Q Didn't you, yourself, once describe jaundice as a serious sickness owing to the damage done to the liver?
AAs long as jaundice exists there certainly is a damage of the liver to be noted. But, a s I said, that these damages necessarily are restored to the proper order. During the first period when we saw jaundice epidemic appear to a greater extent we occasionally received reports about patients who showed changes in their liver for a longer period than was customary. In the case of those patients, however, we were net concerned with damages which resulted from jaundice but there are certain jaundice cases, as I stated before, which have nothing at all to do with infectious jaundice. Jaundice is an optical symptom which is valid for quite a number of jaundice illnesses and only a part of the jaundice illnesses are in compliance with the so-called infectious diseases.
Q You have stated, doctor, that the disease lasted from four to eight weeks. Now, is salvarsan used for the treatment of jaundice?
A Salvarsan was not used for infectious jaundice but there is a kind of jaundice which is a symptom of the so-called syphillis and furthermore there is a jaundice which originates as a result of the salvarsan treatment of syphillis. All of these are various jaundice diseases. Salvarsan itself, when dealing with infectious jaundice is net used unless, of course, syphillis exists simultaneously. Then syphillis, although jaundice is there, has to be treated with salvarsan.
Q You said this morning on direct examination that one could treat hepatitis, if I understood you correctly, on the same day of the incubation period. How is that possible? An incubation period is known as the period preceding the actual manifestation of the disease.
A I didn't speak about jaundice in that connection but I spoke about typhus. I was asked about the foetus which dealt with the treatment of typhus with acridene. I was asked that question by the defense counsel of Poppendick and in connection with that work in the case of two types of illnesses, the treatment was started on the first and third day of incubation. This, however, is impossible in the case of jaundice because one never knows when the patient concerned was infected.
In the case of typhus it is sometimes possible since we know that typhus is usually only transferred by lice. Now, if I, for instance, deloused the human being today I know that he has no more lice and if on the next day I found a louse on his body I can assume that this very day was the very first incubation day. Whereby, of course, it remains unclear whether this louse really transferred typhus rikettsia that is something that one doesn't know but this holds not true in the case of jaundice.
Q Doctor, you have conveyed the thought to me that liver puncture is not considered to be dangerous. If so, why is it necessary to obtain an operative permit in writing from the patient or next of kin for the purpose of all kinds of puncture? Spinal, liver or glandular in all German hospitals by those physicians who carried out such puncture?
A In the case cf punctures which are used for diagnostical and prognostical purposes it is customary that one tell the patient that I am going to perform this or that puncture and that really settles the matter.
If one wants to be particularly careful but that isn't customary at all, then you can ask him to give you a written certification as is the case in a real large scale operation. In most cases, however, one just tells the patient. "I intend to do this or the other", and under the circumstance you give him the reason for your doing these things in order to help the patient but a writted confirmation of the patient is usually not applied for.
Q. Now, witness, this morning you mentioned at great length Dr. Dohman Like yourself, Dohman was attached to the Military Medical Academy, wasn't he.
A. Yes.
Q. And Schreiber was also his superior?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you have stated that Haagen reproached Dohman after one of these scientific meetings at which Dohman had, as I understand, said how far he had advanced in his research work. Now, were you in the presence of Haagen and Dohman when this discussion took place?
A. During these Breslau hepatitis conversations Haagen, Dohman and all those who were concerned in Germany with hepatitis research were present.
Q. I am referring, doctor, to the episode where Haagen reproached Dohman and if I am correct it took place after the actual meeting had convened. That is, I mean they were, so to speak, on their way home. They talked to one another and you were in the circle of Haagen, Dohman and yourself. Is that correct?
A. Whatever was discussed there was actually discussed during the congress. Schreiber ordered this so-called division of work during that congress or rather proposed it.
Q. Schreiber proposed this collaboration on the part of Haagen and Dohman?
A. Yes, Schreiber proposed it.
Q. Now, you have stated that Dohman did actually go to Strassbourg to work on this hepatitis with Haagen. Is that correct?
