The prosecution portrayed all defendants in the same style. They were represented as morally and mentally inferior party followers who, having become subject to the party doctrine, no longer cared about the sublime laws of humanity or the medical profession, but who committed cruelties for the mere sake of it without regard to their duties as doctors and human beings.
Against this, the defense, in laborious detail, had to show the defendants as they really were. Only in this way was it possible to crack the foundation of the charge and to shape the personality of each defendant, and every individual case, from the confused mass of collective assertions of guilt which the prosecution had produced, in order to show the tribunal deed and guilt in their true light.
Among all the defendants, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng holds a special position.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the prosecution has not submitted its charges against Dr. Becker-Freyseng in detail. In many of the counts of the indictment the defense, therefore, had to work on as eruptions. They assumed that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was supposed to be essentially responsible because he worked as a Referent or assistant Referent in the Referalt for aviation Medicine in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. I need not do more than mention how difficult the construction of the defense was made by this lack of substantion in the charge. In the same way was it necessary to extend the defense into every possible and conceivable direction because of this lack of precision in the prosecution's proceedings in this case.
Altogether, in the indictment the prosecution held Dr. BeckerFreyseng responsible for the high altitude and Freezing experiments in concentration camp Dachau, for typhus and other bacteriological experiments in Natzweiler and finally for the Sea Water experiments in concentration camp Dachau.
neither for the high Altitude experiments nor for the Freezing experiments has the Prosecution supplied the evidence on which they mean to base their charge of Dr. Becker-Freyseng's responsibility.
In as far as those experiments are concerned the objections which I have raised in connection with all counts of the indictment apply especially. i.g. the prosecution did not once mention the name of Dr. Becker-Freyseng when dealing with high altitude experiments except in the written indictment. Furthermore they did not even submit one document which originated in the referal for aviation medicine at the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe.
Therefore I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove by any means that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was in any manner implicated in these experiments which took place at Dachau. Even less has it been proved that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was responsible for these experiments.
With regard to the freezing experiments the prosecution managed to submit some few documents which originated in the medical inspectorate of the Luftwaffe. Only two documents however show the reference number of the referat for aviation medicine.
And as regards these documents the defense has proved during presentation of its case that it was and Dr. Becker-Freyseng who dealt with this letter, but the Referent Prof. Dr. Anthony.
The prosecution was therefore unable to prove in their case in chief that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was connected with the freezing experiments.
In the case of the defense Dr. Becker-Freyseng declared himself that he had been ordered to attend during part of the discussions between Professor Dr. Hippke and Dr. Rascher in June 1942. The public prosecutors could not prove this fact. They have up to this date not undo any such statement.
Nobody but Dr. Becker-Freyseng knew that he was present at the discussion part of the time, of which the prosecution knew. He admitted this fact before the Tribunal without duress and mentioned it as an exonerating circumstance because neither he nor the defense considered this as objective facts constituting a criminal action, on the contrary: For the information which Dr. Becker-Freysing received in the course of this discussion gave him the impression, that these experiments, which had been planned entirely without his assistance were altogether legal.
One reason for such a view was that he realized that his superior, Generaloberstabsarzt Prof. Dr. Hippke had approved the suggestion as submitted.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not hear anything about the execution of the individual experiments.
The first time he heard about it again was when, after they had been concluded, Prof. Dr. Holzloehner gave a lecture during the Luftwaffe meeting concerning the cold experiments in October 1942 in Hurnberg. This lecture concerned on one hand-experiences from actual shipwrecks and on the other hand results of experiments with animals and experiences gathered from human experiments. The last part of the lecture did not reveal that these experiments were at all criminal.
To me it seems particularly important that the realization, that the judgment of Holzloehner's report may not be based on those facts which are now known about Rascher's experiments. This lecture has to be judged according to the facts known at the time, and this knowledge did not make it possible to understand from the lecture, that the experiments which were described might have been at all criminal.
The participation of the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng in the freezing experiments therefore only consists of participation in a discussion to which he was ordered by his supreme chief, General-oberstabsarzt Prof.
