He can spend Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday interrogating the defendant and they can well prepare the cross-examination at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal sees no objection to the defendant Ruff coming down and sitting with his counsel and possibly asking some of the questions himself to the witness. The defendant Ruff, after the witness has testified concerning questions in which the Defendant Ruff is interested. The Defendant Ruff would be excused from the dock to consult with his counsel if his counsel desires until the time for cross examination arrives. In any event the defendant may leave his place in the dock and come down and take a position at the table with his counsel and stand with his counsel. If his counsel deems it necessary or advisable, defendant Ruff may ask the witness some questions himself as the Tribunal desires to afford every possible opportunity for a thorough cross-examination of the witness and that process might result in shortening the crossexamination and making it more direct and to tho point. In any event, after the witness has testified concerning the matters in which the Defendants Ruff and Romberg are interested they may be excused from the court if they desire and consult with their counsel until the time cross-examination arrives.
DR. SAUTER: Thank you very much.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Repeating again, Dr. Ivy, I wish to read portions of several documents and desire that you keep the context in mind so that I can obtain your opinion as an expert. First, I would like to read pare 76 of Document Book No. 21 which is a part of the report made by Rascher to Himmler which is Document NO-220B. This is dated May 11, 1942, commencing with paragraph No. 5 and the sentence. "For the following experiments --". That is paragraph No. 5 on page 76, commencing with the words, "For the following experiments," and concluding with the end of the report. I will read that. The interpreters have that section.
"For the following experiments Jewish professional criminals who had committed 'Rassenschande' (race pollution) were used: The question of the formation of embolism was investigated in 10 cases. Some of the VP's died during a continued high altitude experiment; for instance, after one-half hour at a height of 12 kilometers. After the skull had been opened under water an ample amount of air embolism was found in the brain vessels and, in part, free air in the brain ventricles.
"To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining consciousness, some VP's were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavities of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines, etc.
"That proves that air embolism, so far considered as absolutely fatal, is not fatal at all but that it is reversible as shown by the return to normal conditions of all the other VP's.
"It was also proved by experiments that air embolism occurs in practically all vessels even while pure oxygen is being inhaled.
One VP was made to breathe pure oxygen for two and one-half hours before the experiment started. After six minutes at a height of 20 kilometers he died and at dissection also showed ample air embolism as was the case in all other experiments.
"At sudden decrees in pressure and subsequent immediate falls to heights where breathing is possible no deep reaching damages due to air embolism could be noted. The formation of air embolism always needs a certain amount of time."
Now, I should like for you to note particularly the following sentences in this passage - that is the sixth paragraph - the passage: "To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects, as mentioned under No. 3, are due to the formation of embolism, the following was done: After relative recuperation from such a parachute descending test had taken place, however before regaining of consciousness, some VP's were kept under water until they died. When the skull and the cavaties of the breast and of the abdomen had been opened under water an enormous amount of air embolism was found in the vessels of the brain, the coronary vessels and the vessels of the liver and the intestines."
Now, Doctor, if you turn to page 91, Document Book No. 2, which you will note on page 83 of Document Book is a page from the report by Ruff, Rascher and Romberg on experiments on rescues from high altitudes. This is Document NO 402. Now, on page 91, starting with the first paragraph, on the top of the page, with the words: "In spite of the relatively large number of experiments." This is Document NO 402 which would be page 16 of the original German, the last paragraph on page 16 of the original German, page 91 of the English.
You have Document NO 1402 before you, do you have it?
THE INTERPRETER: Yes, we found it, Mr. Hardy.
Q Now, beginning with that paragraph, on the top of Page 91, I will quote:
"In spite of the relatively large number of experiments, the actual cause of the severe mental disturbances and bodily failures (Paralysis, blindness, etc.) attendant upon post-hypoxemic twilight state remains something of a riddle. It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack."
Now, I should like to know, Professor Ivy, whether the sentence we have just read - that is, the first sentence we read in the Rascher report - that was Document NO 220 which says: "To find out whether the severe psychological and physical effects, as mentioned in No. 3, are due to the formation of air embolism, the following was done"; has the same general meaning and implication of the two sentences we just read in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report, Document NO 402, which says: "It appeared often as though the phenomena of pressure drop sickness had combined with the results of severe oxygen lack."