A. Dohman went to Strassbourg and he was ordered to do that by Schreiber.
He had to go to Haagen there and a comparison between the viruses as were bred by Dohman was to be carried out with the ones that were bred by Haagen.
Q. How do you explain the fact, doctor, that Schreiber sufficiently arranged the collaboration of Haagen and Dohman when in Exhibit 193, presented to you this morning by Dr. Nelte, the second sentence states: "I" - meaning yourself - "have requested General Schreiber to assign Mr. Dohman to me as of 15 July for a limited period of time to begin with." Who arranged this assignment of Dohman to work with Haagen?
A. Haagen and Schreiber arranged the collaboration of Dohman and Haagen add I belonged to that group too and in addition to the formation of this collaboration of work Dohman had to, of necessity, get into contact with Haagen. Such a meeting had to be arranged by Schreiber and he had to detail Dohman for that purpose. I spoke to Schreiber after the Congress. I told him that these two people would have to get together. Then Haagen invited Dohman in a letter to come to Strasbourg. I had arranged with Schreiber that this channel was to be in accordance with what had already been established during the Breslau meeting; namely, that Dohman went to Haagen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 10 February 1947)
THE MARSHALL: The persons in the court room will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SEIDL (Counsel for Defendant Oberhauser): May it please the Tribunal, the defendant Oberhauser asks to be permitted to leave the courtroom at three o'oclock in view of her physical condition.
THE PRESIDENT: The request of the Defendant Oberhauser, extended through her counsel, will be granted. The defendant may be excused from attendance in the court room at three o'oclock.
PROF. GUTZEIT - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Witness, I am still uncertain about your answer to my question concerning the incubation period. I repeat that the incubation period is known as the period preceding the actual manifestation of the disease. Now, you have told me that not in connection with hepatitis, but in connection with typhus, that you can determine on the second day of the incubation period what treatment would be necessary. I want to ask you to answer very briefly, how could you tell that a person has the disease unless you infected them yourself during this incubation period?
A. In the case cf typhus the infection is transmitted by means of an infected louse. If, therefore, in the case of a patient who was previously free from lice, and if I find a louse in a typhus epidemic, then I can safely assume that this louse, on the day on which I have discovered it, that is, if I exercise a daily control ever the infections on the patient, and if the louse has transmitted the infection to the person on the day I have discovered it only, I say that I can assume that.
Q. First of all, doctor, how big is a louse?
A. A louse is about 1 1/2 millimeters long and approximately 3/4 of a millimeter wide.
Q. It is rather difficult to find a creature of that size on a person, isn't it?
A. Our soldiers and also the nursing personnel have managed to do that hundreds of thousands of times during the war.
Q. Then, doctor, after you find the louse, then you have to assume that the louse is carrying the disease, don't you?
A. I say that in a period where cases of typhus occur, that is, within a limited epidemic where also other patients are suffering from typhus, and in that case it can be assumed that the louse which is discovered is infected. Of course, this may be a mistake. Mistakes can occur. But on the whole, the suspicion exists that these lice are infected. That has a definite reason because the louse must have been transmitted to the patient by another person, when I have determined that on the day before I have discovered the louse, no lice at all were present.
Q. You also have to assume that the louse has infected the person or the patient?
A. That is what I have assumed.
Q. Actually, based on all these assumptions, isn't it far fetched for you to state that you can decide what treatment to administer to a person during this incubation period? You would not know whether that person had contracted that disease at that early stage, would you?
A. That is correct. It is correct that I cannot know that with certainty but I can harbor the suspicion that the louse has infected the patient. And when I have such a suspicion, then if I have any remedy for it, if I believe that the medicine can be already effective against typhus during the incubation period, then I can apply this medicine from the first or the second day of the incubation. Of course in this case it is not certain if the person in question really gets typhus or that he is infected by typhus. I can only see that when the disease, that is to say, the fever, begins in the case of typhus. That is approximately eight to ten days later.
Q. Now the question of hepatitis. As I understand it, then it would be impossible for one to administer treatment for hepatitis on the second day of an incubation period; is that correct?
