THE PRESIDENT: The objection is well taken. That was purely an augumentative statement in testimony.
I would also call Dr. Ruff's attention to the fact that he has already exceeded the time which he stated he desired to be allocated to him for this examination.
Counsel.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. president, I should like to ask you to admit this last question. It is a point which was not brought out expressly in the Ruff-Romberg-Rascher report, which was brought up only during the trial. Now, Dr. Ruff must have an opportunity to inform the expert - to question the expert on this point. If I have understood this question correctly, the point was what the expert has to say about the statement of my client that these patients were under observation for six weeks and that there was not the slightest change in their psychical condition. This question has acquired a certain importance in the course of this trial.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not think there is anything in the record on that question. The witness may be asked a hypothetical question, but Dr. Ruff was himself making a statement as a witness. He is not now on the stand. He may ask a hypothetical question of the witness.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon, Mr. President, I did not realize that.
BY DR. RUFF:
Q: Professor Ivy, I have only a few very brief questions.
I believe you said yesterday that, according to present day opinion, bends is a result of air bubbles in the blood. Do you agree with me - or rather I would ask a question. Are there not air bubbles in the blood vessels which do not cause any disturbances to the system and do not cause any pain?
A: Yes, and there are probably air bubbles which do.
Q: On the other hand, is there pain in bends or symptoms with the bubbles in the blood vessels or the tissue which can be found - when bubbles which cannot be found?
A: Pain occurs and paralysis occurs in areas where gas bubbles cannot be visualized by the X-ray apparatus, but that does not mean that there are no gas bubbles present. The only conclusion permitted is that the X-ray technique does not reveal them. That is as far as we can go with these facts.
Q: Professor Ivy, what I was interested in was the following. Is there pain or are there symptoms occuring without gas bubbles in the blood vessels?
A: No, so far as I know. It is a question that, at the present time, we cannot categorically answer "yes" or "no".
Q: Very well.
Then, you agree with me that the question of bends is not yet clear in certain points?
A: Yes, in that the bubble theory theory has not been absolutely established, but it is the theory that has the most evidence in its support and it is the only way, in my opinion, that we can explain the prevention of pressure drop sickness by the pre-breathing of oxygen for the purpose of washing out the nitrogen from the body.
Q: In the final question I shall come to this point, but first I should like to ask mother question.
Dr. Ivy, is it customary in medical science, in working on such problem to set up theories and working hypotheses and first to work with these hypotheses as long as there is no obvious objection to them?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Professor Ivy, you just said that one of the greatest reasons in favor of the bubble theory is the previous breathing of oxygen, and you said yesterday that previous breathing of pure oxygen for two to three hours i a sure method to avoid the formation of bubbles in the blood or in the tissue. Did I understand you correctly?
A: Yes.
Q: Now, Professor Ivy, in connection with your examination Mr. Hardy showed you Document NO-220 of the prosecution on page 82 of the German Document Book 2. Document NO 220, Page 74 in the English Document Book.
The last page of the document. It is a secret report from Rascher to Himmler of the 11th of May. When Mr. Hardy read this last page of the document to you yesterday, an experiment of Rascher was reported on where, after 21/2 hours of breathing oxygen, an experimental subject died at 20 kilometers within six minutes and the autopsy showed that there were air embolisms in the vessels. Does this statement of Rascher's, which you did not object to yesterday when the document was read, does this not contradict your testimony just now and does it now show the great amount of confusion in the field of decompression sickness?
A: No, that observation doesn't confuse me because obviously you know as well as I do that if the experiment was actually conducted as stated there would be no appreciable amount of nitrogen in the gas and hence those gas bubbles would consist primarily of carbon monoxide. You can take a cat, for example, clear it of nitrogen by prolonged breathing of 100% oxygen, take the cat to an altitude of 15 kilometers, stimulate the muscles and gas bubbles will appear in the veins, and it obviously must be carbon monoxide.
Q: Professor Ivy, I am quite well informed in this field too. I don't know whether you know that in 1945 and 1946, together with my co-defendant Becker-Freyseng, I worked for one year on this decompression sickness. Now, Professor, we have examined these reports of Rascher carefully, not only forthis trial but also we worked on them from the scientific point of view as far as possible on the basis of the records rather inadequate for a scientist, and it seemed to us that in this experiment which I have just mentioned to you Rascher perhaps made a discovery, the significance of which he did not realize, but it seems to me to be quite important and now we have a request to you. When you go back to the United States, test this thing again in an animal experiment and see to it that the superstition of breathing of pure oxygen is removed if Rascher's findings are justified.
