All of these are very difficult matters to investigate. It is very difficult to diagnose changes in such organs precisely. Therefore, I do not think it is permissable that a non doctor who in addition to biological studies, may have studied later histology, be called a specialist in this field.
Q: Do you happen to know where Dr. Madaus had his experience in the matter of the use of Caladium?
A: Yes, I do know that. He told me that personally in 1935 or 1936 before we began our first Caladium experiments. He was in North America and heard there in conversations that natives of South America used the Caladium plant in order to sterilize their enemies. They tried to feed it to them secretly or perhaps they put it on arrowheads and shot their enemies with them. These, of course, were tales of folk lore more or less and whether these tales were credible that you cannot say. Dr. Madaus himself could not tell. Because we were interested in vegetable medicines, we of course heard innumerable such reports on the magical effects of this plant or that. In numerous cases we investigated such tales through experimentation and tried to find out exactly what their source was and if there was any truth in them at all. In such investigations, sometimes you do find the little nugget of gold, that is tile truth in the matter, but usually such tales turn out to be unfounded. You cannot take such tales of mythology in general and apply them in the world of reality.
Q: Witness, on page 5 of this affidavit, this man writes of his experience, that he alleges he has had; can you tell by the way he expresses himself here whether he really had such experiences, that is the necessary experience?
A: When he says here "in one experiment" I cannot characterize that myself as an experiment. It is not customary in science to accept on single experiment as proof or as substantiation of any theory.
Of course, I cannot tell how he intended this expression "one experiment" to be construed, that you would have to ask him. But, if there was really only one experiment without any subsequent or checking experiment, such a single experiment is not even worthy of discussion.
Q: Mr. President, no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel have any questions to propound to this witness? There being none, the prosecution may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. HARDY:
Q: Dr. Koch, it is my understanding that you testified upon reading the article published in the publication, "Experimental Medicine" written by Madaus and yourself, that a person, that is a physician, could ascertain that Caladium Seguinum could not be effectively applied to human beings?
A: Yes.
Q: On page 35 of the document book, which is page 2 of the report, your report there, do you have the report before you, the publication?
A: No, I don't.
Q: You have the publication before you that was written by yourself and Madaus?
A: Yes, I do.
Q: On page 2 of that report, the publication, the first paragraph reads as follows: "The artificial creation of sterility, particularly the temporary elimination of the functions of the female genital organs in case of tuberculosis or other serious damages, is a question which for understandable reasons is discussed frequently and which has resulted in extensive animal experiments; the results obtained in the course of this research have been most instructive from the point of view of science, but have not yet been applied, in practise to human beings."
Now, can it not be construed from reading that paragraph that it is possible that this research Caladium Seguinum shows to you that application upon human beings may also bear some results other than what you have stated here under direct examination?
A: Funadamentally it should be said that new investigations might of course produce new results, that is a question that no person can answer. It is impossible to way here. This introduction to my paper refers to the problem altogether in general before I started discussing Calladium specifically and on page 69, page 2, I specifically emphasize the fact that one should not simply expect that such a product can be applied to human beings. I am emphasizing that my statement applied only to animals.
Q: Where is that, kindly point that out to us, where you say that this cannot be applied to human beings, kindly point that out.
A: Page 69, paragraph 2.
Q: Which page is that of the report?
A: Page 2.
Q: Would you read that, please and read it slowly so that the interpreters can follow you.
THE INTERPRETOR: Mr. Hardy, it is page 36a.
THE WITNESS: "If we now report in the following a third possibility of artificial, that is to say sterilization by medication, this docs not mean a frivelous promise of a similar method for human beings."
BY MR. HARDY:
Q That does not exclude the possibility though, does it doctor?
A It does not exclude the possibility, of course, but a possibility is after all an open question.
Q Yet in this same report on page 4 of the original which is page 37 of the English, you impress upon the reader that the effect of caladium, this is the second paragraph on page 37, of the English, beginning in the middle of the page, you impress upon the reader there the following language:
"The effect of caladium on the sexual organs has been known to the natives there for a long time; they administer this plant in large quantities to their enemies in order to bring about impotence."
Now the whole purpose of this publication is to emphasize the efficacy of caladium segunium and you refer here to a drug which was used in South America by natives in order to keep out their enemies, and you are now showing the results in your animal experiments, and you state in conclusion on page 47, starting on page 46-A, that:
"Caladium segunium to which popular experience attributes a sterilizing effect, shows in animal experiments the following effect:"
And you also show the effect it has on animals. Now from reading this you say it is impossible for a person to determine that this would be effective on human beings?
