Therefore, if one were to assume hypothetically (although the contrary has been proved) that Rascher still belonged to Weltz' Institute until the beginning of May 1942, Weltz would still bear no responsibility for Rascher's criminal experiments since he knew nothing about them and also could not assume that aside from the Ruff-Romberg program still another program was being carried out on Himmler's orders. These hypothetical reflections demonstrate that the actual time when Rascher separated from Weltz' Institute is not of such practical importance as the Prosecution asserts.
From this it can be seen that Weltz, who tried in vain to check on the experiments, bears no responsibility for Rascher's entire further experimental activities. One can only understand the situation and the part that Rascher played if one considers Rascher's double position as a doctor. This is No. 13.
XIII Double position of Rascher as a doctor and an SS-Leader.
The fact that the Dachau experiments took quite a different turn than Weltz had planned and expected had its reason in Rascher's double position. Within the Luftwaffe, Rascher was Weltz' subordinate. But it was in no way obvious for Weltz what were the relationships between Rascher and Himmler. Prof. Weltz did not at all expect Himmler to change his attitude and exclude him from the experiments, after having allowed them. Weltz was of course not in a position to exercise any influence upon Himmler's decisions.
This relationship is approximately characterized in the judgment of Military Tribunal No. II in the case against the former secretary of the state MILCH. In this case the responsibility of the Luftwaffe for the high altitude and freezing experiments examined from the legal standpoint. The judgment concludes after careful examination of the evidence with the statement that Milch was not in a position to prevent Rascher's and the SS experiments, even if he had known anything of them. I quote the decisive sentences from page 6 because of their importance for the use of Weltz:
I quote: "Did the defendant have the power or the possibility to prevent or to stop the experiments? It cannot be denied that he had the power to either prevent or stop them as far as they were carried out under the sponsorship of the Luftwaffe. It seems to be very probable however, they they would have been continued against his will by Himmler and the SS." That's the end of my quotation.
This conception results from a correct understanding of Himmler's position at that time. The secretary of state Milch was not in a position to defend his point against Himmler's will.
If this is true, according to the conviction of an American Tribunal, even for Milch, it is even more the case for the Luftwaffe doctors we are concerned with in this trial. With these findings one of the most important prerequisites is cleared up in the case of Weltz. Weltz would have never been in a position to exercise any influence upon the experiments ordered by Himmler, even if he had known of them. However, he did not even know that such experiments were being carried out at all.
However, Rascher's position must not be misunderstood in that sense that Weltz, within the competency of the Luftwaffe, would have allowed Rascher to violate the discipline and would have yielded to Himmler's influence. This is clearly shown by the energy with which he removed Rascher from his institute, regardless, whether he had to do with one of Himmler's friends. Thanks to his energy and his courage, Rascher was prevented from conducting unnecessary experiments between May 1941 and February 1942, although he insisted upon carrying them out. It is quite obvious, however, that Weltz was not in a position to influence the close relationship between Rascher and Himmler. They kept their mutual correspondence outside the official channel so that Weltz was completely uninformed in this respect.
The only means that Weltz could dispose of within his competency against Rascher was to make reports to the Medical Inspectorate. He used it after Rascher's dismissal by going to Berlin and giving a detailed report to Anthony, the deputy of the absent medical inspector.
I come to Chapter XIV. I shall omit this now. The charge against Weltz in this respect cannot be maintained.
For the same reason I shall now omit the paragraph Conspiracy. The attitude to this point has been also changed.
I come now to Paragraph XVI, Conclusion, Summary of the Results, Application for Acquittal, and this is the last paragraph which I want to read.
When at the end of the war the concentration camps were opened, the public learned for the first time of their terror and the crimes which had been committed there.
The general request for a very severe punishment of these crimes, in order to prevent them from being repeated in the future, was more than justified, This is obviously the reason, why General Taylor, in his opening speech, claimed that this trial served as an example, in order to make the German people understand, why it was necessary to destroy cities like Nuernberg.
In answer to this, I want to point out the following: The principals guilty with regard to this special field that is being discussed here, are dead. Rascher, Ding-Schuler, Grawitz, Lolling, Conti escaped the justice of this world. Also Holzloehner and Finke are dead. One would render a poor service to the concept of justice, when sentencing persons, who happened to be in touch with the periphery of these events, because of crimes committed by those who are dead, without examining their guilt quite independently of them.
With this I do not turn, Your Honors, against the infliction of severe punishments, but against the method asked for by the Prosecution, namely to make responsible those, who are still alive, for those who are dead.
