A I know such a paper exists, yes.
Q And do you know that it is the newspaper with the largest circulation among soldiers here in the continent?
A I don't know that but I should presume so.
Q I will put a document to you. For identification purposes it will get Exhibit number KB 113.
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I must object to the admission of this document in evidence. This is merely an opinion of a Staff Sergeant in the United States Army in what might be the B bag section. It looks to me like a matter of that sort. I don't think it would have any value here. I might pass it up to the Tribunal for your perusal.
THE PRESIDENT: What is your theory, counsel, in considering this paper marked 301 and 113?
DR. SERVATIUS: I got this excerpt from the newspaper which is published here in Germany. I received it, it was used in another trial and I am putting it in because it seems to me its contents are material. The question is whether experiments can be carried out on prisoners from the point of view of their doing atonement. I am of the opinion that experiments carried out in Germany could be ordered by the State because urgently needed by the State and that they could be carried out as atonement in prisoner's sentences. And, in order to prove a general view and not confined to the Third Reich I am putting in this newspaper article and I also want to put in an article from an English newspaper, "The People", to the same effect. However, the English writer Llewellyn is expressing the opinion of other people without criticizing it and also says that the element of atonement plays a part.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Servatius, do you maintain that the name that is supposed to be signed to this article is the name of someone who is supposed to be an authority in this subject or is supposed to represent some considerable segment of world opinion?
DR. SERVATIUS: I cannot make that statement because I do not know the man. However, this is a periodical with a great circulation and this article went through the censorship.
This then is an article regarded as pertinent in authoratative circles. Of course, this thing here aroused great excitement in SS circles and is not an article just sent in.
JUDGE SEBRING: IS it your view that you are of the opinion that this represents some considerable segment of American thought.
DR. SERVATIUS: It was so striking that it could go through the censorship which is here for the soldiers and could appear in the country where reading of such an article would cause great excitement. The important thing is not who wrote it but the main thing is it passed the censors.
JUDGE SEBRING: What is the provocative fact sought to be elicited in presenting this thing here to the witness?
DR. SERVATIUS: I wish to put it to the witness in order to hear from him whether this also is an expression of the idea of atonement of which the witness has already spoken. And I should like to add the thought is expressed in this newspaper which is well known to us defense counsel from the main trial IMT. Again and again we received letters in which such things were expressed, from Germany and America. So that I say the motive of atonement is not something I pulled out of my hat but an idea readily circulated and which has wide circulation. I do not have the actual newspaper here but I have a certified copy. I am not offering it as a document I just want to read it.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will assume that this is a correct copy of what purports to be a letter printed in the Stars and Stripes. The matter is entirely without probative value. The opinion of the witness on the matter would not aid the Tribunal on the matter which is a matter of some sensational letter that was written. The Tribunal does not desire to waste any time at all on the matter. Objection is sustained.
Q Mr. President I ask permission to put to the writer a small newspaper notice from the newspaper "The People" of 3 March 1946. This is an English Newspaper. Regarding the defendants before the IMT the following was stated:
The opinion of some people is that they should be condemned very soon. Then it says: "Others believe that they should be made to expiate their crimes by helping to cure cancer, leprosy and tuberculosis as bodies for experiments."
Is the thought of atonement contained therein?
A Yes, but it is expressed in a hysterical manner.
Q Yes, I agree with you.
Witness, do you believe that if a person does not volunteer for an experiment the State can order such atonement?
A No.
Q Do you not believe that you can expect something of a prisoner that goes beyond his actual sentence if at the same time people outside a prison arc subject to such burdens?
A No. Those ideas were given up many years ago in the science and study of penology. The primary objective of penology today is reformative not punitive, not expiative.
Q.- Witness, is that the recognized theory of penology throughout the whole world today?
A.- It may not be the recognized theory throughout the whole world today, but it is the prevailing theory in the United States. There is one other aspect that is quite large and essential, and that is the protective aspect of imprisonment, to protect society from a habitual criminal.
Q.- Witness, if a soldier at the front is exposed to an epidemic and can be almost certain that he will catch typhus and deserts and hides behind the protecting walls of a prison, would you not consider it justifiable if he is persuaded to volunteer for an experiment that concerns itself with typhus?