Dr. Hippke, which revealed nothing to indicate a criminal plan.
It was also limited to listening to a lecture which did not reveal anything about crimes which had been committed. This lecture was, at the same time, attended by 90 physicians and scientists, who, except for four other defendants, all enjoy complete freedom and some of whom hold professional positions.
The defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng can therefore not be held responsible for the freezing experiments in particular, or for participating in criminal freezing experiments, based on these circumstances alone.
To determine that his participation in these experiments, insofar as one can call it participation at all in view of the circumstances set down, should be criminal could only be established provided Dr. Becker-Freyseng considered the planned experiments criminal and yet participated under these circumstances.
This cannot be established, however, from the evidence.
Before saying anything further about the experiments Dr. BeckerFreyseng is accused of, which allegedly concern experiments with typhus and other bacteriological problems, the following should be pointed out fundamentally:
The Prosecution left out two decisive facts completely in their entire case in chief. First of all, the fact that Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not hold the position of referent for Aviation Medicine from August 1941 to May 1941, but was merely an assistant referent under the referent Professor Dr. Anthony. The Prosecution presented their case entirely as if Dr. Becker-Freyseng had been the only referent. In fact, they even made him chief of a research institute for aviation medicine of his own, which had been invented for the Prosecution.
The defense proved, on the other hand, that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was mainly responsible for the jobs as assistant referent from August 1941 to May 1944, which had no connection whatsoever with the experiments. The referent Dr. Anthony dealt with all the other tasks of the referat for Aviation Medicine. The defense also proved that the particularly important subject of research assignments was definitely not handled by Dr. Becker-Freyseng in the Referat for Aviation Medicine until May 1944, but by Professor Dr. Anthony.
More will have to be said about that later on.
Concerning the experiments with bacteria which the Prosecution brought forward, they did not maintain that Dr. Becker-Freyseng took an active part in these experiments. In contrast to the high altitude and freezing experiments, the Prosecution reported about experiments with typhus and epidemic jaundice which is, in their opinion, supposed to be the basis for the responsibility of the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng.
They submitted a number of documents, some of which bear the file numbers of the referat for Aviation Medicine. On top of that, they mentioned, in an oral plea, that the Luftwaffe issued assignments for research on these subjects, that the research assignments were dealt with by Dr. Becker-Freyseng, and that he even gave orders to the research workers to carry out the experiments which the Prosecution considers criminal.
On the other hand, the following points have been proved by the defense:
1) During the years 1941 to May 1944, Dr. Becker-Freyseng, who at that time was assistant referent, was by no means in charge of research assignments within the referat for Aviation Medicine.
2) Part of the documents submitted by the Prosecution, in their case in chief, do not bear the file notation of the referat for Aviation Medicine but that of the referat for Hygiene.
3) The case in chief of the defense has shown further that, although all research assignments were informally dealt with by the referat for Aviation Medicine, i.e., for purely technical and formal reasons, factual work was carried out in the referat for Aviation Medicine only with regard to research assignments concerning aviation medicine.
All the research assignments in other fields of research were factually dealt with at the respective competent referats.
4) On the other hand, all research assignments given to Professor Haagen do not concern aviation medicine at all. They are all in the field of hygiene and bacteriology.
Only the referent for Hygiene, however, was competent to deal with the matters.
Thus, it is certain that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was not engaged in these research assignments until May 1944 and that, until that date, he knew nothing whatsoever about them. That further proves that, after May 1944, he likewise dealt with the research assignments to Professor Haagen only in formal respects, that the factual work was carried out at the Hygiene Referat.
Furthermore, it is proved that the research assignments, which has been stressed so greatly by the Prosecution, were in reality research subsidies which were granted to the various scientists in order to facilitate their work. These research orders contained neither directives nor instructions regarding the execution of the work. Its execution was not checked upon, such a control was neither customary nor necessary, nor was it at all possible, in view of purely professional reasons. Within the scope of these research commissions, final reports and occasionally intermediate reports were rendered by the scientists. Neither in the intermediate reports nor in the final reports were there contained any details regarding the work which had been completed.