A This statement that caladium ever was used by natives is put down here as an explanation or let us say as a piece of information, explaining what our incentive was, what induced us to begin these experiments at all. The other information refers to results from animal experimentation, and previously I had numerous examples which showed clearly and unequivocally that this work was at a stage or that this paper describes a stage in research which must be regarded as an initial stage of experimentation, a pre-requisite for subsequent experimentation, and a prerequisite for a possible subsequent use on human beings, but I don't say that here and whether it is really going to be the case no one in the world could say unless he is a person of unusual imagination.
Q Then you say that if it is possible that more elaborate experimentation had been performed on animals, then it may be that experimentation performed on humans would show that caladiun segunium would be effective, is that right?
A That is an open question. There is no one in the world who can answer that question yes or no. If you want to ask me whether the possibility is based on my knowledge; if you want to ask me what results will probably occur from further experimentation then I will tell you this: It will for certain take many years before this question can be answered in the affirmative or negative, for example, the caladiun question, and that I can say on the basis of my own study, is much more difficult to answer than the penicillin question.
Q Well, why couldn't you immediately experiment on human beings to determine this? Would that be unethical unless you had most extensively conducted experiments on animals?
A I don't believe that any one would offer himself voluntarily for an experiment of this sort.
Q Well, you are aware, of course, that human beings were less expensive to the SS than animals, weren't you?
A I beg your pardon.
Q You were aware of the fact that the SS could have obtained human beings for experiments more readily than they could have obtained animals?
A The sterilization quation as applied to human beings was never discussed by me with the SS. The extraordinary importance of the question was simply pointed out but it was not said that experiments were to be carried out on human beings.
Q Well, now let's go back
A But if you ask me whether I consider it ethical to carry out experiments on human beings, such experiments, then I must say I do not consider it ethical.
Q Let us go back to this report which you wrote. Do you consider this report for publication written by you and Madaususen to be a scientific publication?
A Yes.
Q Dr. Pokorny says that the report is unsound, has no scientific value?
A What reasons did he give for the statement?
Q Well, Pokorny said he knew this report was unsound because the authors arrived at the conclusion that regarding animals that the drug was effective on the male animals and was not effective on female animals and in that case he concluded it was an unsound theory, that if it was effective on one it should be effective on the other, and he felt the report had no scientific foundation whatsoever.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I object to this question, the scientific part, and Dr. Pokorny's scientific reasons, I did not go into that yesterday because with the permission of the Tribunal I want to put an affidavit in on this question. Therefore, if the individual isolated statements of Dr. Pokorny here are to be torn from their context because he was not given an opportunity to state his whole view in this matter, then that is a disadvantage to him. It is impossible now to evaluate what he wanted to say and this question must be left until the affidavit is put in.
MR. HARDY: I submit that the defendant Pokorny in cross examination stated to me as I have just put the question to the witness and I am asking the witness whether he feels his report was scientifically sound in view of the testimony of the defendant Pokorny. In going into the specific details of the experiment just generally the defendant Pokorny stated to the Tribunal that he considered the report unsound and unscientific in as much as they found that the drug was effective on males and not effective on females and hence he couldn't understand where there would be any value to it.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, we feel that this should not be asked in the cross examination as this was all on the presupposition that he would later be able to make his entire statement in the affidavit, and the questions would not be propounded to his individual answers in the cross examination and put to the witness here and now on cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the defendant Pokorny is correct, defense counsel may file a supplemental affidavit, but counsel may now ask the witness if in his opinion the fact that it might be stated that the drug would be effective on males and not on females would make any difference in his scientific opinion on the matter.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q What is your opinion, Dr. Koch?
A That is of no importance. There are drugs that are five times as effective in males as in females. I myself have carried out experiments with the neurotoxic substance. These possibilities do exist but these are specialized scientific matters and the average doctor would not be inclined to know about this or concern himself wich such questions. There is a difference in the resistance on the part of the male or female organism and in determining this question I have given specific consideration to this and published a paper on it.
Q Well, now when you were using this caladium segunium or the drug derived therefrom in the course of your experiments, how did you administer it to the animals, orally?
A Not in the form of a drug but in the form of a fresh vegetable extract.