A Yes, they refer to the same subject matter.
Q Does the expression "severe psychological effects" in the Rascher report mean the same as the "severe mental disturbances" in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report?
A In my opinion, they do.
Q Does the expression "such a parachute descending test" in the same paragraph of the Rascher report mean the same thing as the expression "descending test" in the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report?
A Yes. In that connection I should like to point out that in paragraph 5 on page 76 Rascher uses the expression "continued high altitude experiment." In that paragraph that is a different type of experiment from that referred to in paragraph 6 in the same report where the expression "parachute descending test" is used.
Q Well, did not the experiment about which we have just read on page 76 of Document Book No. 2 - that is the Rascher report, Document NO 220, in which the VP's were kept under water until dead and their blood vessels examined for air embolisms - bear directly on the solution of the "actual cause of the severe mental disturbances" of the Ruff, Romberg and Rascher report referring to page 91 of Document Book No. 2, Document NO 402?
A Yes.
Q In view of the fact that Dr. Romberg says he reported the death of three aviation subjects to Ruff, in view of the findings of air embolism in some of the subjects killed in parachute descending tests in Rascher's report, and in view of the interest of Rascher in his report and of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in their report on the cause of mental disturbances, is it probable beyond a reasonable doubt, in your opinion, that Ruff, when he approved, read or wrote paragraph 2 on page 91 of Document Book 2 which starts with the words, "In spite of", did have in mind Rascher's experiments of air embolism?
A In my opinion, yes.
Q Can you be a little more elaborate and tell us why? Tell us what you base your opinion on, Doctor.
A It has been the theory for some time that the symptoms associated with decompression or pressure drop sickness may be due to the formation of gas bubbles in the blood vessels of the brain or collection of gas bubbles in the regions of the joints or the collection of gas bubbles in the blood vessels of the lungs.
When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels of the brain they are supposed to cause a physical or mental disturbance or paralysis. When the gas bubbles collect in the region of the joints, they are supposed to cause pain in the region of the joints. When the bubbles collect in the blood vessels in the lungs, they are supposed to cause the chokes or attacks of coughing.
That has been a theory that has been held for some 15 or 20 years, and one in the field of Aviation Medicine must have know about it for sometime.
Secondly, if Rascher had observed bubbles as is described in his report, document 220, and since Dr. Ruff was associated at the Laboratory at Dachau, since Dr. Romberg was there, obviously these findings of Dr. Rascher could not have escaped the attention of Dr. Romberg and Dr. Ruff. It is for that reason that it seems to me to be logical to deduce that Dr. Ruff must have known about the findings described in document 220 when the report or document 402 was written,
Q And the language on page 91 -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Just a moment. The Tribunal would advise Counsel for defendant Romberg, that if Counsel would like his client to sit beside him at his table, the client may do so. The defendant Romberg also, it appears that defendant Romberg's Counsel is not present. If defendant Romberg would like to chose some other Counsel to act for him in this cross examination, he may do so. Both of the defendants may come down and sit at table with their Counsel while this examination is proceeding, now. Understanding the Counsel desired that this procedure he followed, the Tribunal directs the defendant Ruff and defendant Romberg also, step from the dock and sit at the table with Counsel.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, when the report from which quotations are read, I would request Mr. Hardy to state the German pages of the document, too, because it is very difficult for me if I only hear the English page numbers, to find the quotation, and by the time I have found the quotation, Mr. Hardy has already gone on to another question.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I will request the Interpreters to refer to the page number. I am unable to read German.
THE PRESIDENT: The Counsel's request will be complied with.
Now, in regard to the defendant Romberg's Counsel not being present, I would ask him if he will chose any other Counsel that is present to sit beside him, if he desires.
(No reply from defendant Romberg)
I understand defendant Romberg is content to sit beside defendant Ruff without having any other Counsel designated.
Counsel for the Prosecution may proceed.
Q In view of your opinion concerning these two reports, then, do you feel, Dr. Ivy, that the language contained in page 91 of the document book 2, the paragraph beginning with "In spite of...", was obtained from the result of experiments by Rascher?
A No, the point I am making is, because of the nature of the subject matter, and a prior knowledge from the observations in the Rascher experiments, the ideas expressed in paragraph 2, document 402, cannot be separated from those in the paragraphs, the contents of which we have been discussing on page 76 in document 220.