A grave reproach was made against the Justice of the Third Reich, by saying that it lacked every consideration for the right of the individual and sacrificed these inalienable rights to a misinterpreted interest of the state. Opposed to this, the democratic principles demand an impartial examination of the guilt of each individual, not influenced by the political situation or the need of political propaganda.
Such an impartial judgment is also necessary in consideration of the unique importance given to the outcome of this trial by the world. The outcome of this trial will be decisive for the character of medical research for the next decades. But, since the medical research in its final aim does not concern the doctors but the sick, the importance of the judgment for the entire civilization cannot be evaluated highly enough. The legal limits of medical research with regard to human experiments will in future have to be conform with the principles set down by the expected judgment. If these limits are too restricted, it will not be the doctors, in the last analysis, who will be prejudiced, but the sick for whose benefit science is meant to serve.
I now sum up the result of my examination as follows:
1) It has been established that Weltz did not participate in any criminal high-altitude experiments or further any such experiments in any form whatever.
2) He did not omit doing anything which could have prevented or stopped any criminal experiments of Rascher's.
3) He did not participate, either directly or indirectly, in Rascher's cold experiments.
4) He did not participate in any conspiracy.
The conviction which I express with this statement is the result of several years of work, which began with the first day of Prof. Weltz's arrest in June. I personally, after having known Weltz for many years, was convinced from the beginning that he could not have committed any inhumane acts. I therefore expected after beginning this trial to encounter clear and indubitable proofs. The contrary proved to be true. Today, after almost eight months of investigations, the participation of Weltz in medical experiments of a criminal nature has been clearly refuted and the charge of furthering them shrunken to an unfounded assumption. And this is the result of a trial in which the Prosecution were in possession of all the evidence.
But the Prosecutor also made the defense of Prof. Weltz more difficult by his special treatment of the case. Not only by an incomplete and one-sided presentation of documents, whereby exonerating documents were not brought out, but also in the rest of the manner of presenting the case. This could give the Tribunal a completely false picture of conditions in Germany and of the world of ideas of the defendant Weltz and thus of his true plans and intentions. Thus - to give examples - the picture of Rascher was painted during the trial by the Prosecutor in such a way as if, from the beginning, those around him had been able to realize that he was the criminal that he has proved to be today, after years of investigation.
It is similar with knowledge about conditions in the concentration camps. Only after the collapse did conditions there come to light, and at the same time, the terror system of concealment was revealed. The Prosecution, however, assumes that it was generally known at the time.
To this chapter of unscientific treatment belong statements of the Prosecutor's such as this: that Prof. Weltz was responsible for Ruff's and Romberg's being in the dock. As if the Prosecutor did not know very well that these two aviation medicine experts had enough knowledge of the subject and enough common sense to form their own judgment on their decisions. Moreover, they had no intentions of doing anything illegal, any more than Weltz did.
I have emphasized the inequalities in the procedural possibilities also, however, in order to ask the Tribunal to compensate for the severe disadvantages of the defendant in obtaining evidence by corresponding judicial judgment. In all penal procedures in the world, no doubt, the prosecutor has to bring evidence against the defendant, who is presumed innocent - has to show the court that the defendant deviated from the paths of lawfulness, and has to bring this proof all the more clearly, the less grounds for suspicion the defendant has given in his previous life. In doubtful cases, when the Prosecution case does not clarify the state of affairs sufficiently, the previous irreproachable conduct of the defendant, his previous way of life must be the decisive factor.
I have already stated by way of summary that the Prosecution case against Weltz has failed. Nor was even the slightest proof brought that Weltz gave any aid to Rascher's experiments. But where there could be doubts about Weltz's inner attitude, perhaps as to what intentions underlay his actions here and there, his previous conduct, his whole attitude toward the medical profession, toward humanity, should be decisive.
For this reason I have taken the liberty of submitting to the High Tribunal opinions and judgments from various circles, from the medical profession, which awarded him its honors, from his associates, who attested his nobility of character, human kindness, and humanity, and from his employees, on whose behalf he always took action with the whole force of his personality at decisive points in their lives.
Nowhere does this description indicate characteristics toward which the Prosecutor directed the only accusation which he seems to maintain, which is unbridled scientific ambition, favoritism, and above all lack of respect for human feeling and the idea of humanity.