A. In the case of hepatitis?
Q. Yes.
A. In the case of hepatitis I cannot determine.
Q. Now, before the afternoon recess, witness, we were discussing the collaboration of Dohmen and Hagen in which you participated, making your suggestion to Gen. Schreiber, and so forth. Did you report to the defendant Handloser on this collaboration between Dohmen and Hagen?
A I have not made any suggestion at all. I have not made any suggestion. I have not suggested that Dohmen and Haagen should work together. This collaboration between Dohmen and Haagen was discussed at the General Hepatitis Conference which I have already mentioned. It was suggested by the President of this Conference while formulating working methods.
Q I do not wish to quibble with you about whether or not you suggested the collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen. I have previously referred to the second sentence of your letter from Haagen where you stated you requested a general to assign Dohmen to you as of 15 July for a limited period of time to begin with.
Now I ask you, did you ever report to Handloser in regard to the collaboration of Dohmen and Haagen? Answer yes or no.
A I did not have to report about this collaboration at all because during the Conference, this collaboration had already been determined. Professor Handloser was also present.
Q Thank you. Were you in attendance at these various Military Medical Meetings for Consulting Physicians? In fact, you spoke at one such meeting did you not? Is it true that reports were made at these meetings on results of experiments in various fields of medical research?
A In the course of the conferences of consulting physicians, lectures were given about the experiences and also about the examinations which had accumulated. In this connection, I have also reported at some of these meetings about what had been discovered with regard to Hepatitis up until that time by various work.
Q Then it is true that the experimental conditions were explained by the reporting physicians, is it not?
A During the conferences, as far as I knew, the experiments were only discussed insofar as the cultivation of bacteria in the experiments on animals were described in the form of a lecture and address.
Q Witness, during the war, did you ever hear anything concerning experiments on concentration camp inmates, that is, from your own knowledge, from reports or meetings, or conversations with other people, or from rumors or any other source whatsoever?
A I cannot remember that I have heard anything concrete about the execution and also about the results of such experiments.
Q Since you are familiar with jaundice research in Germany, you probably know of the work of professor Doctor Dresel, Director of the Hygiene Institute of the University of Leipzig, do you not?
A May I ask to hear the name once more?
Q Dr. Dresel, D-r-e-s-e-l.
A I have seen this name in literature. As far as I can recall, experiments on animals were involved in this case. I believe that canaries were used as animals.
Q Did he not cultivate a jaundice virus from persons suffering from Hepatitis, and succeed in transplanting it to animals?
A So far as I know, and as it was always done in other jaundice experiments, he took the infectious material from infected persons, and injected it into animals. He then continued to transmit this disease from one animal to another.
Q Doctor, do you not know that he carried out experiments on concentration camp inmates?
A I have never heard that.
Q In connection with Dohmen's work on Hepatitis at Sachsenhausen you have told this Tribunal that those were more or less experiments of appeasement. Why should Dohmen care two phennigs about the feelings of Grawitz in this connection?
A Grawitz wanted the cultures which Dohmen had cultivated in the animal experiments. He wanted to obtain them from Dohmen. He wanted Dohmen to given them to him. As far as I know, he personally wanted to have hepatitis experiments carried out. Dohmen had refused to leave these cultures with Grawitz. Grawitz was unable to obtain these cultures. Dohmen did not want to let these cultures out of his hands because he did not want to lose control over them. He ordered Dohmen to do these things himself. I have already described that this morning. 273
Q You state that Dohmen did not want to turn his cultures over to other people so he would not lose control of them. Why would Dohmen waste his time examining eight Polish Jews condemned to death in Sachsenhausen to see if they, perchance, had jaundice?
A I did not completely understand the last part of your question.
Q I say, why would Dohmen waste his time examining eight Polish Jews condemned to death in Sachsenhausen to see if they, perchance, had jaundice? Pas this act to appease Dr. Grawitz?
A Yes. Things were such that Dohmen carried out the work in order to avoid having to turn his vaccines over to Grawitz. I have already said that Dohmen had sabotaged Grawitz' order to carry out such experiments. That is the reason he worked at Sachsenhausen.
Q At Sachsenhausen in connection with Dohmen's work, you cannot swear that Dohmen did not infect those inmates, can you?