In the German Luftwaffe, by a fortunate coincidence, from the beginning of our investigations on decompression sickness for fighter planes, from the time when these mobile low pressure chambers were put into use an 1941, we set the time for the stay at 12 kilometers at 10 minutes. If you in the United States make the time 10 to 20 minutes, I believe you will not have any more deaths which, as you said yesterday and the day before, you considered a matter of Fate.
I have no further questions.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q: Mr. President, I have only two very brief questions.
Witness, you spoke yesterday of a number of experiments carried out in the United States and in other countries outside of Germany. For example, pellegra, swamp fever, Beri-beri, plague, etc. Now, I should like to have a very clear answer from you to the following question. In these experiment which yon heard of partly from persons involved in them and partly from in a international literature, did deaths occur during the experiments and as a r* of the experiments or not? Professor, I ask you this question because you said yesterday that because of this question you examined all international literature and therefore have a certain specialized knowledge on this question.
A: I also said that when one reviews the literature he cannot be sure that he had done a complete or perfect job.
So far as the reports I have read and presented yesterday there were no deaths in trench fever. There were no deaths mentioned, to my knowledge in the article on pellagra. There were no deaths mentioned, to knowledge in the article on Beriberi, and there were no deaths in the article, according to my knowledge, in Colonel Strong's article on plague. I could not testify that I have read all the articles in the medical literature involving the us of human beings as subjects in medical experiments.
Q: And, in the literature which you have read, witness, there was not a single case where deaths occurred? Did I understand you correctly?
A: Yes. In the yellow fever experiments I indicated that Dr. Carroll and Dr. Lazare died.
Q: That is the only case you know of?
A: That's all that I know of.
Q: And a second question, Professor.
You said yesterday that you yourself had carried out experiments in the field in question. I should like to know who supplied the experimental subjects for your experiments?
A: That has varied considerably. When I used human subjects for experiments in my younger days when I was an assistant or an instructor, I would invite the students to serve as subjects myself. Later, I did not think it proper for me to ask the students to serve as subjects so the laboratory assistants did this. I did not ask them because in my position. I believed they might be swayed if under duress or under undue influence. I testified yesterday that we used some conscientious objectors. We applied to the Civilian Public Service Agency in Washington for these subjects, through the National Research Council.
Q: The first agency - did I understand you correctly, was a policy agency?
A: No, the Civilian Public Service Agency. I never myself used prisoners.
Q: Then, it was the labor office. It must have been the labor office.
A: The Civilian Public Service Agency was a division of Selective Service which supervised the conscientious objectors and their activities.
Q: Witness, how did you go the people from this agency? Did you make an application? Were the people offered to you spontaneously? How did it happen?
A: A Written application was made to the colonel in charge, stating the subject of the experiment to be performed, its objective, its background, the duration of the experiment, exactly how the experiment was to be performed, and its possible hazards. We stated the number of subjects desired.
Q And this number of subjects was made available to you by this agency then?
A Yes.
Q Witness, you said yesterday that the prisoners who ordinarily had to sign a waiver according to which, if I understood you correctly, that they gave up any claim if it proved a fatality, did I understand you correctly?
A Yes, they signed an agreement, if I recall it correctly they would make plans for themselves in case of accidents.
Q Not only if they were injured, but if the patient should be a fatality?
A I believe the expression "heirs and assigns" was included, yes.
Q Then the people gave up all claims for their heirs, too. Now, witness, in your experiments did you have such waivers signed by the subjects?
A No. Our subjects, conscientious objectors, were given insurance against possible damage or injury.
Q Insurance. Why did your subjects get this insurance, and why did the prisoners have to give up all claims? Why this distinction?
A A I do not know.
Q Witness, on the basis of your great experience, don't you have any idea why there was this distinction? You are an expert in all those fields.
A Well, I presume that it was out of a sympathy for the conscientious objectors. The soldiers in the Army were insured by the Government, and I thought -- I should believe that might have been thought to be a good idea to insure the conscientious objectors for the same reason that they were taking experiments that had a small amount of hazard in them.
