representative.
2. That we have no rights or personal feelings in regard to child-bearing which shall in the least degree oppose or embarrass him in his choice of scientific combinations.
3. That we will put aside all envy, childishness, and self-seeking, and rejoice with those who are chosen candidates; that we will, if necessary, become martyrs to science, and cheerfully resign all desire to become mothers, if for any reason Mr. Noyes deems us unfit material for propogation. Above all, we offer ourselves "living sacrifices" to God and true Communion.

The practice of stirpiculture lasted for 11 years (1868-1879) with about 100 participants. 81 of these became parents to 58 children. There were 4 still births. Promoters of stirpiculture proclaimed that the benefits included longer life spans, lower rates of disability, and general health and hardiness for the children as well as the cohesion of the Oneida Community. 18 of the adult children intermarried with other children of the Oneida Community.

Children in the Oneida Community, both those born under stirpiculture and those conceived through traditional practices, were cared for by their mothers until they learned to walk. At this time, they would be placed in the "Children's House" for the day. They were allowed to return to their mothers at night until they entered the "play stage" at which point they would live in the Children's House full-time until adolescence. Parents were allowed to visit, but if community leaders felt that an unhealthy attachment was developing, these visits could be disallowed. 193 children lived in this arrangement during the 40 years of the community's existence.

If the materials of the proponents can be believed, the quality of care received in the Children's House was actually quite good: "Much attention was given to diet, clothing, sanitation, and profitable activity" [Noyes, 379]. Of course, the community's isolation helped prevent many deaths from disease through effective quarantine. Still, only 5 deaths occurred in the Children's House over its 40 year history.

But my goodness, the ethical questions this raises! As a short list:

• Who has the right to decide which people are "fit" to reproduce and what "qualities" make them fit?
• Women and men were ostensibly equal in the Oneida Community, receiving equal shares in the incomes, etc. Do the practices of complex marriage and stirpiculture seem equal for both men and women?
• How much should we control a child's genetics through scientific processes? How much of a child's environment should be controlled?
• How is this different from Hitler's campaign to reignite the Aryan race? How is it different from modern genetic testing of fetuses, sperm banking, etc?
• Is complex marriage really marriage?
  
• How much personal liberty and freedom should be accorded members of society?
• When experiments such as this one are not ethically reproducible, how can/should we interpret results?
  

And the list goes on and on. It is a fascinating concept, if only because I can't imagine why people went along with the idea. Now this would probably be called a cult, and certainly the society did fall apart after John Noyes' death, so it owes something to his charisma. There must be descendants of these children out there somewhere. It would be interesting to know how they feel about their ancestors having engaged in "scientific" mating.

(I used as my primary source: The Oneida Community Experiment in Stirpiculture by Hilda Herrick Noyes and George Wallingford Noyes pp 374-86 in Eugenics, Genetics, & the Family: Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921. Volume I. Garland Publishing, New York: 1985.

More information can be found at Syracuse University which holds the Oneida Community archives and in various online sources:
this one
that one
another one
and this Google book)

French Immigrants & Adultery

This from Slate.com:

The French government is facing a backlash for trying to DNA-test aspiring immigrants.Objections: 1) It's a double standard, since legal family relationships among French natives don't require a genetic bond. 2) Ditto for privacy: No native has to submit to such testing. 3) It's reminiscent of collaboration with the Nazis. 4) It's cheap anti-immigrant politics. 5) Genetics has no place in human rights. Rebuttals: 1) It's voluntary. 2) It's free. 3) It's needed only when you can't produce other good evidence of a family relationship. 4) Eleven other European countries do it, so what's the big deal? 5) We'll try it for 18 months and drop it if it's a problem. 6) We'll just test maternity, to spare you the pain of discovering that your dad isn't really your dad. (Related: previous update on the French proposal.) If you claim to be related to a French resident, the legislation would offer "voluntary" testing to prove it.

I really like the part where they aren't going to test paternity. Wouldn't that be a shocker for a bunch of folks? (See previous posts on rates of infidelity) There doesn't appear to be a genealogical loophole if you can prove you are related to some long-dead Frenchman, however. A shame, since that would likely mean that all of us could move to France!

The other issue that this bill has raised is the definition of "family" for many of the immigrants. In Africa, "family" may consist of uncles, cousins, and others that are related through marriage or more distant/non-existent DNA relationships.

Did Penicillin Kill Him?

My grandfather, Henry Irving Baker, Jr. died in 1949 when my father was a young boy and before his sister was even born. For many years, members of the family gave various reports of his final illness. Several years ago, I decided that a careful family history study could actually help pinpoint the reasons for his death.