Even if the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng had dealt with the research orders given to Professor Haagen, he neither could have given him instructions nor directives for it, nor would he have come to know any of the details.
For this reason, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng cannot be made responsible for anything that is supposed to have been done by Professor Haagen.
But, besides these research assignments, the Prosecution has not been able to submit further evidence which can prove any connection between Dr. Becker-Freyseng and the work of Dr. Haagen.
I should like to draw your attention to the following points of the evidence given by the defense:
Dr. Becker-Freyseng, whom the Prosecution accuses of being responsible for the alleged criminal experiments of Dr. Haagen, has been examined here as a witness.
He stated - in accordance with the evidence just submitted - that Dr. Becker-Freyseng has nothing at all to do with this work.
The defense is hereby convinced that the evidence did, in no way, prove Dr. Becker-Freyseng's knowledge of any details concerning the work of Dr. Haagen, to say nothing of his being responsible for any experiments carried out by Dr. Haagen.
Before we leave this point, I should like to make the following clear:
Dr. Becker-Freyseng is to be made responsible for an alleged criminal activity of Professor Haagen. In order to motivate, however, such a responsibility, the Prosecution ought to have proved, first of all, that Professor Haagen actually did commit crimes against humanity. But the Prosecution completely failed to do so.
The Prosecution has tried to prove this responsibility by submitting a series of documents and by the testimony of several witnesses.
The case of the defense has shown thoroughly that the documents were not able to prove any criminal activity by Dr. Haagen.
The testimony of the witnesses was so vague and confusing that it is even less possible to base any finding thereon.
In order to oppose this extremely weak basis of the evidence for an alleged criminal activity of Dr. Haagen, given by the Prosecution, the defense summoned Dr. Haagen himself as a witness. I shall not go into the details here of Professor Haagen's highly scientific testimony, but one fact certainly is obvious: that his statement has not been reputed, his testimony that his work in the Natzweiler concentration camp was purely scientific and entirely unobjectionable from a medical point of view.
All these reasons exclude entirely any responsibility of Dr. Becker-Freyseng as far as Haagen's work on typhus is concerned.
With regard to the criminal experiments in the field of epidemic jaundice, alleged by the Prosecution, I should like to refer to the fact that the Luftwaffe Medical Inspectorate did not even issue as much as a research assignment here.
This means, from the very beginning, that there is no connection between Dr. Becker-Freyseng and those experiments in this field. The only research assignment mentioned in the trial was issued by the Reich Research Council.
Beyond this, the statement of the Prosecution's own witness, Edith Schmidt, proves that Professor Haagen in this sphere did not conduct any experiments on human beings at all.
The documents and the testimony by Dr. Haagen show, however, that it was planned to experiment on human beings. But the planning of such experiments does not constitute a crime. It is much more decisive on what kind of persons such experiment was to be conducted.
The Prosecution here asserted that it was Professor Haagen's intention to conduct experiments on prisoners, but it failed to prove this. On the other hand, the defense has proved, through Professor Haagen himself, that these transfer experiments were to be carried out with volunteers of the students' companies of the Luftwaffe. Such a scheme, however, constitutes no crime against humanity, but is strictly within the framework of what is admissible internationally. But, even with these legal plans, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng had nothing whatsoever to do.
In summary, it may be said concerning this group of experiments that there exists no proof that any criminal experiments were carried out or that they were planned. Even more, we lack any proof to the effect that Dr. Becker-Freyseng had anything to do with those problems.
The most important charge against Dr. Becker-Freyseng is his participation in the sea-water experiments.
In this regard, the Prosecution did not claim that Dr. BeckerFreyseng actively participated in the experiments, but it called his sharing in their planning a criminal action that violates the laws of humanity.
The only thing that is true is that Dr. Becker-Freyseng, as referent for Aviation Medicine in the Office of the Chief of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, in the course of his official duties, participated in the planning of the experiments that were carried out in the summer of 1944 at Dachau.
The defense claims and has proved that these experiments did not violate those medical principles that are to be applied in medical experiments, neither in their planning nor in their actual performance. Actually, they were in accordance with those standards and norms in every respect.