A Dohmen has always told me repeatedly about this work. He told me he was only deceiving Grawitz in carrying out his work there.
Q Do you not think, Doctor, that Dohmen might be a little reluctant to publicize his activities in Sachsenhausen?
A Otherwise, he used to tell me all about the results of his work. After all, the collaboration consisted cf the fact that he handled the bacteriological part of the Hepatitis Research, and I handled the clinical part. Whenever I discovered something important, or remarkable, within this field of work, then I would inform Dohmen of this fact. Whenever Dohmen reached some results, then he would inform me of them. Both of us were members of the Army. This jaundice work could not be separated into two parts. One of us had to report the result to the other, and vice versa. I believe that if Dohmen had infected people at Sachsenhausen, then on the basis of these infections, causes of the disease would have to have been discovered at Sachsenhausen. That would have been a result which would not have been without importance for the higher research field, and I believe I would have found out about it.
Q Doctor, were you ever in Sachsenhausen with Dohmen?
A I have never been in Sachsenhausen.
Q Could we assume, for the moment, that Dohmen had unclean hands in this matter? You think if that were the condition Dohmen would tell you about the work he was doing at Sachsenhausen?
A I do not think so.
Q You do not think he would tell you about it?
A I believe he would have told me something about that.
Q Doctor, can you swear here that Karl Brandt did not have any connect with Dohmen's work in Sachsenhausen?
A I have stated that I have not heard from Dohmen, nor from any other sources, that Karl Brandt was named at all in connection with Hepatitis Research, and experiments on human beings. I can not recall that I cannot recall that this has ever been the case.
Q Witness, what was the last rank that you held? s
A I was General Physician of the Reserve.
Q You were a member of the SS, were you not?
A I beg your pardon?
Q You were a member of the SS, were you not?
A I was in the General-SS in the Allgemaine SS up until the beginning of the war.
Q What was the last rank you held in the SS?
A My rank was assimulated to a rank in the Wehrmacht. It corresponded to the rank which I held at the beginning of the war, or a short time before the war. At that time I was a Stabsarzt. I was not Oberstabsarzt.
MR. HARDY: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are no further questions, the witness may be excused.
DR. SERVATIUS: I wish to ask no question on re-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, a short time ago, you spoke cf the order of a General Physician Schreiber with regard to the collaboration in the field of Hepatitis and also on the formation of groups. Can you tell us in what capacity Doctor Schreiber ordered this collaboration and this formation cf groups? On the basis of what position did he order this? Or who ordered that he do this? Did he issue this order as Commissioner of Reich Research Council?
A. I do not knew that exactly. Schreiber was the Chairman of the hepatitis Conference at Breslau. He was there as General Physician. After the individual results of the various scientists had been presented, he then was called upon to speak about authorization of groups. This was not only for members of the Wehrmacht but also for civilian Hepatitis scientists. It is possible that he as a member or Commissioner of the Reich Research Council ordered this general collaboration, or that he suggested it. However, it was not stated if he did this in his capacity as a member of the Army as a general physician, or if he did it as Commissioner of the Reich Research Council.
Q. Well, Witness, could this not be seen from the way in which he made his address?
A. I cannot exactly recall his words, but he said he thought it would be a good idea if Group A collaborated with Group B; and if Group C collaborated with Group D in order to compare their result of experiments on animals. That is approximately the way in which the suggestion was made by Schreiber.
Q. DR. SERVATIUS: I thank you. There are no further questions.
Dr. Pribills: Attorney for Defendant Rostock, I have a question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
By Dr. Pribills:
Q. Professor, in connection with the question of the Prosecutor, can you tell me if he handled orders or questions for the Reich Research Council? Was Professor Rostock in any way connected with the Reich Research Council? Do you know what position Professor Rostock occupied in the Reich Research Council?
A. No.
Q. May I know tell you, Professor, that Rostock, himself, was not a member of the Reich Research Council, but that he only was deputy to Karl Brandt? He, himself, has never had any correspondence on the part of the Reich Research Council, nor has he given any orders or assignments. I am further telling you that Professor Rostock occupied the office for science and research; that Professor Rostock has put some questions to you, is not disputed. With this state of affairs, do you consider it possible that the questions by Professor Rostock came in his capacity as Director of the Office for Science and Research or Professor, do you want to claim that Professor Rostock has turned to you in his capacity as holder of any position within the Reich Research Council?