Every healthy feeling revolts against the proposition that it could have been an end in itself for Prof. Weltz to commit crimes, torture human beings, and kill by sadistic excesses. All this fits so poorly into the picture of the man and champion of the progress of medical science, the picture of a person who never cared for egotism and material interests, but only for the promotion of the whole.
In a complete distortion of this picture, the German press, misusing official material, made the assertion that Prof. Weltz had, together with Rascher, killed numerous people in Dachau by cold experiments. That such a statement destroys the honor of a German research scientist in the very field in which he had succeeded in saving thousands of lives by his scientific discoveries, is not only unjust, but it is tragic. This treatment of a man who has served medical progress so well demands just compensation. To award this is in the hands of Military Tribunal I, which is called upon to decide. To this Tribunal, I address the plea to restore, by a verdict of acquittal, the livelihood which was destroyed by Prof. Weltz by the charges of the Prosecution. I ask that Military Tribunal I pass judgment to the effect that Prof. Weltz be acquitted of the charges against him, in whatever form they may have been made.
THE PRESIDENT: Is any of the German counsel advised as to the whereabouts of Dr. Hoffmann, Counsel for defendant Pokorny? We will be prepared to hear from him after hearing from counsel for defendant Brack.
DR. FLEMMING: Your Honor, the defense counsel Hoffmann is in the Pohl Trial this morning. As far as ho was informed, the translation was not concluded yet, and he counts on being the last this afternoon, in fact, he is, of course, willing to plead this afternoon, but there are a number of other gentlemen here whose translations are finished and who could come first. It was assumed that counsel for the defendant Pokorny would plead this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The interpreters have advised me that throe translations are available this morning: Willie, whom we have heard; Froeschmann for Brack, whom we shall hoar next; and Hoffmann, as counsel for defendant Pokorny. The interpreters have informed mo that the translations for the defendant Hoven and Becker-Freyseng are not yet ready.
Dr. Hoffmann will be called upon after counsel for defendant Brack has made his argument.
Prior to calling on counsel for defendant Brack the Tribunal will bo in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will be seated.
The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now hear the argument on behalf of the defendant Brack by his counsel.
DR. FROESCHMANN: For the defendant Brack. Mr. President, your Honors:
The Prosecution has charged Victor Brack before the Military Tribunal for participation in crimes listed under article II of control council law No. 10 as a major war criminal of the European axis powers in the sense of the London agreement of 8 August 1945 according to the Moscow declaration of 30 October 1945.
The defendants of this trial, as far as they wore doctors, wore accused in General Taylor's opening speech of having committed atrocities under the guise of medical science. The defendant Brack docs not belong to these doctors. Brack would probably not even have appeared before you bench as a war criminal, had his superior Bouhler been still alive. Brack worked as an expert in the Fuehrer Chancellery and in his field of work had nothing to do with medical problems. Also Brack is not accused by the Prosecution of having participated in medical experiments.
However, Brack is accused of participation in the genocide policy of the Third Reich, in so far as he participated in the euthanasia program and the sterilization experiments was conscious of their destructive purposes.
I.
In the judgment of the IMT the word "euthanasia" or "euthanasia program" is not used at all. It only mentions measures that were taken for the purpose of killing all the old, mentally ill, and all those, who had incurable diseases, in special institutions, which included German nationals and foreign workers who were unable to work. Also in the separate judgment against the defendant Frick only these measures are mentioned.
Any connection, or even the possibility of such a connection between these measures and persecution of the Jews, dealt with in a separate chapter, in particular with the plans drawn up in the summer of 1941 for a "final solution" of the Jewish question in Europe was never established by the IMT nor even hinted at.
1. The word "euthanasia" was until 1939 unknown to Brack as well as to large circles of the German population. That this word originally meant the "art" of dying, or to meet death with serene calm had remained the secret of those scientists, who were interested in the Greek language.
During the course of the centuries the meaning of this word changed. It first became the expression for the endeavour of the physician - originating in humane compassion, developed by the medical art - to alleviate the end of a dying person by soothing his pains. But then the moaning of the word and with it the concept of euthanasia was expanded, and towards the end of the 19th century it meant the assistance in dying through an abbreviation of life, if the life of the suffering person had lost its value in view of an immediate and painful death or as a result of an incurable disease.
It is a fact that this kind of euthanasia has been applied in the whole world since time and can be traced back to the Twelve Tables of the ancient Rome and to the epoch of state socialism of the antiquity.
The assertion of the Prosecution that euthanasia was the product of national socialism and its racial theories can be indisputably refuted through history.