The following must be said in this connection:
In general, the following demands are to be made in regard to medical experiments:
1) The experiments must be necessary in order to clarify the question at issue.
2) The experiment must be thoroughly prepared by study of literature, animal experiments, and self-experiments.
3) The experimental subjects must be volunteers.
4) During the experiment proper the rules of medical skill and medical care must be observed.
In the opinion of the defense, all these conditions were fulfilled in this case.
Since, however, Dr. Becker-Freysing participated in the planning of these experiments only as was officially concerned with them in his capacity of Referent, I shall, in the following be able to touch only briefly on all matters pertaining to the actual execution of the experiments.
As a preliminary remark I should like to state the following:
I do not consider it my task to lecture again on this whole aspect in my final plea. On the contrary, I deliberately confine myself to clarifying those questions only, which are, in my opinion, decisive.
At the moment I consider, one factor above all, material. It is the following question:
Was everything done, when the seawater-experiments were being planned, to furnish all data required for establishing the necessity of the experiments?
And I think I can definitely answer this question in the affirmative.
The Defense has proved the high sense of responsibility applied to the inquiry on the necessity of the seawater-experiments. Scientists of international reputation, like Prof. Dr. Eppinger and Prof. Heubner, were consulted, and they definitely answered this question in the affirmative. More can not be expected or demanded in the way of a sense of responsibility.
In my opinion, the mere fact that these scientists were asked their opinion on the issue in question shows that everything was done on the part of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe and his office to reach the right decision in this question.
With regard to the purely objective judgment of the sea-water experiments and their necessity, I should like to refer to the statements made in my closing brief for Dr. Becker-Freysing.
At this point, I should, however, like to add the following:
The Prosecution has tried to make out that it was the purpose of these sea-water experiments to decide whether Berkatit removes the salt from sea-water. This contention of the Prosecution has in no way been proved. I must stress here again, most emphatically, that this was never the purpose of the sea water experiments.
All people concerned realized that Berkatit does not remove the salt from sea water. The question which was to be clarified and which necessitated the experiments was rather the following:
Under the action of the Vitamins contained in Berkatit, will the kidneys be capable of producing an urine with a higher sodium chloride concentration than is normally the case?
Dr. Eppinger has answered this question neither in the affirmative nor in the negative; he stated that this question could be decided only by experiment.
In addition there was another question to be decided, as to whether in case of shipwreck it would be more recommendable to endure thirst, or whether marooned fliers should be advised to drink small quantities of salt water. In 1942 - 1944 this question was also raised in the USA and England and there too, human experiments were carried out. But all these individual questions were only part of the great issue, of how shipwrecked persons could be helped to escape the agony and danger of dying from thirst.
These issues were the basis for the experiments conducted in 1944.
In my opinion it is not admissible, to-day to arbitrarily construe another issue, and to contend on the basis of such a never existing issue, that those experiments were not necessary.
These medical issues alone necessitated the experiments.
Other issues to which I want to make short reference, were added these.
Until 1944 the world lacked an agent to make seawater drinkable. Such an agent was an absolute necessity. Nobody denied even then, that WOFATIT, developed by the co-defendant Schaefer, would have been an ideal agent for this purpose. It was, however, equally clear that this agent could only be manufactured by withdrawing the necessary raw material, namely silver, from other war-essential uses.
Furthermore, it was not denied that Berkatit did not require in the same measure raw materials in short supply. Another circumstance to be considered, was that Berkatit could have been produced in existing plants whereas it would have been necessary to erect new plants for the production of Wofatit. Accordingly these technical reasons favored the introduction of Berkatit. It can hardly be denied that it was necessary for a medical officer conscious of his responsibilities in war, to consider these reasons when reaching a decision. Incidentally, the export of the prosecution, Prof. Ivy, also stated that these reasons were absolutely worthy of consideration.
Accordingly it had to be clarified, whether Berkatit could not, after all, be introduced for distribution to persons facing the risk of shipwreck, and the inquiry into this question was all the more necessary as, according to the opinion of Prof. Eppinger and Prof. Heubner, Berkatit apparently contained Vitamins which eliminated the risks incurred by human beings when drinking seawater.