My first stop was his death certificate. H.I. Baker, Jr. died on September 10, 1949 at his home on 26 Holmes St, Poughkeepsie, NY. He was age 31 years, 10 months, and 28 days. Cause of death is listed as angioneurotic edema of larynx (12 hours) due to infective sinusitis and pharyngitis (1 week). His physician was Raymond McFarlin.

A translation of the medico-lese is that H.I. Baker Jr. died when his throat swelled shut over the course of 12 hours as the result of a cold he'd had for a week. This is essentially what my father remembers the adults telling him, but he was so young that it is difficult to entirely know what of his memories to trust and whether adults told him the whole story.

I next contacted the Dutchess County Medical Examiner's Office, but no autopsy was performed. According to current policy, an autopsy is only necessary for:

"any death resulting from homicidal violence, criminal negligence, suicide, fire, asphyxia, vehicular and other accidents, drug or chemical overdose, when a death is unexplained, when a death occurs in police custody or legal detention, and whenever an autopsy is deemed necessary in the interests of public health and safety. The need for an autopsy in the evaluation of a sudden, unexpected death apparently due to natural disease is decided on an individual basis."

That last sentence appears to cover this case and it seems that an autopsy was not conducted.

My next step was to consult the obituary. From Poughkeepsie New Yorker, September 10, 1949:

Henry I. Baker Jr., Dies Unexpectedly at His Home

Henry I. Baker Jr., 31-year-old attorney, died unexpectedly at his home at 26 Holmes street shortly before 12:30 o'clock this morning.

According to police, Mr. Baker suffered a severe bronchial spasm and Glottal edema yesterday noon and he was attended at home by a physician. At 12:17 a.m. today, Mr. Baker's wife telephoned police and requested a pulmotor [an artificial respirator].

The Fire department emergency squad in the charge of Captain Shelly and a doctor were sent to the Baker home. Mr. Baker was pronounced dead on arrival of the doctor.

Mr. Baker first became ill on Tuesday while serving as an inspector at the polls in the Sixth ward for the Primary elections.

Born here, Oct. 18, 1917, Mr. Baker was the son of Henry I. and Edith Bell Kimlin Baker. He was educated in local schools and was graduated from Poughkeepsie High School in 1935, from Bard college in 1939 and from Columbia Law school in 1941. He was admitted to the Bar in October, 1941. He practiced for a year in New York City prior to his enlistment in the United States Army Signal corps. He returned to this city after his Army discharge in January 1946. He maintained his law office at 3 Catherine street.

During his tour of duty overseas, Mr. Baker was engaged in communications liaison work in joint amphibious operations in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations and participated in the invasions of Sicily and Southern France. After his return from overseas, Mr. Baker was assigned to the communications center of the Army General staff in the Pentagon building, Washington, DC. Mr. Baker was one of a small group of the Eighty Amphibious force, all members of which received commendation for meritorious service in the amphibious assault landing in Southern France.

A member of Christ church, Mr. Baker was a past president of the Young Adult Supper club of the church. He also was a member of the Young Republican club and of Poughkeepsie lodge, Free and Accepted Masons and of the Dutchess County and New York State Bar associations. He served as captain of the professional division for the lawyers in the 1949 Fund Drive of the Dutchess County chapter of the American Red Cross.

Surviving, in addition to his parents are his wife, Mrs. Ruth Abercrombie Baker, formerly of East Derry, N.H.; a son [...] and a sister, Miss Edith Bell Baker, here.

Funeral services will be conducted at the Schoonmaker chapel, 73 South Hamilton street, at 2 o'clock Monday. Burial will be in Poughkeepsie Rural cemetery.

Services of Poughkeepsie lodge of Masons wil be conducted at the chapel at 7:30 o'clock tomorrow night. Friends may call at the chapel between 7 and 9 o'clock tomorrow night.

While the obituary does give more information, it still leaves me dissatisfied. Certainly, it tells me that Henry Baker died of his airway closing and being unable to get enough oxygen. It does not tell me why.

Henry Baker was a previously healthy man. He trained as a lawyer just before WWII, an occupation he returned to after the war. He was a military veteran of the Signal Corps in WWII, specializing in cryptography. Health records from his enlistment note that he had a six-inch appendectomy scar from 1937, was just over 6 feet tall, and 145 pounds. He had blue eyes and blond hair. At enlistment, he was single, but had married before war's end and soon after fathered a child. His wife was pregnant again at his death, although she may not have known that yet. My aunt was born exactly 8 months after his death.

Several possibilities exist for his sudden death, but they fall into two basic categories -- bacterial or viral and anaphylaxis.

The first option is that he contracted a bacteria or virus that closed his airway. There aren't many options for common illnesses that will do this, especially in adults.