Q Thank you. In so far as experience in research in Aviation medicine is concerned what was the order of seniority in the case of Ruff, Romberg, and Rascher?
A I should say that Dr. Ruff, is senior, because of his experience and standing; Dr. Romberg, second, because of his experience and training; and Dr. Rascher, third. That is their scientific seniority.
Q Well, under such conditions is it not likely that Rascher got his idea to look for air embolism from the two men with the experience, namely, Ruff and Romberg?
A That is possible, unless Rascher had access to literature on the subject of the cause of decompression or pressure drop sickness, and got his idea from reading the literature.
Q Well, are you able to ascertain from the evidence here whether or not Ruff and Romberg had knowledge of such books as Rascher may have had access too?
A No, but it is very reasonable to assume that Ruff and Romberg had access to the literature on this subject.
Q Is it not the usual practice in any laboratory for the senior investigator to assume charge, especially when life is endangered?
A Yes.
Q The senior investigator has the greatest responsibility, does he not?
A In my opinion he does.
Q Assume for the moment that I was acting as your assistant in a laboratory, say at Wright Field, United States, in a field of high altitude research, and at that time I was experimenting on a human being, and had him up to an altitude of 18 to 20,000 meters and left him there until such time as he died; and, during the course of this experiment you were able to observe electro-cardiograms, to observe the conditions of the experiment; would you, then, have assumed responsibility and stopped me?
A I should have, yes.
Q Is that your duty to stop me?
A I personally should consider it so.
Q Assume that you were not my superior, that is, I was not working as your assistant, but that you were an observer, but a senior investigator; in the same problems would you still feel it was you duty, as a scientific investigator, senior, to stop me if life was to be endangered?
A It seems to me it would be my moral duty.
Q In Rascher's experiments in which he killed human subjects at high altitudes, and examined the blood vessels of the brain and other tissues; was the purpose of his experiments to examine the blood vessels of the brain and other tissues, when he killed people at high altitudes?
A On the basis of his reports, at least it was one of his objectives.
Q On page 6583 of the official transcript -- you have the German page number for that?
INTERPRETER: Yes, page 6677 in the German text.
Q On the page of the transcript, Dr. Ruff testifies that five to ten minutes are required for bubbles to form at an altitude of 12,000 meters; is that correct, Doctor?
A Yes, I agree with that statement.
Q He testified further that when bailing out at 15,000 meters and falling in an open parachute, these people were at heights about 12,000 meters for three minutes; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q He concludes that since the subjects were only about 12,000 meters for three minutes, the bubbles in the picture from Rascher's autopsy cases, could not have occurred with the probability that bordered uncertainty in experiments from rescue from high altitudes. Do you agree?
A I do not agree with the explation that it may occur on the basis of probability that basis on uncertainty for this reason, that we know on the basis of development of symptoms of decompression and pressure drop sickness, on the basis of x-ray evidence, that bubbles may form at an altitude as low as 30,000 feet. There is some evidence indicating that bubbles may form at an altitude as low as 25,000 feet; hence it is possible for, in this particular case, for the bubbles to start forming at the original altitude, we shall say 47,000 feet, and the formation continued as slow paralysis occurred. So, the fact that the subject was at an altitude between 47,000 and 40,000 feet only about three minutes does not preclude the possibility that bubbles formed in this particular subject are continued to form in this particular subject at lower altitudes as expostulated by Dr. Ruff. Now, by submitting this testimony or explanation, I do not mean to imply that this particular subject was one of the subjects referred to as being a subject of slow decent or one of the subjects in the Rascher report.
I simply want to correct scientifically the interpretation which the witness himself on page 6583 gave.
Q On page 6592 of the record - what page is that in German?
INTERPRETER: Page 6686 in the German transcript.
Q On page 6592 of the record Ruff testifies that he knew that these deaths - three reported to him by Romberg - had not occurred in the experiments for rescue from high altitude but in other experiments which Rascher carried out on orders from Himmler and answers: "There was no occasion to mention these deaths in this report." That is Document NO-402. That's the final report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher. If Ruff based his statement that he knew these deaths had not occurred in the experiments of rescue from high altitude on this preceding deduction could he be justified in concluding that the three subjects did not occur in his and Romberg's subjects?