Whether the opinion of the experts, Heubner and Eppinger, was right or not, could, at that time the same as to-day, only be established by experiment.
Hence if the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng in 1944, having examined all these factors and having applied all precautions possible, became convinced that the experiments could not be avoided, and if, from this viewpoint, in his official capacity as a consultant (Referent) he reported to his highest authority at that time, Prof. Dr. Schroeder, that he considered the experiments as necessary, then, in my opinion, he can in no way be charged under criminal law on that account.
Therefore, in my opinion, it has to be proved that Dr. Becker-Freyseng considered these experiments necessary and that he was entitled to consider them as necessary.
And this question alone can be made the basis for an inquiry into his guilt under criminal law.
With regard to this point, I would like in conclusion to refer to the testimony of Prof. Dr. Wolhard. This worldfamous physician, this research-scientist, recognized as such in international circles, upon whom, only a few weeks ago, on the occasion of his 75th birthday, the highest German decoration of science was bestowed, namely the Goethemedal for Art and Science, a ceremony in which nearly all European countries, also America, joined, stated before this High Tribunal and I quote:
"I regarded it as sign of a sense of responsibility that in view of the increasing flying-accidents, the sea emergency-question was taken up and these experiments were launched."
Insofar, I consider the evidence established, that the planning of these experiments was in no way objectionable.
I need only point out briefly that Dr. Schaefer, on orders of the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe, carried out the necessary studies of literature, and that Dr. Schaefer carried out experiments onhimself and on other persons, and animals, on a small scale, and that the same prerequisites had once more been given by the co-defendant Dr. Beiglboeck who had been ordered with the execution of these experiments. Thus, also, in this case, a second prerequisite was given for The experiments on other subjects.
The next question to be decided by the High Tribunal is whether the experimental subjects were volunteers.
However, also in this case I should like to point out that the following may be decisive:
Dr. Becker-Freyseng, merely took part in the planning of these experiments. He neither selected the experimental subjects, nor did he ever see them.
It cannot be decisive for the judgment of a person's guilt, who, like Dr. Becker-Freyseng, merely took part in the planning of an experiment, whether the experimental subjects were, in fact, volunteers; it is much more decisive for such a person whether he wanted such experiments to be carried out on persons who volunteered. The evidence here Also proved clearly in this direction, that Dr. BeckerFreyseng, together with the other physicians, only did think of volunteers. Beyond that, proof has been submitted that for this particular experiment, it was an absolute necessity, from medical reasons, for the experimental subjects to be volunteers.
I believe that this Tribunal may well concede that for a scientist, with the fame as the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng had, this medical reason sufficed, that he requested the experimental persons to be volunteers.
Beyond that the evidence here has clarified unmistakably, that the experimental subjects were, in fact, volunteers.
Accordingly I consider the evidence established to the effect that the the planning of these experiments was in no way a crime against humanity.
Finally I must point out that the experiments in themselves were in no way a torture for the experimental subjects, and that the possibility of injury was out of the question, considering the directives given to the head of the experimental station, Prof. Dr. Beiglgboeck.
When the expert, Prof. Ivy, who had been called by the prosecution, declared here, he had never heard that through a hunger or thirst-experiment an experimental subject had been permanently injured, or that such an experiment resulted indeath, then this statement can be unrestrainedly accepted by the defense.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng also knew what Prof. Ivy stated here before the Tribunal. Therefore he had every right to regard these experiments as being not dangerous.
It is hardly necessary to detail the execution of the experiments themselves.
Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not take any part in the execution.
Concerning this point I should like to refer only to Prof. Dr. Volhard's testimony. He was asked whether he would carry out the seawater experiment again, under the same conditions which were the basis of the experiments at Dachau.
He answered this question in the affirmative, and then he described an experiment on 5 of his associates amongst them his own youngest son.
No medical expert in the whole world would be able to give a more convincing justification for the planning of an irreproachable experiment.
