. NMT02-T0071
Volume II · Page 71
OF THE PROSECUTION¹
In view of the clear and unequivocal proof of the defendant Rose's participation in the typhus murders of Buchenwald he can only plead that he didn't enjoy doing what he did, that he objected to the experiments at the Third Meeting of the Consulting Physicians of the Wehrmacht in May 1943. But this is his condemnation, not his salvation. In March 1942 he was in Buchenwald and saw what was being done. In May of the same year he asked Mrugowsky to test a vaccine for him in those experiments. Four inmates were killed as a result. In May 1943, he objected to the experiments in what he describes as strong terms. But in December, he was again instigating still another experiment which resulted in the murder of six men. He is a living example of a man who could have abstained from participating in these crimes without threat of harm to his person or position by any agency of the Nazi Government. He was not arrested and tried by the SS because of his objection. He was not committed to a concentration camp. In spite of that, he voluntarily participated in these same crimes to which he said he objected. With his knowledge, prestige, and position, he is even more culpable than the miserable and inexperienced Ding who actually performed the experiments in the murder wards of Buchenwald.
DEFENDANT GEBHARDT²
During the hearing of evidence, views were repeatedly given on the question of which principles of medical ethics are to be considered when performing experiments on human beings. In my opening statement before the evidence was submitted I pointed out that the case of these defendants there is no reason to
________________
¹Closing statement is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 14 July 1947, pp. 10718-10796.
² Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 47, pp. 10874-10911.