Even if the Prosecution is of a different opinion, the Tribunal cannot overlook the fact that according the testimony of Karl Brandt, Brack, Pfannmueller, Hederich, Schultze, Grube, Gertrud Kallmeyer and Walter Eugen Schmidt, all independently stated that the measures started according to Hitler's "will in the autumn of 1939, only applied to uncurably mentally ill and were suspended in 1941. For these measures the participants used the word and the concept of "euthanasia" in the meaning of the final medical assistance, whether justly or injustly will be discussed later.
2. It is not uninteresting to note that the word "euthanasia program" appears for tho first time in the Brack affidavit (NO 426 Exhibit 160), which has been drawn up by the prosecution after several interrogations Brack at that time was in a state of physical and psychic exhaustion, and therefore not in a position to realize clearly what he said.
The defense in agreement with the prosecution refrained from presenting a medical export opinion, but did not, as the prosecution now asserts, refuse to present it.
I regret very deeply that the prosecution, when using the word "euthanasia program" coined by them, characterizes without sufficient proof tho euthanasia applied in 1939/1941 for the incurably sick as the conscient and deliberate procusor of the different actions of annihilation which mark the mile stones of the psychic and moral ruins left to the German people by men who had become crazy.
3. If the prosecution had been sure of their assumption, they wouldn't have had to submit those extremely doubtful documents with which they tried to prove in cross examination that the defendant Brack participated in planning the mass extermination of the Jews.
I continue on page 10 of my plea as follows:
How in the face of such an insufficient evidence which moreover is opposed when numerous cases of intervention for Jews in that period of time -- I only recall the cases Warburg and Georgii - and in tho face of Brack's sworn statements about his attitude towards Jewry, tho prosecution can assort that Brack had participated in planning the extermination of the Jews and with that closed the circle, which they drew round tho euthanasia of incurable mental patients, the Action 14 F 13 and the final measures to exterminate the Jews.
4. Again I wish to stress that everything that happened after the stop in August 1941 under misuse of the institutions of euthanasia, had nothing to do with the euthanasia of the incurably insane which was supported by Brack.
An opposing view would only be suitable to make an historical record which is not supported by the weight of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, but merely corresponds to a view which just in the decisive points is void of every substantiated basis.
II On the same line of collaboration in the expermination of the Jews lies the assertion of the Prosecution that Brack had sterilization experiments carried out which brought death or permanent harm to numerous helpless victims.
The Defendant Brack does not deny that he submitted suggestions to Himmler which dealt with the mass sterilization of Jews. The Prosecution considers the suggestions as seriously meant. I agree with the Defendant Brack, when he admits in his direct examination that it is possible for a reader without detailed knowledge of the circumstances of the origin and the intentions to get such an impression. The question now arises:
How should a man who never was himself an opponent of the Jews suddenly make suggestions implying toward the Jews?
1. In this connection I may be permitted to devote a few words to the personality of the defendant Brack, since only with full understanding of his inner thoughts can his actions in connection with the charges made against him, of sterilization experiments and collaboration in euthanasia, be given due consideration.
Russia's most profound poet of the 19th century, Dostoevsky, in his novel "The Idiot" puts in the mouth of Prince Myshkin as proclaimer of his faith in the unending power of the human soul, which overcomes all evil and darkness of life, the words:
"Pity is the most important and perhaps the only law of existence of humanity."
Although he did not know it, this quotation became for the Defendant Viktor Brack the yardstick of morality in his acts in life. Not only when knowledge of the intentions of Himmler's entourage showed him the terrible auspices which threatened the Jews from the year 1940 on. Not at the time when Hitler's decree of the summer of 1939 brought him in contact with the problem which had moved the heroes of antiquity. No, in the youthful heart of the defendant and into a mature age the pillar of his character - almost a passion - had always been "to want to help in all things which brought the misery and the suffering of his fellow men to his attention, and a corresponding absolute readiness to help which put his will into action. Thus "sympathy" - literally "suffering with" his fellow man - became for Viktor Brack the spiritual motor force of his acts.
Sympathy with the poorest creatures of humanity induced Brack to cooperate in the execution of the idea of euthanasia. Sympathy with the concentration camp inmates, who had been robbed of their freedom for years, accasioned Brack to suggest several "amnesties", through which tens of thousands of concentration camp inmates were granted the good fortune of returning to a life of freedom.
Sympathy with the prisoners, torturted to the point of spiritual collapse moved Brack, in the early summer of 1941, to pass on Bouhler's order for medical examination of the mental wrecks in the concentration camps.