Q Was this sympathy not felt in the case of the prisoners who volunteered for experiments on behalf of the general public?
HR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal. Dr. Sauter discussed this point for better than an hour yesterday. I think he has covered the subject enough so that we can proceed to another point.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Doctor, you can answer this question very briefly. Was this sympathy not felt with the prisoners, too, who volunteered for experiments in the interest of the general public? Something could have happened to them, too, and they could have poor heirs, too. Why did no one think of them?
A I had nothing to do with that or determining the conditions. Thus, I can't answer the question "yes" or "no".
Q My final question, Professor. From the point of view of medical ethics do you believe whether in America or in any other civilized nation that it is in accord with medical ethics to cary out experiments with a certain degree of danger on prisoners who are first asked to sign a waiver giving up all claims, even for their heirs?
In you opinion, can that be reconciled with medical ethics?
A Yes, I believe it can be reconciled with the basic medical ethics.
DR. SAUTER: Then I have no further questions. Thank you very much, and thank you in the name of Dr. Ruff that you gave him an opportunity to ask specialized medical questions from the expert witness.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I request that if Dr. Ivy wishes to finish his answer, he may be allowed to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, if the witness did not complete his answer, he may complete it.
THE WITNESS: I said enough.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess for a few minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense Counsel may proceed.
BY DR. SERVATIOUS(Attorney for Defendant Karl Brandt)
Q. Witness, yesterday you testified that voluntary consent is the first prerequisite for human experimentation. Previously you had said that you yourself had been reluctant to apply for volunteers; is that so?
A. No.
Q. Didn't you say just now that you didn't want to ask your students to volunteer but left that to other agencies so that your authority might not constitute some form of coercion?
A. Yes, that is insofar as my personal direct request to the individual is concerned, I thought, because of my position as a professor, it might unduly influence the student to say yes.
Q. You were probably of the opinion that your authority might persuade him to do something that he otherwise would not do.
A. Yes -- through individual contact.
Q. I say, Professor, don't you know that in general the volunteer aspect of the person's consent has been under suspicion?
A. I don't understand that question. Will you repeat it?
Q. Is it not so that in medical circles and also in public circles that these declarations of voluntary consent are seen with a certain amount of suspicion; that it is doubted whether the person actually did volunteer?
A. Can you be more specific?
Q. In your commission you probably debated how the volunteers should be contacted; is that not so?
A. Yes.
Q. On this occasion was there not discussions of the question that you should assure yourself that no coercion was being exercised, or that the particular situation to which the person found himself who applied was being exploited?
A. Yes, I was concerned about that question.
Q. There were discussions about that?
A. Not necessarily with others, but there was always consideration of that in my own mind.
Q. Witness, a number of documents were brought forth yesterday, Friday, from which it was to be seen that Volunteers did Volunteer, for instance eight hundred or more prisoners applied for a malaria-experiment; and there was a radio report; all of these persons had a motive for declaring themselves ready. What are the motives of a prisoner that persuade him to volunteer?
A. These prisoners said they volunteered in order to help people who night have malaria.
Q. In this report the individual persons were asked, five or six of them were --- one says that he has volunteered because he is condemned to life imprisonment, and he has applied to oblige the army. Another says that he is doing it because his brother is a soldier on the front and has malaria. And another one says -- two of my brothers in the army had malaria; and a third one says in the last war -
MR. HARDY: Dr. Servatius refers to Prosecution Exhibit No. 519 for identification, and request that he supplied the passages so that Dr. Ivy can properly testify.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, from this radio report I shall read the answers of the experimental subjects to you. One Mr. Quall is asked and he says: "I expect Captain Jones, that these men have many reasons for their volunteering for this war. Captain Jones: Yes, they have. Many have sons and brothers in the armed services, other have other patriotic motives, but I am not the one to tell about them. Quall says -- I get the point. Capt. Jones: With the permission of Warden Rangen we are going to talk to several of these volunteers right now. Here is a man who is older than some of the others. What is your name? Johnson, I am George Johnson, number so and so.