"There cannot be any talk of inhumanity or brutality" that was the conclusive explanation of the 75 years old scientist, Prof. Dr. Volhard, concerning the question of the sea-water experiments.
Your Honors, in order to declare Dr. Becker-Freyseng's participation in the planning of the sea-water experiments a crime, it should be ascertained that Dr. Becker-Freyseng did not think these experiments necessary; it should further be ascertained, that he wanted these experiments to be carried out on persons who did not volunteer for them, and finally it should have to be ascertained, that these experiments were crimes against humanity. However, as the evidence has shown, it has not been proved that any of these assertions are correct. On the contrary I consider the evidence established that concerning this particular sea-water experiment, it was the question of a carefully planned experiment, carried out irreproachably and scientifically, and according to strict scientific rules, which lack all the characteristics of a crime against humanity.
However, in any case, the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng, like every defendant, is here before the Tribunal under the protection of an assumed innocence, as the Military Tribunal II formulated it in the trial against the Field-Marshall Milch.
As long as there is the slightest doubt in the guilt of a defendant, he has to be acquitted of the charge against him, according to the sound principle of the American legal idea:
"In dubio pro reo" And when passing the judgment as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant, his personality must hot be disregarded.
However, I can hardly describe the personality of the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng better, than his hold lecturer and superior of many years did, the present Ordinarius for physiology and collaborator of the Medical Centre Heidelberg, Prof. Dr. Strughold. Summing up, I can say, that Becker-Freyseng is a highly intelligent scientist, trained according to superior principles, who by way of his scientific work, and in particular by his heroic self-experiments, accomplished great things for the progress of humanity in his youth, and who will fill his place, also in the future, as a physician, eager to help, and as a careful scientist".
Your Honors, please consider the defendant's personality, as well as the facts stated during the case, and you will come to the conclusion that in view of the evidence offered here, the motion of the defense is justified, which is, to acquit the defendant Dr. Becker-Freyseng of all the counts of the indictment charged against him.
THE PRESIDENT: The arguments on behalf of the prosecution and on behalf of the defense counsel have not been completed.
The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning when the Tribunal will hear the personal statements by the defendants.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(A recess was taken until 19 July, 1947, 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 19 July 1947, 0930 Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Persons in the court room 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: My Marshall, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court.
THE MARSHALL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
This morning Tribunal No I has convened in order to hear statements by the defendants in person. It is not obligatory upon any defendant to make a statement if he does not desire to do so. The privilege of making such a personnel statement is accorded to such of the defendants as wish to avail themselves of that privilege. The defendants sitting in the first row will make their statements, those who desire to do so, from their places. The microphone will be placed in front of each defendant. Any defendant who does not desire to make any statement will simply inform the tribunal of that fact when the microphone is placed in position before him. The defendants in the rear row, when their names are called, will step to the entrance of the dock where the microphone will be in position and will make their statements from that point.
The defendants will speak rather slowly and distinctly in making their statements, so that it may bewell and fairly interpreted. The Tribunal will now proceed to hear the personal statements on the part of the defendants. As I call the name of each defendant, he will proceed with his statement. Karl Brandt.
Defendant KARL BRANDT: There is a word which seems so simple, and that is the word order, and yet how atrocious are its implications, how immeasurable are the conflicts which hide behind the word. Both affected, me, to obey and to give orders, and both are responsibility. I am a doctor and before my conscience there is this responsibility as the responsibility towards men and towards life. Quite soberly, the prosecution charged crimes and murder and they raised the question of my guilt. It would be without significance if friends and patients were to shield me and to speak well of me, saying I had helped and I had healed. There would be many examples for my actions during danger and my readiness to help.
But all that is now different. For my sake I shall not evade these charges. But there is the attempt of human justification which is my duty towards all who believe in mo, who trust in me and who relied upon me as a man, as a doctor and as a superior.
I have never regarded the human experiments in whatever shape I might have meant it as a matter of course, not even when it was without danger. But I affirm it for the sake of reason that it is a necessity. I know that from these contradictions will arise. The things that disturb the conscience or a medical man, and I know the inner feeling that urges one when an order or when obedience decide the morale of any type.