A.- Will you read the question again?
Q.- If a soldier deserts from the front where typhus is raging for fear that he too will contract typhus and prefers to be imprisoned in order thus to save himself, do you think it is right for him to be persuaded while he is serving his sentence to subject himself to a typhus experiment?
A.- As a volunteer? Yes.
Q.- I see. And would you not take a step further, if this prisoner says, "No, I refuse, because if I do this there wouldn't have been any point in my deserting; I deserted in order to save myself. My buddies may die but I just would prefer not to."
A.- The answer to that question is no.
Q.- Don't you admit that one can hold a different view in this matter?
A.- Yes, but I don't believe it could be justified.
Q.- Witness, take the following case, You are in a city in which plague is raging. You, as a doctor, have a drug that you could use to combat the plague. However, you must test it on somebody. The commander, or let's say the mayor of the city, comes to you and says, "Here is a criminal condemned to death.
Save us by carrying out the experiment on this man." Would you refuse to do so, or would you do it?
A.- I would refuse to do so, because I do not believe that duress of that sort warrants the breaking of ethical and moral principles. That is why the Hague Convention and Geneva Convention were formulated, to make war, a barbaric enterprise, a little more humane.
Q.- Do you believe that the population of a city would have any understanding for your action?
A.- They have no understanding for the importance of the maintenance of the principles of medical ethics which apply over a long period of years, rather than a short period of years. Physicians and medical scientists should do nothing with the idea of temporarily doing good which when carried out repeatedly over a period of time would debase and jeopardize a method for doing good. If a medical scientist breaks the code of medical ethics and will say, "Kill the person," in order to do what he thinks may be good, in the course of time that will grow and will cause a loss of faith of the public in the medical profession, and hence destroy the capacity of the medical profession to do its good for society. The reason that we must be very careful in the use of human beings as subjects in medical experiments is not to debase and jeopardize this method for doing great good by causing the public to react against it.
Q.- Witness, do you not believe that your ideal attitude here is more or less a single person standing against the body of public opinion?
A.- No, I do not. That is why I read the principles of medical ethics yesterday, and that is why the American Medical Association has agreed essentially with those principles. That is why the principles, the ethical principles for the use of human being's in medical experiments have been quite uniform throughout the world in the past.
Q.- Then you do not believe that the urgency, the necessity of this city would make a revision of this attitude necessary?
A.- No, not if they were in danger of killing people in the course of testing out the new drug or remedy. There is no justification in killing five people in order to save the lives of five hundred.
Q.- Then you are of the opinion that the life of the one prisoner must be preserved even if the whole city perishes?
A.- In order to maintain intact the method of doing good, yes.
Q.- From the point of view of the politician, do you consider it good if he allows the city to perish in the interests of preserving this principle and preserving the life of the one prisoner?
A.- The politician, unless he knows medicine and medical ethics, has no reason to make a decision on that point.
Q.- But as a politician he must make a decision about what is to happen. Shall he coerce the doctor to carry out the experiment, or shall he protect the doctor from the rage of the multitude?
A.- You can't answer that question. I should say this, that there is no state or no politician under the sun that could force me to perform a medical experiment which I thought was morally unjustified.
Q.- You then, despite the order, would not carry out the order, and would prefer to be executed as a martyr?
A.- That is correct, and I know there are thousands of people in the United States who would have to do likewise. t Q.- And do you not also believe that in thousands of cities the population would kill the doctor who found himself in that position?
A.- I do not believe because they would not know. How would they know whether the doctor had a drug that would or would not relieve? The doctor would not know himself, because he would have to experiment first.
Q.- Witness, I put a hypothetical case to you. If we are to turn to reality other questions would arise. I simply want to hear now your general attitude to this problem. You are then of the opinion that a doctor should not carry out the order. Are you also of the opinion that the politician should not give such an order?
A.- Yes, I believe he should not give such an order.
Q.- Is this not a purely political decision which must be left at the discretion of the political leader?
A.- Not necessarily. He should seek the best advice that he can obtain.