Quail: Johnson, I have heard you have a pretty high fever as a result of those tests. Johnson: That is right; at one time my temperature was 10$ degrees. Quail: 108 degrees, and you are here to tell the story, Jones: What was your main reason for volunteering for these tests. Johnson: I served in the U.S. Army during the first World War, and here by going through with these tests I helped some of my buddies in the war just ended. Quall: Thanks, Johnson. Now, here is Charles Eirtz, number so and so, Eirtz: My brother was killed in the crossing of the Saar River; that made up my mind for me; we weren't being shot at here; it was the least we could do Quail: And here is George Storm; George Storm, number so and so. Storm: Two of my brothers in the service caught Malaria, If I can help the army, I can help my brothers. Quall: Here is a man who is one of the many inmate nurses helping out in the war. What is your name? Leopold: Nathan Leopold, number so and so. I was a malaria volunteer, and now I am acting as a nurse. Quall: How do most of the patients react under these tests? Leopold: All the men are good soldiers; their morale is high. Quall; Now, two inmates who are no strangers to malaria -- Walker: My name is George Walker, number so and so, and my nephew is a malaria patient in an army hospital, McCormack: I am James McCormack, number so and so. My brother is in the army too. If these tests will help cure him of malaria, it will all be worth while. Quall: Medical officers are particularly interested in this next case. Your name? Norman; Al Norman, number so and so. Quall: Why is your case unusual, Norman? Norman; Because I have had five relapses since I first contracted malaria; that is the highest number any patient had. I will stop here.
I shall stop reading; I believe this gives the general impression. Is it correct that all of them are giving idealistic reasons as the motive
MR. HARDY: Prior to the question I suggest that the document be handed to Dr. Ivy if he wishes to refer to other sections of it in his answer.
DR. SERVATIUS: I shall do so immediately; however, I have one question first.
Q. Are these not all idealistic points of view as the person's motive?
A. Yes, on the basis of my discussions with people who observed these experiments at Stateville, Illinois, the idealistic motivation of this group was very high. As a matter of fact, the effect of this public service rendered by these prisoners is being followed to see whether or not that special reformative value, and up to the present time this question indicates that this public service has been of great reformative value, in that the incidents of return to criminality under parole is markedly decreased.
Q. Do you know Nathan Leopold, or do you know who he is?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it true that he was condemend to fifteen years in the penitentiary for murder?
A. For much more than that.
Q. Do you think he is the right person to give an opinion regarding the high morale status of the inmates of a penitentiary?
A. He can never expect to get out of the penitentiary, and I see no reason why he should not express himself without any duress or coercion accurately and as he feels.
Q. I shall show you this report, and please ascertain if you have any remarks to make about it.
A. No, I have none.
Q. The idealistic points of view are associated with the war -- the state of war, are they not, aside from the last one?
A. No, I do not agree, because if any coercion were brought to bear upon these prisoners to serve in medical experiments, that would soon. -within a week -- come to the attention of the newspaper reporters and would appear on the front page of every paper -- most every paper in the United States.
Q I should like to toll you again what Jones says here. He says: "others have patriotic motives ... many have sons and brothers in the armed services." Capt. Jones gives that as the main reason. And then other individuals are brought up who make statements in the same sense to the same effect. Is that not so.
A I believe that is entirely reasonable, because an individual is a prisoner in a penitentiary is no reason why he should not be patriotic or love his country.
Q Perhaps you will admit that no one would give that as his motive for helping before a German denazification court, namely, that he wanted to help the army.
A I did not get the question. Will you please repeat it?
Q Never mind, No, witness, of the experiments we have here there were none of those volunteered who were outside the penitentiary, now, why did not persons outside the penitentiary volunteer: business men or such in the malaria experiment, for example? Because we must assume that not only inmates of penitentiary have ideals.
AAs I explained yesterday, conscientious objectors were used, and also prisoners were used instead of teachers and business men because those individuals had no other duties to perform. Their time was fully available for purposes of experimentation.
Q Is it not an evil to carry out experiments?
A No.
Q You don't think so.
A It is not an evil to carry out experiments.
Q But it isn't an evil to have to go through an experiment as an experiment subject?
A I should say not. I have served myself as an experimental subject many times, and I do not consider it an evil.
Q Don't you think it is very unpleasant to become infected with malaria, to have favors, and other undesirable symptoms of that sort?
A Yes, it is unpleasant, but not an evil.
Q Perhaps we don't understand each other. You don't want to say it is a pleasure to have malaria?
A No, it is loot a pleasure.