2. Another outstanding characteristic appears to us in the picture of the personality of the Defendant Brack:
His sense of justice led him in hundreds of cases to intervene for the just interests of Jews and part-Jews when they confidently came to him in their distress. I need only mention the cases of Warburg, Ollendorff, and Georgii. His feeling of justice, paired with strong personal sympathy, led him in dealing with all sorts of matters in the of the Fuehrer, especially in the question of the release of concentration camp inmates, to adopt the so-called "weak line".
Brack did this without consideration of the fact that such a policy of tolerance would necessarily draw down upon himself the antagonism of Bormann and Heydrich or the displeasure of Himmler and might expose him to the danger of being sent to a concentration camp himself.
These statements are not based on vain arrogance of the defendant or an attempt to surround the defense of Brack with the gloriola of a person ostensibly motivated by humane feelings. From numerous affidavits and testimony of witnesses these qualities of Brack's shine crystal-clear.
But it would minimize the significance of these observations if I did not also sketch the shadows which fall on these bright colors in the picture of Brack's personality.
Sympathy is doubtless one of the feelings which seize the core of a human being's personality. To reject sympathy as in inconsiderable sentiment of the heart as stoic virtue demands, would conflict with natural feelings, deny the pride of modern man, humanity, in whose name the victorious powers have called the defendants to judgment; for sympathy means, as the Defendant Brack so well said, participation of the heart in the sufferings of others.
3. But, as humanly good as sympathy is, as a moral commandment it is only relative. Before sympathy can exert its influence on the will, it needs to be examined for the purity of its composition, or in other words, it needs purification and discipline by reason.
In this respect we see a weakness in Brack's character insofar as, for lack of restriction to a concrete field of work, he repeatedly failed to show the necessary sensible consideration. He gave way to impulsivness in things, the import of which it was outside his capacity to judge.
Thus, in his character, reason was more or less overshadowed by the urgings of his exaggerated altruism. Let me remind you of the testimony of the witness Hederich, the affidavit of Tuessling, that Brack was not without justification called a "political Parsifal"; or of his own admission that out of stupidity he let himself be involved; in the case of his sterilization suggestions, in a thing which he did not understand.
Whether such conduct was from his childhood on a component part of his psychic background; or whether it was the effect of his own distress, which came about as a result of the Versaille treaty, through the loss of his home and the destruction of his plans for the future:
This involvement in consititutionally determined thinking constitutes in Brack's life the fateful tragedy which, in the judgment of all the witnesses; allows a man who is helpful, decent, and modest in his thinking be suspected of crimes against humanity.
4. Thus; his urge to rebel against inhumane actions drove him, who was entirely unconcerned to submit to Himmler in the spring of 1941 useless sterilization suggestions with the aim of preventing the danger of general sterilization which was threatening the Jews.
In the course of his examination as a witness Brack described his relation to Himmler from the very beginning of his acquaintance; his original impressions of belief in the personality of Himmler and his humanity; the arising of misgivings and doubts; their pacification; and then the horrible disappointment until his inner break in 1942, occasioned by Himmler's announcement of his sterilization intentions and still more of his later extermination intentions toward the Jews. Brack also described in an extremely realistic way the reasons for his last appeal to Himmler's instincts in June 1942 (NO 205, Exh. 163) and revealed the attempt to exploit Himmler's realistic thinking in regard to the procurement of labor, which in his spiritual distress seemed to him the last possibility for rescue and decided him to send such a letter to Himmler.
5. Brack's attitude toward the Jews has been proved by numerous affidavits.
From childhood on he had various friendships and acquaintances with Jews; he continued to mix with Jews at a time when personal dangers were threatening him on account of the fact ha was a Party official. When he was active in the Fuehrer's Chancellery he intervened in numerous cases on behalf of the interests of Jews and half Jews. At the same time as ho wrote his first letter he energetically and successfully intervened on behalf of Professor Warburg and preserved him and his institute for Humanity. Various Jewish circles expressed their thanks and their gratitude to Brack on account of his personal courage. After the intention of the loading people to deport the Jews to Poland in a disgraceful way became known for the first time, Brach drafted plans for the establishment of a Jewish State in Madagaskar.