Q.- If he is informed that this one experiment on this one prisoner would save the whole city, he may give the order despite the fact that the doctor does not wish to carry it out, is that what you think?
A.- He then could give the order, but if the doctor still believed that it was contrary to his moral responsibilities then the doctor should not carry out the order.
Q.- That is another question, whether or not he carries it out, but in such cases you consider it is permissible to give that order, is that what I understood you to say?
A.- After he has obtained the best advice on the subject which he can obtain.
Q.- Then he can give the order, yes or no?
A.- Yes.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I am turning now to another theme. Perhaps this would be a good time to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Your estimate of the time you would take to cross examine this witness was forty-five minutes, which you have now exceeded. How much longer rill your cross-examination continue?
DR. SERVATIUS: Hr. President, my questions were short, but the answers were long. I have a number of questions, not too many. It does not depend on me, but I can assume that I shall be done in half an hour.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might state, if you would try to determine the length of time which it will be necessary to keep Dr. Ivy on the witness stand, that the Prosecution's redirect examination will be very, very brief, if any at all.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that Dr. Nelte, on behalf of the Defendant Handloser, desires to ask some questions which he estimated at fifteen minutes. Dr. Flemming on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky will cross-examine the witness, the doctor stated, to the extent of about fifteen minutes. Dr. Steinbauer, of course, on behalf of the Defendant Beiglbock will have cross-examination of the witness which the doctor estimated at an hour, is that correct?
DR. STEINBAUER: An hour to an hour and a half. It depends upon the answers.
THE PRESIDENT: It appear that this counsel --
DR. FRITZ (For Defendant Rose): Mr. President, I too wish to put questions to the expert witness. Roughly an hour is what I shall need.
MR. HARDY: I thought that would be the import of the questions put to the witness by the defense counsel for Rose. I thought he would take up general questions for all counsel.
DR. TIPP (For Defendant Becker-Freysang): I shall wish to ask a few questions for Becker-Freysang, to be sure not too many. This, however, will take half an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the Tribunal is to sit this afternoon, counsel must be prepared to confine themselves to the time which they have estimated for examination on Monday. Counsel understands that if we do not hold an afternoon session today that they must be limited on their cross-examination Monday to the time which they have estimated. Do defense counsel understand that? There will be time Monday to complete the cross-examination with the understanding that defense counsel will limit themselves to the time which they have estimated. They will be held to that limit.
DR. KAUFFMANN (For Defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, I do not know whether you have included the time that I need. I shall need roughly ten minutes for Rudolf Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not know that Dr. Kauffmann was going to parti cipate in the examination.
It will be understood the Tribunal will not hold a session this afternoon. It will be understood the defense counsel will be limited to available tine on Monday in which all defense counsel must complete their cross-examination of the witness half an hour before closing time Monday afternoon.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock Monday morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 16 June 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 16 June 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in court except for the defendant Oberheuser, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Has there been a medical certificate filed?
THE MARSHAL: For the defendant the proper medical certificate signed by the prison surgeon will be filed later.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser, who is ill, and proper medical certificate will be filed later.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, last week the witness Josef Tschofenik arrived here in Nuernberg from Klagenfurt, Austria. Klagenfurt is in the British zone in Austria. The witness Tschofenik will be unable to stay in Nuernberg any extended length of time. The prosecution had anticipated that rebuttal would be here by this week but unfortunately we were a little bit optimistic. The prosecution requests that we be permitted to call the witness Tschofenik upon the completion of testimony of Dr. Ivy and the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck, so that he may return to his home without any further delay.
THE PRESIDENT: Your request is, counsel, that this witness Tschofenik be called after the completion of the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor, or whatever is convenient for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that is very reasonable. Your request will be granted. The witness may be called out of order after the completion of the testimony of the defendant Beiglboeck.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution will file due notice with the defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now proceed with the further cross examination of the witness, Professor Ivy. I note that Dr. Nelte desires fifteen minutes to cross-examine the witness. The Tribunal will now hear the cross examination by Dr. Nelte.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, first representing Dr. Servatius, I should like to ask the rest of the questions which he did not have the opportunity to ask on Saturday. When asked, he stated that he had another half hour's questions to ask. I ask the Tribunal to rule whether or not I may ask these questions in Dr. Servatius's stead.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Nelte may cross-examine the witness on behalf of his associate, Dr. Servatius. We will allow three quarters of an hour for Dr. Nelte's cross-examination.
