In eases where have may have been known as anti-National Socialist, ho tried very quickly to enter one such organization be it the NSKK or some female association, otherwise the admiss ion to the exam would have boon made very difficult for him.
Q Did the medical students have to pass an examination on racial theories and the Nurnberg Laws as well as on medical knowledge?
A Part of the examination curriculum was tho knowledge of racial and hereditary science, and within that order the Nurnberg Laws were also examined. Very often those laws had to be known by heart, and whoever did not know tho laws was quited sure of not passing.
Q Professor, to what extent was it necessary to belong to the Natzi Party in order to be a professor in any medical school?
A It is necessary here to discuss the change of the so-called order cf habilitation in tho Third Reich. Before 1933 every scientifically talented scientist could by making a thesis, a so-called colloquium, and a lecturer could be admitted to the practice of a private lecturer. The private lecturer was called such for tho reason that he was not considered a civil servant; he was just a private lecturer who exercised the so-called Wenia Legend, and who remained such until his promotion to a position as a professor. The Third Reich changed this order in tho following points: Starting from 1934 tho Ministry of Education demanded that as many people as possible should habilitate themselves. For that reason, the so-called Dr. Habil was created. A physiological Wonstrosity, called Dr. Habil--it was something like that. This Dr. Habil did not oblige one for anything. From tho reserve of those doctors selection made according to tho political point cf view of those lecturers, those who would comply with the National Socialist ideas, and who were considered qualified as university lecturers. The technique of that selection was a far-branched spy system. There was the loader of the lecturers and who had to be a Nazi. This loader of the lecturers employed a number of spys in the faculty, who had to see to it, and watch whether those to be selected were really good Nazis. Those who wore selected were sent to this camp for a few weeks. The loader of such a camp for lecturers was usually a person of little education. I know for instance, one of those leaders of those lecturer camps was a shoemaker to whom was attached a professor. In this camp, and this is a well known fear, there reigned the system of tho so-called "Agent Provocateur"; that is, to spy, in this camp people were distributed so as to insul the Third Reich and if somebody responded to that insult the fact was noted down, and this list was kept. After their period in the camp was served, this list was given to tho loader of tho camp, and ho then decided which of tho young lecturers were worthy in the sense of National Socialism to become qualified teachers of tho youth.
He then sent on this report to tho Ministorial Adviser in the Reich Ministry of Education, which Tins the late Marburg Gynecologist, Dr. Brack, and then tho notorious Euthnnnsin psychintrist Dr. Dogridis.
Q Did tho lay Nazi lenders over interior with university and medical educanalpoliaceis
A This question must also be characterized with a few words. The relation of tho National Socialism to bungling was very close. Since, however they did not dare admit this fact in public, and in order not to insult tho so-called educated medical physicians, the organization of the so-called Hoilpraktiker system was framed. This ment that the bunglers could organize themselves, and were no longer called bunglers, but called Hoilpraktiker's, and as such they were listed and the list was given to the public Health Office, and after a certain educational period were allowed to practice. But, beyond that, there was yet another institution. A now special institution was introduced; that is, the physician for natural sciences was subordinated to tho Reich Chamber of Physicians. Although he was not required to go through a medical institute in the academic sense, he only had to have two yours of education in tho sense of natural sciences. It is not understandable that such an orgnnizntion was considered sufficient, oven when it was subordinated by the Lender of the State. And, I only like to recall the name of Hoss. It is impossible to understand how these people could qualify to enter the medical science; but, of course, there were tho so-celled trannsition types-- there was the educated medical men who started connections with this natural science, and I mention the name of Professor Brauche. There wore very serious controversies with nendomic physicians who protested against this interference, and I only want to mention one practical example, Mr. Pruker at one time maintained, and that was rather Into, approximately 1942, that by any of natural science he could cure syphillis, and a strong controversy on the part of Dermatologist Spiethof insued, and he then finally and to give into Pruker. Hess, was one of these persons who exercised the so-called protective patron over those natural science theory.