A No. As I pointed out I do not believe that explanation that was given on page 6592 of the record shows that the subject referred to as having gas bubbles in his blood vessels came from a continued high altitude experiment. It was reasonable to believe that subject came to a slow parachute descent experiment.
Q Hence it was a question of rescue from high altitude?
A Yes.
Q In the case of the first death Romberg in his affidavit, which is Document NO-476 on page 2 of Document Book II, states that he was recording and studying the electrocardiogram and then later he testified that this death occurred in one of Rascher's experiments and not one of his and Ruff's. Is it possible from your study of the documents that this first death could not have been one in the field with which Romberg and Ruff were concerned and could have been a death of one of their subjects?
A Either is possible. It could have been a death resulting from one of Rascher's continued altitude experiments or one of the experiments involving rescue from high altitude.
Q On page 6920 of the record - would you kindly give the German page number, please?
INTERPRETER: German page 7011.
Q Thank you. On page 6920 of the record at the bottom of the page Rascher is asked - pardon me, Romberg is asked - "Now you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?" Romberg replied, quote: This is the question on page 6920, the last question at the bottom of the page, the question beginning, "Well, now here are some tell tale remarks of this connection....." This is the last sentence in that paragraph of the question which I will repeat: "Now, you had not other clues to pressure drop sickness than Rascher's air bubbles which he had shown to you during an autopsy, had you?" To this Romberg replied: "No, the air bubbles which one sees in an autopsy are not proof of this. They didn't necessarily have anything to do with it. One cannot say that the picture of gas embolism necessarily leads to the symptoms." Now, are these statements or this view correct according to best opinion Dr. Ivy?
A Best opinion at the present time is that symptoms of decompression sickness - pressure drop sickness - are due to the formation of gas bubbles in the tissue or blood vessels.
Q Then, this view is not the best or widely accepted opinion on the subject?
A No.
Q Did you ever publish an article on this subject?
A I have published two articles on this subject and the Committee on Decompression Sickness of the National Research Council of the United States is writing a book on decompression sickness and evidence collected comes very close to establishing the bubble theory of symptoms of pressure drop sickness as a fact. I might say that the most convincing evidence in support of this bubble theory in the case of symptoms of pressure drop sickness is that if the subject breathes oxygen for one, two, or three hours before going to high altitude, in order to wash out the nitrogen from the body, bubbles do not form and the symptoms of decompression sickness do not occur.
Q Well, then in summation the best opinion on the subject is that the symptoms of decompression or pressure drop sickness is due to bubbles in the blood vessels and tissues.
A Yes.
Q And you say the best evidence of that is the fact that breathing oxygen for an hour or so to wash out nitrogen of the body is the only way to prevent the symptoms and the formation of the bubbles?
A Yes.
Q Is there any other explanation of how the pre-breathing of oxygen prevents the symptoms?
A None other.
Q Doctor, will you please refer to page 6928 of the record.
INTERPRETER: Page 7919 in the German transcript.
Q Now, Doctor Ivy, on page 6928 of the official transcript of this trial we read Romberg's description of the circumstances surrounding the first death. Now, will you refer to page 6933 of the record and I wish to read on page 6933 - the German page number for that, please?
INTERPRETER: 7024.
Q The question and answer at the bottom of the page to which Romberg answers "It was not so clear to me that he was a murderer, neither morally or legally is it quite clear, I said already." As a physician and a scientist having studied the circumstances surrounding the death of this prisoner, what is your opinion?
A It appears to me that the killing could only be viewed as an execution or as a deliberate killing or murder. If these subjects were volunteers the deliberate killing could not be an execution it could only be a murder.
Q Will you read page 6932 of the record, going back one page.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, court is about to recess. I would ask the defendant Romberg if he knows where his counsel is?
DR. ROMBERG: My defense counsel has been informed by telegram but I don't know whether he can come back. I expect him to come back today but I am quite satisfied with being represented by Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, regarding representing Dr. Romberg. There will be no difficulties because during the past week I have anyhow every evening when I spoke with Dr. Ruff I also discussed his case with Dr. Romberg in order to be able to represent the interests of Dr. Romberg during the absence of his defense counsel. Therefore, Dr. Romberg will not interpose any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Now counsel understand, not only counsel for the defendants Ruff and Romberg, but other counsel as well, that if in connection with this examination counsel desires to consult with their respective client, it will be arranged that they may do so at any time, at noon, or may be excused from the Tribunal for consultation with their clients if they desire upon request of the Tribunal. Any such reasonable requests will be entertained. The Tribunal will now be in recess for a few minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal desires to announce again that the Tribunal will be in session tomorrow, Saturday, from 1:30 until 12:30, and possibly will be in session tomorrow afternoon. That matter will be determined later when we ascertain how rapidly the cross examinations of the witness progresses, but at least the Tribunal will be in session from 9:30 tomorrow morning until 12:30-on Saturday.
Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q. Dr. Ivy, again I wish to ask you to hesitate after I ask a question before you answer, so that the interpreters may have an opportunity to interpret our questions and answers more precisely? If a collaborator of yours deliberately killed a person in your laboratory, and a colleague reported it to you, what would you do about it?
A. I should make a careful investigation of the report and if the report were true I should report it to the police.
Q. Would you make an attempt to also report it to your superiors if you had people to whom you were subordinated?
A. Certainly.
DR. SEIDL: (Seidl for Gebhardt, Fisher and Oberhauser.) Mr. President, I object to that question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. The question and answer will be stricken from the record.
Q. As you know, in Document No. 402, this document represents a printed report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher, which was written the 28 July 1942 and the death occurred in the Rascher experiments in April or May 1942. At that time according to the record Ruff knew that at least three deaths had occurred and Romberg knew of more. Here then we have two scientists joining their names as co-authors with a man whom they regarded either as a murderer or of such culpability that they refused to work with him again; in your opinion as a scientist in matters of a scientific nature of this sort and research problems such as we are concerned with here, which would be the most important thing for the scientist to do, to see that Rascher was apprehended and other deaths prevented, or to take a chance that the scientific results in the joint report might be lost to the world in the instance that the case against Rascher was not pushed.
THE PRESIDENT: The question propounded by counsel to the witness is purely a legal question and should not be answered by the witness.
MR. HARDY: I submit, Your Honor, the questions I am propounding to the witness are problems that will confront scientists all over the World. I am attempting to present a set of facts that a scientist would do if he was the senior scientist in case such a situation arose in his laboratories.
JUDGE SEBRING: Isn't it possible, Mr. Hardy that this Tribunal will, in its opinion, answer that question in such a way scientists in the future will have some landmark to guide them.
MR. HARDY: That is true, Your Honor, but defense counsel have brought up here that six persons died of high altitude experiments in the U. S., I also want Dr. Ivy's opinion on that which coincides with the questions that I have just asked and which the court has striken from the record.
JUDGE SEBRING: That is a different question. The question propounded by counsel to the witness is objectionable and will not be answered.
Q. Before this Tribunal, Dr. Ivy, we have heard testimony to the fact that in an experiment on high altitude in the U. S. some six persons died. It has also been alleged in experiments in the U. S. that only a sergeant and not a physician was first in charge of the high altitude chamber; do you know anything about that?
A I know of no deaths which have occurred in the course of real experimentation in aviation medicine in the United States during the war, I know of some deaths which occurred, however, in the course of routine indoctrination of medical officers, pilots, and aviation personnel in the use of oxygen equipment at high altitude these deaths have been thought to be due to the exposure to high altitude, although no real proof of that was forthcoming. When tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people pass through a routine you can expect some to die simply as a matter of course. I don't know how many of these people would have died simply in the course of being examined medically or of natural causes.
Q Then, in summation you do not know of any deaths which occurred in real experiments in an altitude chamber in the United States?
A That is correct. In regard to the sergeant, it is true that a sergeant, adequately trained, was in charge of the operation of the chamber, but a medical officer or scientist was always at hand in the room or in an adjacent room.
Q Well, then you state that in routine altitude training programs, in which hundreds of thousands of persons I presume are routinely indoctrinated regarding the use of oxygen equipment and the symptom of altitude, either four, five or six persons died in the United States?
A Yes, I can assure you that the circumstances under which these deaths occurred were thoroughly investigated by appropriate commissions or committees.
Q Then, in the course of experiments in the United States the only death that you know of is the death of Major Dr. Voynden who was killed in an experiment on a free fall from a plane in an altitude chamber?
A Yes.