DR. ANDREW IVY - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. NELTE:
Q. Professor Ivy, according to your testimony, there were two groups of conscientious objectors, the ones who repudiated for idealistic reasons and the others who repudiated war services per se. The latter group was sent to prison and the first formed an organization that performed public service. Is that correct?
A. It is not correct just as you have expressed it. There is one group that refused to render any sort of public service or to cooperate in any way and that particular group is confined. There is another group that is willing to do various things. Some of them are willing to give service in the Medical Corps of the army. Some of them are willing to give service in the Quartermaster's Department. Some are not willing to be connected with the armed forces in any way but are willing to give public service in a state hospital as an orderly or male nurse.
They are willing to give service in preventing forest fires and in other ways.
Q. Then one of these duties in the way of public service participated in by this second group of conscientious objectors was the duty to serve in medical experiments. Is that not so?
A. Yes, the volunteered on occasion to serve as subjects in medical experiments. They thought by so serving they would contribute to the advancement of medical knowledge which would be of general service in taking care of sick and afflicted people.
Q. Now, in order to receive a statement of their consent which would be necessary for the experiments, were those who had declared their readiness to participate in any experiment informed as to what the experiment would be like?
A. That is correct.
Q. How was this done? In particular, was this done by a doctor or by some official?
A. The doctor would write out the objective of the experiment, it's nature, and describe any hazards, if any, attached to the experiment, and then this would be submitted to the prospective volunteer generally by means of the lay supervisor of the station wherever these conscientious objectors might be. Then, when the conscientious objector volunteered and came to the station where the experiment was to be carried out, then a physician would, by word of mouth, explain the objective and nature of the experiment.
Q. You say the doctor told him the purpose and tasks involved in the experiment? I should like to take a concrete example. In the case of malaria experiments, of which you know, were for example--
A. The malaria experiments were not performed on conscientious objectors.
Q. They worked with prisoners and I assume, from your previous testimony, that the prisoners also were informed and oriented. Is that not so?
A. Yes, and before they volunteered.
Q. Well, were these prisoners in the malaria experiments told that they would run a high temperature?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they also told that the experimental subjects would suffer severe complications, for instance, a severe septic thrombosis, or that their heart muscles would be affected?
A. They were told all possible hazards. As a matter of fact, they were told that they might suffer relapses for a couple of years. And I might say that in the United States in the South malaria is quite a common disease and most people know what the disease is like. They hardly have to be informed regarding the symptoms of malaria.
Q. Do you believe that the experimental subjects, who are laymen after all, really have a clear conception of what the doctor tells them about the symptoms of the disease they are about to suffer?
A. In the case of malaria I am quite sure that they do have a very clear idea. As a matter of fact, the first group of prisoners had the chills and various symptoms of malaria. The other prisoners in the penitentiary obviously heard about these symptoms and they later volunteered to serve as subjects. As a matter of fact, there were more volunteers in the penitentiary to serve as subjects than could be used and that is the situation today, even though the malaria experiments have been going on now since October 1944.
Q I simply want to ascertain whether in all the experiments the person who gives his consent really is aware of the extent of what he is confronted with. Let us say in the case of typhus; were these potential experimental subjects given a clear picture of what they were confronted with through pictures and demonstrations?
A Do you mean the subjects who volunteered to receive the typhus vaccine to which I referred? All they had to fear there was the same sort of reactions that are obtained when one receives typhoid vaccine and almost everyone in the United States has received injections of typhoid vaccine of some sort of analogical substance. I know of no situation in which the hazards of a medical experiment cannot be satisfactorily explained to and understood by a prospective volunteer.
Q. That would depend on how high the intellectual level of the experimental subject is. I should think that in prisons there are people who are simple and do not have a general education and whose intellectual ability is perhaps not quite so great as the Doctor supposes. Is that not possible?
A I suspect or would believe that the doctor would take that into consideration.