And, only after he loft for England action was started against this so-called Heilpraktiker, They wore partly arrested since some political connections wore suspected. It is further known that a man like Streicher issued a periodical, I think it was called something like "Public Health", and Streicher, of course, was strongly interested in medical matters. and who did not shy away in his criticism to discuss medical problems with educated physicians. It was clear, considering the terroristic regime which Streicher exercised, that a number of people helphed him. Things like that became known in Erlangen because of the connections that Streicher had with the Gynecologist, Professor Wintzen So, I summarized again the question that the academic medical science had continous interference through prognostic and medical tracts, and that it was very difficult to defend one's self against chose interferences since there was a number of schooled physicians who were in a business connection with these people.
Q. Professor, are you familiar with a book written in German by Prof. Dr. hell on the ethical code, published first in 1902?
A I know that book; as a medical historian, I know it very well.
Q Was not Prof. Well considered to be an international authority on medical ethics and jurisprudence and highly regarded in his time by the German medical profession?
A Well was a very well-known man internationally and was a Berlin nerve specialist.
Q Now, in this bock, in this code, did he not warn against the adoption of the philosophy of Nietsche by the medical profession?
A In the book about ethics by Mell which was written in 1902, there is a chapter about experiments on human beings conducted by physicians. It is stated there that unfortunately in the 19th century a number of experiments wore carried out on human beings by physicians. Hell speaks about reviewing approximately six hundred theses where more than a thousand eases cf the entire international world became kn n, and at the end of these theses he warns the medical world of such experimental immorality; and in accordance with this positive attitude, the only thing that he states is the following: Every person confronted with such a heretical possibility should consider whether he would subject his own relatives and members of his family in such a manner. He designates the experiments which he described in his book as the consequence cf a misunderstood Metsche.
Q Then Mell did point out that the trust cf a patient in the moral integrity of his physician placed a great responsibility on the physician to conduct himself so as not to harm the patien; isn't that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, did he not point out that scientific curiosity tempted the physician to experiment without the consent of the patient?
A Yes.
Q Then did he strongly warn the physician not to experiment on a patient without the consent of the patient?
A Yes.
Q Now, Professor, you spoke of Dr. Guett, Dr. Arthur Guett. Now, was he the first member of the Nazi Part to introduce Nazi doctrines and practices into the field of medicine and public health?
A I assume that you are speaking about Guett; and would you please put that question again, using that name?
Q Was Dr. Guett the first member of the Nazi Party to introduce Nazi doctrines and practices into the field of medicine and public health?
A Guett, at any rate according to his own writing, something that can be proved, belonged to those first National Socialist Party members. In his short writing about the organizational system of the National Socialistic public health system, he states at the beginning that he, as early as in the year of 1924, as a medical representative in Labia, laid down the principles of National Socialist medicine and that later, in 1932, he advocated and repeated these principles during a meeting in Eisenach.
Q Now, did the eventual successor of Guett, Dr. Conti, or his assistant defendant Blome, modify any of these policies and concepts of Guett?
A May I once more clarify the relation cf Brandt? Conti was state secretary in the ministry of the Interior; Guett was ministerial Counsellor in the Department IV which I described before, belonging to the ministry of the Interior.
Q Did Conti then, and his assistant Blome, carry on the introduction of the same type doctrines and policies as Guett?
A There is no doubt about the fact that starting with the first formulation of Guett until the last deed of Conti and Blome, there was much that had happened in a terroristic way. Otherwise everything that I mentioned about Action Conti and Action Mitte would have been possible.
Q Now, you stated that Dr. Guett published a book. Is that the book titled "Structure of Public Health, the Third Reich"?
A Yes, I am referring to that, and from that I quoted his own career politically.
Q Now, in this book, do you recall that Guett announced that "the ill-conceived love of thy neighbor has to disappear, especially in relation to inferior or asocial creatures"?
A. That is written in this booklet by Guett. That is one of the central National Socialist formulations of medical matters as, for instance, it was also experssed by Prof. Koetscher, who was active in Nurnberg. He wrote a book entitled "Fighting Prevention instead of Welfare." These are the thoughts which were expressed by the Nazis in the following words: "Christianity did away with nobility and substituted the equality of all human beings. National Socialism demands the racial security of substances with the right blood." And that is entirely in compliance with Guett's formulation, which dates back to 1924.
Q Docs Dr. Guett's other Nazi description of inferior or asocial creatures agree with the ethics of the oath of Hippocrates?