Croup is an example of one well-known disease that can do this. Croup is caused by a virus (often parainfluenza or influenza) that manifests most prominently as a cold, but can close the airway such that patients develop a barking cough and possibly stridor (whistling breathing). It can be fatal. However, most cases of croup occur in children, as is true of the other diseases that are most likely. Recent case reports, however, have indicated that croup in adults is much more severe that that in children. In 1949, it is entirely possible that a case of adult croup would not have been taken seriously and/or that there would not have been effective mechanisms to treat it.

Epiglottitis is another example of a disease that can close the airway in adults (and children). Epiglottitis is usually caused by the H influenzae type B bacteria which is now preventable by vaccine (it is also sometimes caused by other bacteria or viruses). It apparently caused George Washington's death and can be fatal to adults. The primary early symptom is a sore throat. However, the described progression of the disease is rarely as long as a week, usually only a few days at most. Epiglottitis is often confused with pharyngitis, however, which is listed on the death certificate.

Another option, however, is anaphylaxis, possibly due to a penicillin allergy. After a week-long cold, it is entirely possible that the doctor who treated Henry Baker at noon on the day of his death would have offered him penicillin. If he had a strep throat (which incidentally could have caused epiglottitis), antibiotics would absolutely have been the way to go. Penicillin would probably have cleared up the disease with no problems. That is, unless he had an allergy.

Penicillin, the first antibiotic to fight infections, was first discovered in 1929 and research on its use continued into the 1930s, but it was not used in civilian populations until the mid-1940s. Prior to this, it had been used with some success on soldiers in WWII. Penicillin, in fact, so revolutionized the medical field that it is difficult to overstate its effects.

Early on, penicillin had to be given by injection and was rare enough and passed through the body quickly enough, that it had to be collected from the urine of patients to be reused. Nonetheless, its effects on diseases and injuries that had previously been incurable and often fatal was heralded as major progress.

In 1944, in a presentation to the American Philosophical Society, Chester S. Keefer (a professor from Boston University) states unequivocally that penicillin is non-toxic. He does mention a few "side-reactions following its use that require comment", including "nausea, headache, tingling of the hands and feet, thrombophlebitis [blood clots in the vessels causing inflammation], urticaria [hives], fever, or chills and fever".

The first anaphylactic reaction to penicillin was described in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. George Waldbott in May of 1949 (just months before Henry's death). By the early 1950s, several studies had been published bearing out Waldbott's conclusions. Researchers noted that severe reactions were infrequent in the first nine years of penicillin's use and that over time allergic reactions to penicillins were becoming more frequent and more severe as exposed patients were more likely to develop hypersensitivity. Allergic patients are described as dying almost immediately of anoxia [lack of air] unless treated with antihistamines.

Penicillin allergy is now a widely recognized problem, and is the most common drug allergy, causing a fatality about 1 out of every 7.5 million uses. Actual allergic and anaphylactic reactions are much more common, since quick treatment with epinephrine can usually prevent fatality even in anaphylactic cases. This treatment would probably have been available in the 1940s if penicillin allergy had been recognized and a physician was readily available. Epinephrine was approved by the FDA in 1939.

Patient information on the allergy lists anaphylaxis as the symptom for 2-4% of all allergic reactions to penicillin. Anaphylaxis includes the potentially deadly swelling of the throat and/or tongue as well as some more generalized symptoms. Less severe reactions include rashes or hives. These sound like infinitesimally small numbers, but do actually affect a large number of people each year. Between 300 and 500 people a year die from penicillin allergies.

Quite possibly, I will never know how Henry I. Baker actually died. Really, any of the above are options. It was a fluke that he caught the cold that he did, and quite unusual that he reacted the way he did. I lean toward epiglottitis as the most likely scenario, and will continue to explore for further information. Knowing this part of my family's history is not simply idle curiosity, but actually comes up regularly whenever a physician asks me about my family medical history.

But what about the inheritance?

Slate.com ran an interesting blurb today in their Human Nature column about a British woman who is receiving donated sperm from her father-in-law. It would mean that the baby would be a biological half-sibling to its "father", raising a number of questions. The health risks with older sperm are increased, but many people are also seriously concerned about the ethics of the case (it was reviewed by an ethics committee).

The father has no brother, which would be the usual family route. The article about this in the Guardian states:

It is not uncommon for families to use a sperm donor from within their family - often a brother - so that the child will have genetic ties with his or her "father", but this is thought to be the first case of a grandfather acting as a sperm donor. The family have not yet decided whether they will tell the child who his or her genetic father is, although the clinic is encouraging them to be open about that. "That's their personal decision," said Dr Ahuja.

Still, the questions about anonymous and known sperm donors that I've raised in other posts still apply. Also, I can't help wondering about the inheritance patterns from granddad to pop to kid... but presumably some lawyers are working on this problem!

What's interesting about this is that the DNA for genealogists will still match up in the future and so really no one will ever have to know (or accuse this woman of adultery!). I wonder how often this kind of thing happened in the past without the sterile medical procedures?