. NMT02-T0044
Volume II · Page 44
A. He could then 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.
as Substitute for Penalties
Several of the defendants argued that medical experiments, alleged as criminal, upon concentration camp inmates were justified because they were a substitute for penalty or punishment previously imposed on the experimental subjects. Counsel for the defendant Gebhardt argued that the experimentation amounted to a complete pardon as sentences of death had been imposed and hence that the experimentation, not always deadly, saved human lives. The prosecution's argument on this point is illustrated by an extract from the closing statement, set forth on pages 44 to 49. On this general question, selections have been taken from the closing brief for the defendant Karl Brandt and from the final plea of the defendant Gebhardt. These appear below on pages 49 to 56. The following selections from the evidence appear in pages 56 to 61: extract from the direct examination of the defendant Mrugowsky; cross-examination of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Andrew C. Ivy.
of the Prosecution
OF THE PROSECUTION*
Another of the rather common defenses urged by the defendants is that the experimental subjects were criminals condemned to death who, provided they survived the experiment, were re-[...warded]
____________
* Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 47, pp. 10718-10796.