A He meant by that something which every National Socialist meant; namely, that only the healthy biological flow of blood belonging to the Nordic race is an the interest of medical science and that everything which is outside this, everything which is outside a biological racial thought, must be considered as inferior by National Socialists.
Q Then you would say, Professor, that Guett's description of inferior social creatures is contrary to the ethics of the oath of Hippocrates? Is that right?
Q. Then you would say, Professor, that Guete's description of an inferior social creature is contrary to the ethics of the oath of Hippocrates, is that right?
A. It is a joke of world history that in a book about national socialist professional ethics dated in 1943, the oath of Hippocrates was cited word by word, and that there they referred to the oath. Its of this oath, and they considered themselves coligated by that oath. It is further a joke of world history that among the defendants there is one person who wrote a book about medical ethics in which he quotes the identical principles of one of the most famous physicians of the last century. Christian Willhelm Hufeland, and this is the defendant Mrugowsky. I have stated on this reference that the essential points of the oath of Hippocrates are that the physician is forbidden under oath to commit arbitrary injustice on his patients or to do him any harm. The conception of injustice contained in the Hippocratic oath, which is signified by the Greek word "Aedicia" is one of the most important concepts, - note not of the Christian, but also of the Pre-Christian world, The health oi the state in the sense of late is justice and injustice which is mentioned in that Hippocratic oath, and the physician is physician obligated never to harm the individual, never to inflict any arbitrary harm to the end individual, that is, to do him injustice. I cannot understand how this Hippocratic oath fits in the national socialist literature of 1943 and at the time "when everything happened as the evidence has shown.
Q. Professor, have not the ethics of the oath of Hippocrates been considered to be the legal one moral cede of the conduct of a physician throughout the world for twenty-two centuries?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, professor, from your knowledge of the history of medical ethics and medical legal procedure, has the medical profession or the law of any country permitted experimentation on human beings without their consent?
A. Again and again it was asked historically, especially during the latter period, whether human experiments in a large scale had existed before in medical history, and it is understandable that the period of the Renaissance was particularly mentioned in that connection.
Never up until now was it possible to show this evidence historically, and I myself believe that the metaphysical connection of the human being to the time of the Rennaissance would not have made such machinations possible. It is, however, characteristic that this experimenting with human beings, as I mentioned before, in the connection of a moral sense, became evident late in the last century. At any rate in its beginning I am of the conviction that this was the consequence of a biological way of thought which fits in with the national socialist program, even in other countries, and as such became evident en the 19th century. There can be no doubt that even idealistic pacifists and socialists developed this thought biologically and carried it out, and as they tried to save it, so to speak, the human cell in the 19th century, by trying to take away from the human being the poison of alcohol as the famous August Fuerel did it, it only needed a racial madness to start the fuel for that and in this way it was believed that by a biological organization the sufferings in the world could be done away with. Such an attitude, overestimation of biologism, was practical in the second half of the 19th century in European culture. It only needed such a goal, this madness as it was practiced in Germany, to create such a consequence which came up here in the evidence.
Q. Now, Professor, in your opinion as a Professor of Medical History in the previously renowned German University, did the majority of the German Physicians reject the oath of Hippocrates and the German criminal code and adopt the teachings of the Nazi doctrine and the attitude of Hitler and of Himmler as a basis for a new code of medical law and ethics?
A. As long as there are physicians in the world who deserve such designatins, they will always adhere to the principles of the Hippocratic oath and consider themselves obligated under that oath. Those who did not act in accordance with that oath were either subdued or were criminals. However, it is a minority under both categories and I think that the majority of decent human beings will master them.
Q. Professor, do you believe that the vast majority of the German medical profession would condone under any circumstances experimentation on human beings without their consent?
A. No.
MR HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now recesss until two-thirty o'clock this afternoon.
(A noon recess was taken).
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1430 hours, 27 January 1947).
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may cross examine the witness on the stand.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. SERVATIUS: (Counsel for Defendant Karl Brandt)
Q. Witness, you have stated that the undertaking of experiments on human beings as is under indictment here can be ascribed to biological thinking. What do you mean by biological thinking?