All these facts, which not even the Prosecution can deny, make it appear quite impossible that with his suggestions Brack had intended to participate in Himmler's destructive intentions or wanted to support them, all these facts prove that in his urge to help he wanted, from then on, to do nothing but looking after the interests of the Jews. Brack believed he had to serve them by showing them a certain, though childish looking, method which for a layman like Himmler didn't permit the discovery with certainty the desired effect with its many 'Ifs and Buts'. That way, in the first place, Brack hoped to lead Himmler astray from his sterilization plans. Should, however, Himmler regard the method as suitable for an experiment, then, Brack hoped, the long period which was necessary for the preparation of such experiments, could win such a lot of time that the end of the war which he expected with certainty would call a halt to all these plans.
It is undisputable that the method suggested by Brack was entirely unpracticable, from the point of view of the x-ray technician as well as from the point of view of the x-ray specialist, as can be seen from Brack Exhibits 48 and 49. These scientifically reasoned expert testimonies of Professors Rump and Stumpf, who are recognized authorities, together with the affidavit of the witness Grube (Brack Exhibit 27) permit to attach probability to Brack's further statement about the changes made in expert opinion of an x-ray expert which was given particularly for this purpose; therefore this statement of Brack's is, to say the least, to be regarded as not refuted, even if I did not succeed in spite of the help given to me by the Tribunal, to obtain a confirmation of these facts by the export himself from the Russian Zone.
While, in the first letter, a certain place in occupied by the intention that the sterilization should be unnoticed this point of view could not only be abandonned in the second letter, because in the meantime larger numbers of people learned of the intention to exterminate the Jews, but it had even to be loft out of the letter, to make Himmler fall with greater certainty for the chance to use the Jews for work. In June 1942 this was the only way to make Himmler give up his intention to exterminate the Jews.
If Himmler had accepted this proposal, then, of course, it would not only have saved the 2 to 3 Million, of whom Brack wrote, but it would have saved all the Jews from extermination; because it would run counter to all reason to exterminate 6 - 7 millions of Jews from the very start, if perhaps many more than 2 - 3 millions of men and women fit for work could bo found among their number.
With that Brack thought he had once again won the necessary time, until the fight with Russia, which he thought at that time still promised success would have been brought to an end. Think of these ideas of Brack's whatever you like: Considering his mentality and his somewhat primitive reasoning his statement appears at least as probable that he wanted to make a last attempt, even if it was not thought over up to its last consequences, still to turn the fate of the Jews as a completely disinterested person: thereby Brack was always convinced of the ineffectiveness and harmlesness of his method.
To quote a Creek philosopher, "nobody is able to fathom the ground of the soul, and though you travel every road, so deep is the bottom." Brack had no need to commit an intellectual theft in order to copy Pokorny's motives. Brack had told me his reasons already at a time when he couldn't even speak with Pokorny. Forces stronger than ovary reason slumbered in his soul: To help and to help again, even if hundreds of thousands should bo subjected to an experiment which, in his opinion, was entirely innocent, if only the many millions could bo saved that way. The last thought prompts the lawyer to enquire whether or not in this case there was a so-called emergency surpassing law, in the sense of the so-called theory of weighing goods, which placed Brack before the alternative of either violating a high legally protected value or violating a low legally protected value, and whether or not Brack was therefore entitled to violate the lesser value, because there was no other way out to save the higher value. Therefore you will have to decide the question whether or not after the weighing of the two evils in Brack's activities the intention to commit a Crime against Humanity can be recognized at all, if ho decided to sacrifice a legal right of small value belonging to an insignificant number of people before sacrificing the legal rights of high value belonging to a groat mass of men.
Now I turn to euthanasia, page 24:
1.) The dreadful fate of the incurable insane, whoso tragic and somber sufferings have again and again confronted humanity with insoluble problems, has for a long time been of particular importance for the concept and application of euthanasia.
The concept of treating insane persons as sick has become accepted only slowly. To be sure, it can already bo found in Plato's "Rupublic" and in later ages also it never entirely vanished. But again and again the concept was visited by assertions that an insane person was evil or was even possessed by the devile that allegedly were fermenting him. In the age of the deplorable witch trials this delusion reached terrible proportions. Thus, in the cultural history of man the development of the care of the insane is one of the darkest chapters.
It was only in the middle of the eighteenth century that mental disorders were recognized as disease and it was soon that institutional care was expedient. Thus, in the course of time insane asylums came into being in which in addition to a largo number of cures after longer or shorter commitment in an asylum, hundreds of thousands of spiritually dead persons were housed, often for many years and decades, completely cut off from the outside world.
Professor Leibrand, Dr. Pfannmueller and Brack have described types of such spiritually dead. Their emotional responses do not extend past the most elementary processes, verging on the animalic.