Q Is it not a very unpleasant and serious disease that lasts for many years?
A It is unpleasant, yes.
Q If all of these persons apply for idealistic reasons, why are they offered pecuniary recompense?
A I suppose it is to serve as a small reward for the unpleasantness of the experience.
Q Don' t you believe that tho money was the motive for army of them--a hundred dollars?
A That is rather small: From the point of view of prisoners in the penitentiary in the United. States. A hundred dollars isn't much money.
Q For a prisoner that would be quite a lot of money, it seems to me, for someone at liberty it is not so much.
A No; our prisoners in the penitentiary in the United States, when they work in factories in the prisons, receive- pecuniary compensation for that work.
Q I believe that is throughout the world.
A That is put in a trust fund for them to use when they get out.
Q Do you think that the money is sufficient recompense or compensation for what tho experimental subject has to go through?
A I should not consider it so, and I don't believe that any of the prisoners did. As a matter of fact, I was told that some of them would not accept the money.
Q If one declares one's self to be a volunteer, must one not weight the advantages against the disadvantages?
A I believe so.
Q The disadvantage here is the risk of a serious disease, the advantage is fifty-or a hundred dollars.
A I should say the advantage is being able to serve for the good of humanity.
Q For what reason w as tho money not paid immediately--but in two payments? So far as I remember from a document yesterday, the hundred dollars was paid as follows: Fifty dollars after the first month, and the other fifty after one year. In other words, a prisoner has to do his job first. Now, why was that so?
A I presume that that is just the common way of doing business in the United States when an agreement is involved. I presume the lawyers had something to do with that.
Q Was the reason not this: that the prisoner would lose his enthusiasm for the experiment and would cease to cooperate? Could that have been the reason for being a little circumspect in the payment?
A I doubt that.
Q Do you know of case where the experimental subject did not wish to continue the experiment?
A That has not been my experience. And according to the response that I go to that question when I put it to Dr. Irving, he said that no one expressed a desire to withdraw at any time.
Q Professor, I have seen a document on experiments in hunger that were carried out on conscientious objectors. That appeared in a periodical. It is described how these conscientious objectors want through considerable unpleasantness and did not want to continue the experiment. They did only at great effort to continue with their promise. Is that known to you?
MR. HARDY: I suggest that Counsel refer to the document that he is talking about at this time and make it available for Dr. Ivy, or make the facts available, the particular data, so that Dr. Ivy will be fully aware of the circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel have a document which he can make available? Then he will use it.
DR. SERVATIUS: I have only one copy in English here. (Presented to witness). I shall have to find tho passage I am referring to.
I can't seem to find it. This is a long document and somewhere there is the statement that tho experimental subjects have to summon all their forces to remain in the- experiment. However, I shall drop the subject for the moment.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q Witness, is there not another inducement that persuades prisoners to volunteer for experiments? Is not the prospect of pardon or other advantages tho reason for applying?
A When these malaria experiments started, that prospect was not held out to the prisoners, hence the possibility of a reduction in sentence, in being placed on parole sooner than otherwise, was not a prospect. However, since some of these malaria experiments have been terminated a reduction of sentences in addition to that allowed for ordinary "good time" has been granted by the parole board.
For that reason Governor Green of the State of Illinois appointed a committee with me as Chairman to consider this question which you have in mind: How much reduction of sentence can be allowed in such instances so that the reduction in sentence will not be great enough to exert undue influence or constitute duress in obtaining volunteers. I have my conclusions ready and can read them to you, if you desire to hear them.
Q.- Please do so. May I ask when this committee was formed?
A.- The formation of the committee, according to the best of my recollection occurred in December, 1946, when the prisoners with indeterminate sentences were up for consideration for parole. This was the first time the question of reduction in sentence came up.
Q.- One more question, witness. Did the formation of this committee have anything to do with the fact that this trial is going on, or with the fact that this malaria case was published in LIFE MAGAZINE and that it was explicitly stated that the experimental subjects were receiving no compensation, no pardon, reduction of sentence? Is there any connection between those things?
A.- There is no connection between the action in this committee between the appointment of this committee and this trial, for this reason: that there is a division of opinion regarding the work that the parole boards do. Some believe that the parole boards are too soft; others believe that they are too hard. If a reduction in sentence were too great, parole boards would be criticized in the newspapers. Obviously the parole board wants to act on the basis of the best opinion on medical ethics that they can obtain. Accordingly, this committee was appointed.