A. Under biological thinking, I understand the attitude of a physician who does not take the subject into consideration at all, but for whom the patient has become a more object so that the human relation no longer exists and a man becomes a more object like a mail package.
Q. You spoke of biologistic thinking. Do I understand you correctly if you mean a development --- a deterioration of biological thinking?
A. It means an exaggeration of the purely mechanical or biological point of view. A physician is not a biologist. A physician is also a biologist. In the first line, however, a physician is a man who assists the human being and not a scientific export of biological events.
Q. Can there not be other causes for the experiments, such as a collective state thinking?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, you used the expression "order demoniac". What do you mean by that?
A. By demoniac order I understand the following: If I define as a basis for medical activity merely the safeguarding of a racial substance of the people, it has the result that everything which falls outside this fiction is being done away with. That is a mild expression of what actually happened namely, extermination.
Q. Then you refer only to the aspect of blood. Could it not be applied to the state, to the collective aspect as well?
A. May I ask you to mention an example so that I may understand it better?
Q. I mean that by order of the State experiments were undertaken; that the voluntary act of the individual is replaced by the act of the State; that the approval is given by the State.
A. Between the collective idea and the State order or one side and the medical individual on the other, there is a large gap which is the human conscience.
Q. Witness, are you of the opinion that a prisoner who has over ten years' sentence to serve will give his approval to an experiment if he receives no advantages therefrom? Do you consider such approval voluntary?
A. No. According to medical ethics this is not the case. The patient or the inmate basically has been brought into a forcible situation by being arrested, and secondly, as a layman he has no possibility at all to weigh the consequences of such an interference. He, as a layman, cannot judge that.
Q. Are you of the opinion that eight hundred prisoners under arrest at various places who give their approval for, an experiment at the same time do so voluntarily?
A. No.
Q. You do not distinguish as to whether the experiments involve permanent damage, permanent harm or whether it is temporary?
A. No, not oven in the latter case.
Q. If such prisoners are infected with malaria because they have declared themselves willing do you consider that it is admiss ible?
A. No, because I do not consider such a declaration of willingness right from a point of view of medical ethics. As prisoners they were already in a forced situation.
Q. I ask to be allowed to show the witness a newspaper, a magazine, "Life" of the 4th of June 1945. I submit a copy from the magazine.
(Document handed to witness)
Q. (Cont'd) Witness, you have the German translation of the English text. You see first a picture and under the picture it says, "In testing new medicines the prisoners are examined for unfavorable effects." I am afraid I am in the wrong place. I don't have the text for the first picture. It says, "An Army doctor is observing mosquitoes biting the prisoner Knickerbocker". That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, I shall read the text.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution respectfully requests a copy of the English that Dr. Servatius is now reading so that we may follow.
Q. (By Dr. Servatius) The text reads as follows:
"Prisoners expose themselves to malaria so that physicians can study it. In three penal institutions of the United States people who are incarcerated as enemies of society are helping to combat other enemies of society. In the Federal prison in Atlanta, in the State prison in Illinois, and in the correction institute in New Jersey about eight hundred prisoners volunteered to let themselves be infected with malaria so that doctors can study the disease. The scientists, acting on the instructions of the Office for Medical Research and Development found the life of prisoners ideal for experiments on human beings under control. There people all eat the same food, sleep the same length of time and are never far away.
The prisoners do not receive any benefits or any pardon for subjecting themselves to this infection. The malaria experiments in the prison underline the fact that malaria is still a very serious medical problem.
"In the United States there are one million cases annually. The medicines available, primarily quinine and atabrine, do keep the malaria down, but cannot prevent its recurring after the first infection. The aim of malaria research is to find a new drug which may heal the disease once and for all." That is the text. Now, if you will look at the magazine, there are four pictures. One picture says, "In testing new medicines, the prisoners are examined for unfavorable effects." The second from left is Nathan Leopold, still in prison for his participation in the Leopold-Loeb case. Then there is another picture with the following text: "In malarial infection in the prison in Illinois, Army doctors have the patients infected by mosquitoes. The mosquitoes bite through a guaze-covered opening in a glass cage."