A. I, personally, am not oriented in detail as to the composition and also the assignments individually of the Reich Research Council, nor am I familiar with the organization of tie Office for Science and Research. If I have stated before that these questions came from Rostock and the Reich Research Council, then I cannot say that with absolute certainty. I cannot say that this was the Reich Research Council. However, I do know that these questions originated from Professor Rostock. It was clear that they came within the frame of work of the Office for Science and Research. I have already stated that I have never received any research assignments from Professor Rostock.
Q. With this, I consider my question clarified. Professor, I have a second question to ask you. Did the questions from Professor Rostock which asked you to state your point of view have anything in their contents which related them to experiments on human beings.
A. I cannot remember that. However, I have not seen, nor have I read anything in these questions about experiments on human beings.
Q Is it correct or possible that just those questions which were addressed to you concerned the selection of certain drugs and also particularly the conservation of drugs, medicine?
A Part of the questions certainly dealt with that subject. I was frequently informed as to the appropriateness and the necessity of following some methods of treatment suggested by other scientists. I was asked about these things and I was to express tho experience I had collected on tho subject.
Q Professor, do you remember if those questions dealt particularly or dealt at all with hepatitis and typhus?
A I know that they dealt with typhus and I know that I was asked at one time about this method of treatment with increasingly hot baths; but about the treatment of hepatitis or the diagnosis, I cannot remember anything personally. I cannot remember ever having received such a specialized question. After all, we did not have any medicine with regard to hepatitis which had any specific effect.
Q Thank you. I do not have any further questions.
DR. SERVATIUS: I do not have any further questions to the witness.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution has nothing further, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no further examination of this witness, the witness may be excused.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, for the time being, I do not want to call any other witness, and at this time I want to present a number of affidavits to the Tribunal. I believe that the Tribunal has received Document Books I and VIII, and I shall now read from them.
THE PRESIDENT: Have these documents been furnished to the Secretary General's desk?
DR. SERVATIUS: I believe that Document Book No. I has now been presented to the Tribunal. As my first document, KB-1, contains an excerpt from the weekly Life, which has already been discussed and I want to submit this document as Exhibit 1. I do not want to read it any more because it has already been read in the course of the sessions.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, I would like to have a statement from defense counsel as to the purpose of the offer of the Karl Brandt Document No. 1, which is an extract from Life Magazine concerning certain malaria experiments carried out in the United States.
I think, under certain circumstances, I might have no objection to its admissibility, but I think we will have some very strong objections depending upon the purpose for which the document is offered.
DR. SERVATIUS: May it please the Tribunal, this document has been handed to the witness in the examination. It has been offered as evidence and I think that it has already been admitted. It is of further importance for the question which has to be decided hero of the admissibility of experiments on human beings and in excess of this in order to judge the question--the humanitarian question--all together. The prosecution charges the defendants with crimes against humanity. In order to clarify this concept, we will have to see what is being considered as humane in order to be able to make comparisons. I want to submit an additional number of documents from literature which likewise deals with experiments and which for the same reasons will be of the utmost importance. I, therefore, request that Document No. 1 be admitted as Exhibit 1.
THE PRESIDENT: If my recollection is correct, this exhibit was marked or identification: Karl Brandt, Exhibit 1 for identification, but has not been admitted in evidence.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, we offered no objection when this Document was put to Professor Leibbrand because the witness was called upon to give his opinion as to the ethical value of the experiments here carried out, and he testified that he had some objection to the experiments related here in life magazine. For the purpose of eliciting an expression of opinion from the witness, we had no objection to that procedure. We have very strenous objections, to the other purpose, as stated by defense counsel for Karl Brandt. This document obviously can have no probative value in proving that any of the experiments ******.
charged in this indictment are lawful or non-criminal experiments. If the Tribunal permits documents of this kind to go into evidence, it will very probably mean that the prosecution will be forced to assume the burden of justifying every experiment which has ever been carried out or at least all of them that the defense counsel can find information on, were carried on in a lawful manner, that is to say, upon volunteers.