Q Well, we shall come back to that. Now, in every experiment there are various experimental series and among others a series embracing control experiments. Is that not so?
A Not necessarily.
Q But that is customary; isn't it?
A It depends on the nature of the experiment, sometimes the preceding animal work serves as the control.
Q In this trial we have heard that if one is aiming at a specific result involving the efficacy of a vaccine, one series is vaccinated with a known vaccine, then later with another series and not given a protective vaccine but is nevertheless infected. It seems to me that this is the only way of having any comparison; is that not also you practice? 9237
A That depends on the nature of the control, whether you give virulent virus or organism. We do not consider it ethical to give virulent virus or organism to non-protected persons. When you develop a typhus vaccine, we follow the development of anti-bodies in the body of the patient given the vaccine.
Q Then you testify that you had no control series at all that was infected with virulent bacilli?
A That is correct.
Q You said that the experimental subjects could leave the experiment at any time?
A Yes.
Q Does this not contradict the contents of the statement of consent, according to which the persons who consents must follow all the rules and orders?
A No, not necessarily.
Q But if he has to follow all the orders that the Doctor gives him, then he cannot leave the experiment?
A Well, he does not agree not to express the desire to leave the experiment at any time. As a. matter of fact, I have indicated that to my knowledge no volunteer has expressed the desire to leave an experiment.
Q But, it is possible that we shall not always have so many idealists as experimental subjects; as one of the basic preconditions you stated that it was the experimental subject's right to withdraw from the experiment?
A That is right.
Q Now what about the case of such a withdrawal when the experimental subject is already infected, already has a fever; is it not from the practical point of view impossible for the experimental subject to withdraw he has once taken this first step?
A In the case of malaria, that is true but that not true of all cases.
Q It was precisely in the case of malaria that I wanted to show that the possibility of withdrawal does not for practical purposes in many cases exist at all.
Professor, do you know the name of Professor Leibrandt?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you consider Professor Leibrandt a conscientious and authorative scholar?
A I am not familiar with all of his writings and saying; I consider him to be a conscientious man, yes.
Q Do you believe that his attitude toward medical ethics is a good and correct one?
A I am not familiar with his attitude toward medical ethics.
Q Professor Leibrandt was called before this Tribunal as an expert witness by the Prosecution and questions regarding professional medical ethics in the field of research were put to him. You have here testified that the prisoner's statement of consent, prisoners in American prisons, were to be regarded as volunteer statements of consent and that from the profession ethical point of view there could be no misgiving regarding such an act of consent, nor about having the experiments carried out; is that so?
A Yes.
Q I should like to put to you what the other prosecution expert witness said regarding this point before this Tribunal. He was asked:
"Witness are you of the view that a prisoner, who has been in prison for over ten years, will give his consent for an experiment if he receives no advantage from this; do you consider such consent to have been voluntarily given?"
The expert witness answered: "No, according to medical ethics that is not the case, because the patient or the prisoner first of all finds himself in a state of coercion, since he is in preventive custody and secondly because he is a lay-man and has no way of calculating the effects of an operation on himself.
As a lay-man, he is simply not in a position to do that."
Question: "Are you of the view that eight hundred prisoners, who are detained at various places and who give their consent for experiments do so voluntarily?" Answer: "No."
Question: "You are not answering that in consideration of whether or not the experiment leads to lasting or only temporary injury to the prisoner?" Answer: "Even in the last case, my answer is still no."
Question: "If such persons are infected with malaria, because they have declared their readiness; do you consider that possible?" Answer "No, because such a voluntary statement of consent is not right from the point of view of medical ethics. These men, as prisoners, find themselves under a state of coercion."