Q Well, could you introduce it to the animal or to the subject other than orally, intravenously, for instance?
A I do not think it has been examined intravenously - it has been given sub-cutaneously and through a stomach channel, into the stomach.
Q Well, now when Oswald Pohl came to your institute and ordered you to perform these experiments did you attempt to delay the experiments and fake the results?
A I must make a correction. Pohl was not at the institute. He went to our botanical gardens which is three kilometers away. As to the other part of the question I must say this: We did not carry through these experiments with the greatest possible energy, first of all we delayed the experiments; then secondly, we started off in a false direction, and thirdly, as adepartmental head Pisker told me later we made various sins of omission and other mistakes and we made such mistakes intentionally, in order intentionally to sabotage these experiments. It was our firm intention that nothing positive should ever come of these experiments.
Q: Then you were of the opinion that something positive could come of the experiments. Therefore you purposely attempted to delay and fake the results so that no positive results could be obtained?
A: That is not an absolutely necessary deduction, because, as I said, the caladium question is an open one and so long as we do not have clear results you cannot say that treatment of human beings is possible with it.
Q: And by the same token you cannot say that it is impossible?
A: No, no person alive could say that, that it is impossible. But you can say that at the time -- right now -- it is impossible, and it is uncertain whether it ever will be possible. To state this very clearly the question is just as open as if someone said "Are we going to be able to telephone to inhabitants of Mars next month?" Then I can say "I don't know; that is an open question." And the caladium question is exactly of the same sort. Nevertheless, and this is what you seemed so surprised about in your question, I didn't carry out the experiments I was ordered to carry out just precisely for this reason, because I don't know, because no one can know whether contrary to expectations perhaps these experiments might not have some positive results. I don't know and no one can know because it hasn't been done yet.
Q: Well, did you ever give any of this caladium to the SS?
A: No, never.
Q: Did you ever give any to I.G. Farben?
A: No. That is, I cannot recall ever having given any to the I.G. but I can say with apodictic certainty that I never gave one gram of this caladium extract to anybody.
Q: You don't know whether I.G. Farben had any?
A: I don't know.
Q: What were you doing in Dachau?
A: We looked at the botanical gardens there on Pohl's invitation, when in 1942 he suddenly turned up in our botanical gardens and looked at our plants without my knowledge.
Then at that time he told us, "Please don't think that we are spying on you scientifically or otherwise. So that you may be sure that we have different purposes with our botanical gardens in Dachau I invite you to pay a return visit." We did pay this visit because otherwise we had to be afraid that we were making Pohl suspicious of our experiments.
Q: You didn't go down there for the purpose of starting a growth of caladium sequinum in his hothouses in Dachau, did you?
A: No. So far as I know, no plant of ours was sent anywhere for such purposes.
Q: Were you inside the concentration camp when you want to Dachau?
A: No, I was in the botanical gardens and they were outside the camp proper, because we could see from there a high wall, and I assume that behind this high wall the concentration camp lay.
Q: Did you ever go to Dachau again after that first visit?
A: No, never.
Q: Was Pohl with you on that visit?
A: He arranged for the visit. He met us for perhaps two minutes, turned us over to another officer, and this man conducted us through the gardens. A conversation of a scientific nature with Pohl did not take place so far as I know. We saw him for the briefest sort of time.
Q: Did you ever meet Dr. Schumann?
A: Dr. Schumann from England?
Q: No, no, an SS physician, Schumann.
A: I cannot remember that name.
Q: Didn't he ever visit you at your institute?
A: I can't tell you. I cannot remember the name. I don't know.
It is not impossible. There were many, many doctors in the institute whose names I do not know, or don't know today.
Q: When did you meet Dr. Klauberg for the first time?
A: The bacteriologist, Dr. Klauberg, I met at a micro-biologic conference, and I heard him deliver a lecture there, but I cannot remember ever having had a private conversation with him. You are referring to this bacteriologist, aren't you?
Q: I am referring to Dr. Klauberg, another SS physician.
A: I do not know any SS doctor, Klauberg.
Q: And you are sure you never had any affiliations with Schumann and Klauberg?
A: So far as I can remember I never had anything to do with those two, nor can I remember any correspondence with them. I think I can say with absolute certainty that I had no connections with them at all.
Q: Doctor, for the moment I wish to propound a hypothetical question to you. If you have a drug which will be effective on males and not on females, would its use for sterilization be sound -- for purposes of sterilization be sound?