Q.- Would you please be so good as to read what you intended before?
A.- There are two conclusions:
"Conclusion 1: The service of prisoners as subjects in medical ex periments should be rewarded in addition to the ordinary good time allowed for good conduct, industry, fidelity, and courage, but the excess time rewarded should not be so great as to exert undue influence in obtaining the consent of the prisoners, To give an excessive reward would be contrary to the ethics of medicine and would debase and jeopardize a method for doing good.
Thus the amount of reduction of sentence in prison should be determined by the forebearance required, by the experiment, and the character of the prisoner. It is believed that a 100% increase in ordinary good time during the duration of the experiments would not be excessive in these experiments requiring the maximum forebearance.
"Conclusion 2: A prisoner incapable of becoming a law abiding citizen should be told in advance, if he desires to serve as a subject in a medical experiment, not to expect any reduction in sentence. A prisoner who perpetrated an atrocious crime, even though capable of becoming a law abiding citizen, should be told in advance, if he desires to serve as a subject in a medical experiment, not to expect any drastic reduction in sentence."
I might explain, when I used the expression "reduction in sentence in prison," that that implies that when the prisoner is released on parole, he is still under supervision, observation, or sentence outside of prison. He is subject to arrest and return to prison at any time; so when we say reduction of sentence in prison, we do not mean that there is an actual reduction of sentence prescribed by the court. That is the law in the State of Illinois.
Q.- Witness, if the experimental subjects are prisoners, are they told about this policy ahead of time?
A.- They will obviously have to be told of this policy from now on, since the matter has come up for the first time.
Q.- Yesterday a prosecution document was shown to you. That was Exhibit 517, Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, a document from Texas.
This was in no document book but was put in only yesterday. I shall have this shown to you immediately. In it it states the following: This is a form from the Department of Justice, Bureau of Prisons, a statement of voluntary consent and it says here the following:
"I agree to cooperate to the fullest extent with the physicians conducting the study during an over-all observation period of approximately 18 months. I understand that at the conclusion of the observation period, I am to be furnished with an appropriate certificate of Merit and a statement of my voluntary cooperation in the study and the fact that I have thus rendered voluntarily an outstanding service to humanity will be placed in my official record."
Is that not a rather extensive promise which might induce a prisoner to apply without having a purely idealistic motive?
A.- A Certificate of Merit is an attractive little certificate that the prisoner could have framed and he could hang on the wall of his prison cell. After he was released, he could take it home and show it to his friends, and I think it might serve as an incentive to lead the previous wrong-door not to go into the way's of wrong doing again.
Q.- Do you not think that it has a very practical usefulness? Do you not think that it could lead the police to treat one a little more leniently?
A.- I doubt it, although I can't testify regarding what the police might do.
Q.- Don't you think that it would be of some aid when looking for a job after his release?
A.- When a prisoner is released on parole, before he is released, a job is found for him.
Q You try to get such a job. Do you always find one?
A He would not be released unless a job had been found for him. That is part of the penal system.
Q But, if this is a prisoner who is in prison for a specific and definite sentence and who after having served his term is released, does not this certificate of merit stand him in very good stead in his search for a job?
A I do not know that such ever occurred because we have agencies whose function it is to find jobs for prisoners released from the penitentiary so that they will not be tempted to go back into the ways of crime because the major purpose of the penal system in the United States today is reformative rather than punitive.
Q The prisoner takes this certificate of merit with him home in order to show that he has improved and that he has voluntarily done atonement. So this does play a role, doesn't it?
A That may be one way of looking at it.
Q Was there not such a case in the first document that I showed to you, the radio report where the letter writer says, "I am condemned for life and I want to help because the Army wants me to." Was this not, also, the thought of atonement?
A I would say it was the thought of being able to do a good deed for humanity whereas in the past the individual prisoner had not performed good deeds. It may in that way be considered an atonement or expatiation or expiation.
Q was that not one of the main thoughts that the the public has, namely it is more or less demanded that a prisoner make himself available for experiments? Is not public opinion the place where you find this view represented?
A No, not at all.
Q I want to put two articles to you. You know the newspaper, The Stars and Stripes, the Army newspaper?