Q If Your Honor please, I have no further questions to put to Dr. Ivy concerning high altitude. If the Tribunal has any questions at this time I will not proceed with my other subjects.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q Dr. Ivy, I direct your attention, Sir, to Prosecution Document No. 402, which has been received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 66 and appears in Prosecution Document Book No. 2 at pages 82 to 99, inclusive, the Ruff, Romberg, Rascher report?
A Yes.
Q Are you thoroughly familiar with that report?
A I have studied it quite carefully.
Q Can you state for the information of the Tribunal whether there is any scientific conclusions or information contained in that report, which could not have been gained solely from the experiments supposed to have been conducted by Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in collaboration?
A Will you have the question read again, please?
Q Could you say whether or not there are any scientific conclusions or whether there is any scientific information contained in that report, which could not have been obtained or gained solely from the experiments supposed to have been conducted by Ruff, Romberg and Rascher in collaboration at Dachau. I make a distinction, you understand, between Ruff, Rascher and Romberg and the Rascher experiments, which Ruff and Romberg maintain was conducted by Rascher independently under an order from Himmler.
A I understand. The conclusions in the report of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher. Document No. 402 could have been made solely on the basis of the findings and data submitted in that report without any knowledge of the results of the experiments purported to have been performed by Dr. Rascher.
Q Is their anything in the Ruff, Romberg, Rascher report of experiments from which it can be said with absolute certainty either that deaths, permanent injury or extreme pain resulted to the experimental subjects who took part therein?
A No, but you may recall that I reported that there is a possibility that there may have been some damage to the learning mechanism of the due to long exposure of the brain to oxygen lack.
That was not tested for in the studies of Ruff, Romberg and Rascher.
Q Is there such a thing as an experimental subject becoming acclimated to the experiments he is undergoing at high altitude so that eventually he reaches the point where the results obtained from the observation of his routine during the course of the experiments would not be the same as it would be for a new subject?
A No, the matter of adaptation has received considerable attention by investigators in the field of aviation medicine in the United States. I, myself, have studied the matter in relation to the occurrence of bends, which is pains in the region of the joints in the exposure to high altitude. I subjected seven subjects to an altitude of 37,500 feet from 70 to 150 times during the course of 12 to 18 months. One of these subjects became less resistant to exposure to altitude, insofar as the occurrence of bends was concerned. The other subjects showed no change, no adaptation, that is a matter that the subject apparently to individual variations is positive or negative. Adaptation to some extent may occur. By that I mean an occasional individual may become more resistant or less resistant to exposure to altitude.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
BY MR. HARDY:
Q Professor Ivy, in the high altitude experiments, as outlined in the Ruff, Rascher, Romberg report, do you consider that those experiments were particularly dangerous?
A Those experiments which were done with slow descent from high altitude, that is with the parachute opened after bailing out from the plane, associated with a long period of oxygen lack and they were dangerous experiments for that reason.
Q And would you be reluctant to perform them yourself?
A I would be reluctant to perform them, yes.
Q In the course of this trial, Dr. Ivy, we have had considerable testimony concerning experimentation on human beings and problems of medical ethics. At this time, I wish to discuss with you those conditions under which human beings have been used in medical experiments and which conditions are considered to be ethical and legal.
First, I would like to have you explain to the Tribunal in detail the experiments on yellow fever by Dr. Walter Reed as told in the yellow fever compilations on various publications, Document 822, United States Governement Printing Office 1911.
DR. SAUTER: Your Honor, I object to the expert witness being examined on these general questions. I remind you of the following. A number of defense counsels have included in their document book experiments from international literature from all the civilized countries in the world. In order to demonstrate what the attitude of the medical profession and medical ethics is to the problem of the permissability of experiments on human beings.
In almost all these cases the Court has ruled that this problem should be postponed until the conclusion of the presentation of evidence and only then would the Tribunal rule whether and to what extent the experiments from international medical literature are to be accepted in evidence. This attitude on the part of the Tribunal must also be maintained, in my opinion, at the present time where an expert from America is being examined on these questions.
If the defense during the course of the trial and until the conclusion of the trial has no opportunity to put literature then this would be a struggle on an unequal basis. If the prosecution has the opportunity to produce one witness after another and have these witnesses it has chosen answer these questions whereas the defense during the course of presentation of months did not have this opportunity, consequently, I object to this line of questions and ask that it be not permitted.