A: I didn't understand the question. Could you please repeat it?
Q: Well now, if you have a drug which is effective and will effect the sterility of a male but not a female, would it be sound scientifically and medically to use that drug in actual practice, or would there be danger that the males to whom the drug was administered might, in some instances, not become sterilized?
A: The effect of caladium was net the same in all animals. We found great differences in the effectiveness. The resistance of an animal to such a substance is very great; that is to say, the differences in resistance are very great. It could be, and it actually did happen, that some of the animals were sterilized and some of the animals were not sterilized at all, or if some were sterilized, only much later.
Now whether or not this was healthy for the animals, I should like to have that explained mere closely. What do you mean by healthy? Are you talking about a general poisoning? I must say that I have the impression that were animals died when being fed caladium in their food than animals died that weren't being fed caladium. It is possible that this effect on the glands with internal secretion also has a toxic influence on other organs or was your question intended differently?
Q: No, that answer is sufficient, Doctor. Doctor, did you have any misgivings after having been approached by Oswald Pohl regarding the production and experimentation with caladium sequinum?
A: Yes, because we thought we saw some purpose behind these maneuvers which we couldn't recognize for certain, but which we suspected the nature of. For that reason we had misgivings and for that reason we carried out experiments in 1939-40 in a way that from the scientific point of view is not acceptable. They were simply carried on in a pseudo exact way.
Q: Well then, what was the reason for your misgivings, if you thought that caladium sequinum would not be effective if applied to human beings?
A: Because that's an open question and you never can tell what will come of such investigations. We didn't even want to broach this question from the scientific point of view, entirely aside from the question what ultimate goals the SS might be having in this, namely the possible sterilization of human beings.
Q: Well then, you can't agree with the position taken by Dr. Pokorny after having read your publication, that it would be impossible to sterilize a human being by use of caladium sequinum?
A: At the time when uve wrote the paper, and I think even today also, because I do not know that any further investigations have been carried out of this question, you can say that it was impossible. What it will be in the future that, as I have already repeatedly said, no one can know, because it is an open question.
Q: You have never had any reports from the SS concerning the results of work with caladium sequinum on human beings or never have heard of any?
A: No, that cannot be. We made no caladium available for such purposes and that being the case, the SS would have had to find caladium elsewhere. We never delivered any or did we ever have any reason to believe that anywhere in this world caladium was being used on human beings, even in one single instance.
Q: However, it could well have been done without your knowledge?
A: That is quite possible.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, I would like to ask you if there is any botanical relationship between this drug, caladium, and the drug botanical product used in South America by the Indians known as curare?
THE WITNESS: No, so far as I know there is no connection between the two, because curare is used as a prison and it paralyzes the animal. It is toxic to the nervous system, but in a case of caladium we never had the impression that it was of such toxicity to the nerves as curare is.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Any further questions to the witness? There being none the witness is excused from the stand.
DR. HOFFMAN: I have no further questions, your Honor.
(Witness excused).
DR. HOFFMANN: Mr. President, perhaps between now and the noon recess I could put in the rest of my documents so that after the pause I can call my witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel.
DR. HOFFMANN: As Exhibit No. 24 I put in Document No. 24 from Document Book II. This is an extract from the minutes of the Interational Military Tribunal in Nuernberg on 9 August 1946. This is the examination of Sievers by Elwyn Jones on 9 August 1946.
HR. HARDY: Your Honor, this is an extract of the proceedings of the International. Military Tribunal which doesn't necessarily need to bear a document number. However, it is not certified in the manner prescribed by the Tribunal and should be certified by the Secretary General. I won't object but suggest it be certified in the proper form.
DR. HOFFMANN: I personally certified this extract. However, I can also have it done through the Secretary General should that be necessary.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as a matter of expediency I withdraw my objection but want to do that with the reservation that any extracts from the record should be certified by the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. It may be waived in this instance. The document will be admitted as Pokorny Exhibit 24.
DR. HOFFMANN: I should like to read this document very briefly. Mr. Elwyn Jones, the prosecuting attorney, asked the question of the witness Sievers: "Do you know that in connection with this matter" - that is, relative to Dr. Pokorny's letter which is an issue here "hothouses were erected where these plants were cultivated?