Then if you will turn to Page 46, there are two more pictures: "Violent chill is the first step in malaria. The above patient is an inmate of the Atlanta Penitentiary where prison malaria experiments were betun and developed." And below that there is the last picture. It says: "Fever often as high as one hundred six degrees follows the chill in twenty to sixty minutes. Some of the prison cases are allowed to develop to a considerable extent until they are combatted with drugs."
Now will you please express your opinion on the admissibility of these experiments?
A. On principle I cannot deviate from my view mentioned before on a medical, ethical basis. I am of the opinion that even such experiments are excesses and outgrowths of biological thinking, and I want to point out that when formulating my ideas, I was in agreement, as far as I remember, with the view of the lawyer, Ebermayer, referring to his book, "The Physician and the Law," and where, as far as I remember, he pointed out that the consequences of such an experiment cannot be foreseen; and if as a malaria therapeutic psychiatrist, if I should speak about my experience on malaria cases, I must say that malaria is a very serious disease. As its consequence it has complications such as serious septic thrombosis or heart muscle excitement which have death as their consequence. I am of the opinion that we are not concerned here with a mere cold but a very far-reaching disease where we always have the therapeutic possibility of death.
In consequence, such experiments should be carried out on guinea pigs and not on human beings.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have no more questions to put to the witness.
DR. SAUTER: Dr. Sauter for the Defendant, Blome.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SAUTER:
Q. Professor, I do not want to discuss with you the subject which has just been under discussion, the question of general experiments and your opinion of them. I want to ask you only a few questions concerning the Defendant, Dr. Blome, whom I am defending whom you mentioned several times. Witness, in answer to a question of the Prosecution about the development of the medical profession from '33 on, you said, among other things, Conti, that is, the later Reich Physicians Leader, in 1936 dissolved the League of German Physicians. I understood you correctly, did I not?
A. The German Physicians Association was dissolved together with the Hartmann Bund in 1933 by the State Commissar, Dr. Wagner, or, rather, was brought under the Fuehrer principle. In my opinion, Conti further carried out an administrative act through the Reich Chamber of Physicians. As far as I remember, the Reich Chamber of Physicians only came into being in 1936.
Q. Witness, I should like to submit to you that you have made an error of recollection. This Gerhard Wagner, who I believe was the predecessor of Dr. Conti, was never State Commissar. That must be a mistake on your part.
A. No, that is not a mistake on my part. That is a mistake of Mr. Ramm who wrote a book in the year of 1943 about this subject, and you can read it there in print.
Q. Witness, I hear the name "Ramm" for the first time today, and I will never read his book.
A. The book can be found in the publishing firm DeGreuter in Berlin.
Q. But I am not interested, witness, in what this Mr. "Crumb" or whatever his name is wrote. I am interested in what was actually the case; in other words, whether you do not want to correct your previous statement that Dr. Gerhard Wagner was never State Commissar.
A. In that case I cannot understand how it came about that on the first of April, 1933, he introduced the Fuehrer principle in medical matters.
Q. Witness, I can give you the answer to that question. It was not Dr. Gerhard Wagner who introduced the leadership principle, the Fuehrer Prinzip, but I must tell you the following: we had two medical organizations. One was the Physicians League and the other was the Hartmann League. These two organizations -- and I am telling you this now so that you can tell me whether my recollection is more correct -- these two organizations were subordinate to Sanitaetsrat Dr. Stauter of Nurnberg. He was in charge of both organizations, and this Dr. Stauter as the head of the two organizations in earlier times in 1933 offered Dr. Gerhard Wagner the leadership of these two organizations. Therefore, there was no compulsory transfer, no "gleichschaltung." Please comment.
A. On principle I am ready to take notice of what you are saying. However, as a historian I want to point out that such office at that period of time had a somewhat unique character.
Q. Witness, today here we cannot investigate all these matters in detail. I only wanted to clear up a question which the Prosecution had submitted to you which today, after thirteen years, you may not remember very clearly.
A. I thank you for what you are saying, and I can only state that my version as a historian referred to a documentary basis and that Dr. Ramm was probably mistaken in his book.
Q. Then, witness, if I have understood you correctly, you said that Dr. Conti, who later became Reich Physicians Leader -- that in 1936 Conti dissolved the League of Physicians? Do I understand you correctly? 2000
A. In the sense in which I stated before that these organizations were so-called absorbed in the Reich Chamber of Physicians.