Q (Continued) Thereupon the witness was shown the magazine Life, 4 June 1944, and this is Document Karl Brandt No. 1. In this document which I wish to touch on very briefly it says that in the United States Prison in Atlanta, in the State Prison in Illinois, and in the Reform School in New Jersey, roughly 800 prisoners have declared their readiness to have themselves infected with malaria so that doctors could study the disease. And, in a further passage in this document it says that the malaria experiments in penitentiaries have shown that malaria is still a very serious medical problem and it says further on page 46 of the report: "Severe chills are the first symptoms of malaria. The above patient is an inmate of the Atlanta Penitentiary where malaria experiments were begun and developed." Then below, underneath is the last picture under which the caption is "fever was as high as 106°, severe chills 20 to 60 minutes. One of the cases was allowed to proceed to a late stage before drugs were given to combat it." After the expert had seen this report he was asked, "Please give your expert opinion on this experiment as regards medical permissibility." Professor Leibrandt answered, "I cannot change my previously stated opinion about medical ethics involved. I am of the opinion that such experiments as these are an ill chosen form of biological thinking. And I point out particularly that when I made my testimony just now I agree with Ebermeier, the Jurist, from his book "Der Arzt im Recht", and I also pointed out that the patient when giving such approval cannot calculate the consequences of having given his consent and if on the basis of my own experience as a malaria therapeutist and as a psychiatrist, in which capacity I am accustomed to giving malaria cures to paralytics, then from this point of view I must say that malaria is a very serious disease because it has complications as a consequence, for instance severe spetic thrombosis or effects on the heart muscles that have death as a consequence. And, it is my opinion that we are not dealing here with the infection of someone with a little sniffle but with a very serious disturbance which theoretically always may have death as a consequence.
And in view of this such experiments should be carried out on guinea pigs and not on human beings."
Will you please say whether this attitude of Professor Leibrandt does not have an ethical foundation.
A I do not agree with that statement of Professor Leibrandt. First, the prisoners, the experience with our prisoner volunteers in the United States is a fact showing that that does not hold and, secondly, he assumes that prisoners cannot be motivated to take part in medical experiments by humanitarian incentives. This is contrary to our experience.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might ask defense counsel just what he intends to prove by this examination. With the exception of three questions, the questions and answers which have been given here yesterday have been covered on Friday and Saturday by Dr. Servatius himself. Seems to me that Dr. Nelte here has wasted thirty-five minutes. Can't he get on to his point and finish the examination that Dr. Servatius has ably taken up on Saturday.
DR. NELTE: Dr. Servatius did not approach this question. I think we are wasting time at any rate, that is the way the interpreter translated Mr. Hardy's words. If we accentuate the discussions to the questions that the defense counsel is asking in his conviction they arc of definite importance. Mr. Hardy wants to know why I am asking these questions - for the following reasons: Professor Leibrandt ....
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it appears from the testimony of the witness that he does not in all respects agree with the opinions of Dr. Leibrandt who testified here on behalf of the Prosecution. Seems to me that that matter, in view of the press of time, need not be expiated upon further since you counsel have asked for so much time which has been accorded. The fact that there is a difference of opinion of the two expert witnesses on behalf of Prosecution is clearly before the Tribunal now.
DR. NELTE: Quite so. That was the purpose of my lino of questioning and that's the reason I wanted to protest against the statement that this examination of the witness by me was a waste of time.
THE PRESIDENT: That is a matter for the Tribunal to determine entirely, doctor. Proceed.
BY DR. NELTE: I have one last question to ask in behalf of Dr. Servatius:
Professor Ivy, you said that for you and for doctors in general the Hyppocratic oath is the principle according to which you act, in that so?
A Yes, that expresses the basic ideas.
Q In connection with this trial you worked out a basic policy for the permissibility of experimentation and you regard this policy you worked out of general validity and hold it to be necessary. Because the Hyppocratic oath contains no precise statement on these matters of human experimentation became of importance only in the course of relative modern medicine, is that not so?
A Yes.
Q Then this general statement of ethical policy that you testified to here is not of eternal validity but is conditioned in terms of time and in terms of space and subject to certain inevitable changes that humanity goes through, is that correct?
A No. I believe the oath of Hyppocrates teaches a fundamental basic truth that is good for all time, namely reverence for life. Just as the principle of the golden rule teaches a moral and ethical principle that is good for all eternity or for all time.
Q You are correct in saying the basic principle of ethics is reverence for life. That is true for the doctor and is true also for all man. In this I agree with you, do I not?
A I presume so.
Q However, you know that every State requires its soldiers in times of war to render its opponents harmless and to kill them.