"Answer: No, I do not know this. In connection with this, I recollect only the following: that this publication was sent to Dr. Madaus for comments, without mentioning the remarkable suggestion of Dr. Pokorny for comments of Dr. von Wuenzelburg who is an expert on tropical plants and who stated at once that such a plant could not be cultivated here and was not available."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I do not notice that this exhibit is con tained in your document book.
I was mistaken - it does show the record of the page of the International Tribunal proceedings.
DR. HOFFMANN: The next document I put in evidence is Document 25. This will be Exhibit No. 25 and is on page 62. This is an affidavit of the affiant before Military Tribunal II, namely Oswald Pohl, who on seeing Document NO-041, Exhibit No. 156, made additions to his statement of 14 July 1946, Document NO-065, to the following effect: "My letter of 7 September 1942, NO-041, shows that I had employed SS Sturmbannfuehrer Lolling in connection with caladium. Now, I never heard any more from Lolling concerning experiments with caladium. Had experiments with caladium in fact been made, Lolling would have reported to me about them. As this was not the case, no experiments could have been made."
Now comes Prosecution Document 26, Exhibit No. 26, page 63. This is an affidavit by Dr. W. Gottschald, Ph.D. - correction - the affidavit is signed by Dr. Thren, director of the Biological Firm of Dr. Madaus and Co., whom I first intended to call as a witness and from whom I now put in this affidavit. This affidavit of 2 January 1947 states the following:
"Since 16 August 1936 I have been working as a biologist at the Biological Institute of the firm Dr. Madaus and Co. after Dr. Koch evacuated Radebeul in February 1945 with a large part of the equipment of the institute, I directed the institute.
"I know that before I took over animal experiments with caladium secuinum were performed at the institute. However, this was done only on a small scale as the cultivation of this plant, a typical hothouse plant, is very difficult. I am not aware that caladium was supplied for sterilization experiments on human beings. not any "I know that not any / members of the SS came to inspect the institute.
In my presence, however, nothing was discussed with them concerning caladium experiments."
And it says at the end: "I would add that I was never a member of the NSDAP or of any of its affiliated organizations."
The next document that I want to put in is Pokorny Document No. 19.
This will be Exhibit 27, Document Book II, page 54. This is an affidavit by professor Hellmut Weese, director of the Pharmacological Institute in Duesseldorf, and who makes statements regarding effects produced by caladium.
Then I shall put in Document 20, Exhibit 28, page 56. This is an affidavit by August Wilhelm Forst from Munich, professor of pharmacology, and this also discusses the effects of caladium. From this affidavit of Weese I should like to read only the last paragraph:
"Apart from these restrictions, however, the whole train of thought seems to me to be without pertinent significance, since large scale transplantation of a tropical plant to Europe would hardly have been possible during the war.
"Because of the unspecific effect of the caladium extract, its virulently poisonous quality, the doubt as to whether it can be planted and used in our moderate zone, I consider it extremely improbable that even a doctor of only average education will attempt with conviction the experiment of sterilizing human beings with caladium extract on the basis of the work of Madaus and Koch. Convincing papers for the problem referred to other than the work of Madaus and Koch are not know to me."
THE PRESIDENT: This completes, counsel, the introduction of your documents, I think.
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes, it does. Permit me to call the witness after the noon recess.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock this afternoon.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1335 hours, 26 June 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, I am informed that the examination of the witness, Jung, will not take much more than an hour. At the end thereof I think Dr. Servatius will be prepared to complete the afternoon by introducing supplemental document books of the defendant Karl Brandt. The Prosecution requests to call, out of order, that is, before the completion of the supplemental documentary evidence of the defense, 2 witnesses tomorrow. One is Josef Laubinger and the other is Karl Hoellenreiter, both gypsies, who were subjected to the sea-water experiments at Dachau. I would like to be sure that Dr. Steinbauer is informed - he is in the city - and will be available tomorrow when these 2 witnesses appear, if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: See that Dr. Steinbauer is informed of the fact that these witnesses will be called tomorrow morning.
MR. HARDY: Very well.
DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny): I should like to call the witness, Jung, at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness, Friedrich Jung.
FRIEDRICH JUNG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: Please hold up your right hand and be sworn: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SEBRING: You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HOFFMANN:
Q Witness, please tell the Tribunal when and where you were born?
A On the 21st of April 1915, in Friedrichshafen.
Q Please describe your scientific training.