Q. Witness, I may put the following to you: the Reich Chamber of Physicians was not created by a decree of the Reich Health Leader, Conti, but as you may, perhaps, remember now by a Reich law, by the law, the Reich Physicians Order -- that is a rather unusual title of this law -- in the year 1936. That is true.
A. The Reich Physicians Order, as far as I remember, was issued in December, 1935, and came into effect in 1936.
Q. And through this law the Reich Chamber of Physicians was created; and now I should be interested -- because you said before that Dr. Conti had dissolved these organizations, I would be interested in knowing whether you know who is responsible for this Reich Physicians Order, this law of the end of '35 or the beginning of 1936.
A. That is not known to me.
Q. Perhaps I may aid your memory by reminding you that this Reich Physicians Leader, Dr. Conti, had no part whatever in this law, that this law was worked out by Wagner and then by Hedenkamp and by Dr. Grote, while the Reich Physicians Leader, Dr. Conti, who was later represented by Dr. Blome, had nothing whatever to do with working out this Reich law. Can that be right?
A. The names mentioned are known to me and I deduce therefrom that Hedenkamp, as a former president of the Hartmann Bund, was coordinated.
Q. Yes. In this connection, Professor, I should like to devote one question to the association of social insurance physicians (Kassenaerztliche Vereinigung) which was mentioned earlier today. It was a body of public law, an independent body, and the head or legal representative of this entity was supposed to have been Dr. Conti. But now I should like to know, do you know that this Dr. Conti, in his capacity as head of the association of insurance physicians, was not represented by Dr. Blome by someone else whom I just mentioned, Dr. Grote?
A. I think that is very probable.
Q. Another question, Professor. You were asked today about the Jewish doctors. Are you aware that the question of the activity of Jewish doctors, that is, the regulations of law, the rules and regulations about Jewish doctors, had nothing whatever to do with Dr. Blome, the defendant, but that they were under the responsibility of Dr. Conti and were administered exclusively by this Dr. Grote?
A. I cannot remember that I said this morning anything which would incriminate Dr. Blome in that way.
Q. But what. I have just told you -- is that right?
A. That can be right.
Q. Professor, you made another statement by which you deliberately wanted to incriminate Dr. Blome. The statement ran about as follows: "Ministerialdirektor Dr. Guett, from Dr. Guett there was a straight line in crescendo to the deeds of Conti and Blome." That is about how I understood your statement.
Now, Professor Leibbrand, I am not interested in what you meant by Conti's deeds, for he is dead. I am interested only as the defense counsel of Dr. Blome in what you meant to say about Dr. Blome.
A. I did not want to accuse Dr. Blome of something in particular. I merely mentioned the organizational order which led from Guett from the Department 5 up to the smaller divisions of the health office and how this line went over to the Reich Chamber of Physicians. Since, in that order, Blome was the representative of the Reich Physicians Leader, I thought it correct to mention his name in that connection without making any particular reference to him.
Q. Professor Leibbrand, would you not consider it just to revise this opinion for the following reason: Dr. Conti, as you told us, aside from other phases which are beside the point, had two functions--first, State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior and therefore, under Frick, head of the Civil Health Administration of the State -- of the Reich; and second, Reich Physicians Leader and thereafter President of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. Now Dr. Blome, and this is what I want to ask you -- I believe you have already indicated it, had nothing whatever to do with the State Health administration and in particular he did not represent Dr. Conti in his capacity as State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior but only as Reich Physicians Leader, that is in the Reich Chamber of Physicians. The Ministerialdirektor Guett, whom you mentioned in this line in crescendo, he was concerned only with the Ministry of the Interior, only with the State Health Administration in Conti's office as State Secretary. He had nothing whatever to do with the Reich Chamber of Physicians and therefore, Professor, I consider it unjust if, in describing this line in crescendo, you mention Dr. Blome in connection with Ministerialdirektor Dr. Guett and the State Secretary, Dr. Conti.
A. With reference to the order of organization, I took into account what you said, namely that Dr. Blome should not be included in that column which started with Guett. With reference to your expression "crescendo", this is something that may be revised but this revision will hardly lead to a better concept about Mr. Blome's mentality.