I think there is no issue in this case concerning the fact that an experiment carried out on non-volunteers is not of the nature of unlawful or criminal experiments. The defendant so testified on the stand. I understand he admitted it. It was necessary that the experimental subjects be volunteers. The Prosecution in this case has undertaken to prove that the experimental subjects used in the experiments at issue were not volunteers, therefore, adds nothing to the proof, or the clarification of any issued in this case for the defense counsel to bring in great hosts of documents in writing concerning experiments carried out in other countries. There is the very strongest objections to have admitted that type of material into evidence in any event. I think in substantially all cases these writings will not reveal the circumstances surrounding the experiments, and, I am quite sure they will attempt to draw inferences from those writings that doctors in the United States, or elsewhere, have done the same thing as done in this case, namely, carried out experiments on people who were not volunteers under circumstances justified to the belief on the part of the experimenters, which would probably result in death. That would mean the Prosecution under the circumstances on its own initiative could investigate each one of these instances, and bring in proof we think we can bring in that the experiments were unethical from any one point of view.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Servatius, did not your witness, Karl Brandt, make the statement that in his opinion any one who is under physical restraint, such as a prisoner would be in a penitentiary, could not actually give voluntary consent to the subjection of medical experiments upon him, even though he gave lip service, even though he had exteriorly stated that he would volunteer for such experiments. I think the doctorwitness said that even then according to his sense of medical ethics that could not be said to be a voluntarily human service.
Now then, proceeding upon the premise that you have established by your own witness, would it not be worth something as a matter of probative value that Dr. Servatius who started with these premises that those people no matter how much they consented could not in fact willingly consent, and, then to show under those circumstances experiments were conducted upon human subjects?
I understand that is the purpose far which Dr. Servatius has introduced this article from "Life". Of course, in the last analysis it will be up to this Tribunal to say what probative value they will give the natter. Of course, the article as it appeared upon its face, and in accepting the promise laid down by your witness Karl Brandt, would tend to prove only that in other parts of the world experiments were conducted upon human subjects.
MR. MCHANEY: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution is prepared to admit that. I just don't see that the matter is at issue and proves anything. Even if it be assumed that experiments were carried out in some other country of the world, and in certain cases upon non-volunteers, I don't think it justifies any of the alleged crimes in this case. They can commit crimes in the United States, or elsewhere, just as they can in Germany, and proof of any given instance that such a crime has been committed in the United States I think does not behoove the defense anything in this case.
JUDGE SEBRING: I had understood that as the purpose of this offer. I don't suppose that these defendants are willing to admit to the case of the Prosecution at this time, and I had supposed that the purpose of this proffer was to show that these defendants had comported with what they had considered to be accepted standards in the field of medical experiments. Isn't that the purpose?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes.
MR. MCHANEY: I don't want to make an extended argument, but as I see it, there is no dispute either on the basis of this article or on the part of the Defense with the Prosecution that it is necessary that experimental subjects be volunteers, and I do not see that loading down this record with extracts taken from Life and medical journals, and all other possible sources is going to aid the Tribunal or do anything except result in a lot of smoke being thrown up around the character of the experiments carried out elsewhere.
For example, the defendant Karl brandt on the stand, under questioning by his own Counsel, made an allusion to certain freezing experiments allegedly carried out on six insane persons in the United States. I think he said that they died. I did not examine Karl Brandt about that statement because I did not want to consume the time that it would have taken, but I think Karl Brandt will admit that he did not know a thing about what he was speaking about. We looked into the matter. The experiments were carried out, in fact, at the McLane Sanitarium, which I understand, is one of the most expensive private insane asylums in all the world; that these so-called freezing experiments which he described were a method of therapy applied to certain insane persons in the asylum, and I night say that it probably cost them a very largo sum of money, and that certainly no one was killed.
It is a little bit ridiculous to be making these allusions, comparing a method of treatment carried out under such circumstances to one carried out in the Dachau concentration camp.