A I studied medicine at Tuebingen, Koenigsberg and Berlin. Since 1938 I have been an assistant at the Pharmacological Institute in Berlin, under Professor Huebner. In 1943, I was at the Pharmacological Institute of Tuebingen as a scientific assistant and since the beginning of 1946, I have been head of the Pharmacological Institute of the University of Wuerzburg and hold the Chair of Pharmacology there.
Q Witness, are you an expert on pharmacological questions?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q Witness, what do you think of homeopathy or bio-chemistry?
A Homeopathy or bio-chemistry is a very interesting system of healing which, at the time of its origin was a reaction to the one-sided attitude of classical medicine. It is noteworthy and no doubt justified and has many good aspects; but I consider it psychologically remarkable that for 137 years this system has remained essentially unchanged as a doctrine although in the past century the development of modern scientific medicine has come to a certain degree of perfection. I consider this all the more remarkable inasmuch as the advocates of homeopathy at the time, insofar as they are doctors, have the advantage of the high medical training of our universities and medical academies and should realize the unsoundness of the tenets of homeopathy. The latter has been testified to by internists and pharmacologists on many occasions. Schissler's bio-chemistry, which is not to be confused with physiological chemistry, is closely connected with homeopathy and is derived from it.
Q Witness, is it true that in instruction at the universities a similar antagonistic attitude toward biot-chemistry or homeopathy is expressed?
A Yes. I, myself, am in the habit of going into these things in detail in my courses. During my own studies at the University of Tuebingen and Berlin, I heard nothing else. I know no German member of my profession, responsible for teaching students pharmacy and related subjects, who is an advocate of homeopathy.
Q Witness, do you believe the firm Madaus is in favor of this homeopathic tendency in medicine?
A Yes. I have known the Madaus firm for many years as a leading firm in this connection. I have always had the impression that it publishes propaganda among laymen and doctors very extensively. As an example of the nature of this propaganda, one could mention Madaus year books of all the past years.
Q Witness, what we are interested in here is that the firm published a paper by Madaus and Koch, on the question of the use of caladium. You know this paper and if you have an opinion on it, I ask you from what point of view do you believe the Madaus firm came to carry out experiments with caladium seguinum?
A From the final statement of this paper itself one can see that it was carried out in a series of experiments performed by the Madaus firm, to study the influence on the hormone structure by plant material. This question is no doubt extremely interesting and scientifically rewarding but it is an obvious assumption that the aim of the work was rather to find a basis for the use of caladium in homeopathic practice in interruptions of potency, sterility, frigidity, etc. That the Madaus firm had certain propagandistic purposes in publishing this paper can be seen from the publication of the results of the work in a popular magazine, a procedure which is not customary.
Q Witness, what possibilities are there, in principle, for sterilization?
Q Witness, what possibilities are there in principle for sterilization?
A From the papers which have been given to me I have observed that a clear distinction is not made between sterilization and castration, and I should like to clarify that here first. Sterilization, generally, means disturbance of the capacity for reproduction. Sterilization includes castration. That is, nor merely disturbing the reproductive capacity, but removing the reproductive glands from the organism which has deep-seated consequences for the whole human being. There are false disturbances of the psychic and of the working ability. I believe that the problem under discussion here is not the problem of castration, but the problem of the simple disturbance of the reproductive capacity while retaining the other aspects of the personality of the human being. I shall not go into the various procedures which are used in medicine. When a human being, especially a woman, is to be sterilized, temporarily, because what is at issue here is permanent disability of the reproductive capacity, is interruption of the output of the reproductive glands. That can be done by putting an obstruction at any point, that is by performing a surgical operation. The second possibility is that the human being, as a whole, remains normal, the only thing that is lost is the reproductive capacity. The second most radical possibility is the removal of the reproductive glands which involves castration, and various other serious symptoms, reduction of working capacity, serious psychological changes. A procedure which in practice would be out of the question. Another possibility is radiotion of the reproductive glands with X-ray or radium rays, and thus damaging then severely. There are certain very definite disturbances, depending on the degree of irradiation. This is in all equivalent to castration. X-ray sterilization or X-ray castration does not guarantee 100 percent, success, unless one is using very large doses. This X-ray sterilization is based on the fact that X-rays effect particularly young, rapidly growing tissue, such as reproductive glands are, but there is no specific procedure for sterilization because X-rays will effect also other quickly growing tissue.