. NMT02-T0085
Volume II · Page 85
A. I do not believe the state can assume the moral responsibility that a physician has for his patient or experimental subject.
DR. SEIDL: I object to this question in that it is a purely legal question which the Court has to answer.
DR. SAUTER (for the defendants Ruff and Romberg) : If I am not mistaken, a document was read this morning which said that the state assumes the responsibility. I believe that I am not mistaken in this. I also want to point out something else, gentlemen, in order to supplement what Dr. Seidl just said.
The question asked here is always what the opinion of the medical profession in America is. For us in this trial, in the evaluation of German defendants, that is not decisive. In my opinion the decisive question is for example, in 1942, when the altitude experiments were undertaken at Dachau, what the attitude of the medical profession in Germany was. From my point of view as a defense counsel I do not object if the prosecution asks Professor Ivy what the attitude or opinion of the medical profession in Germany was in 1942. If he can answer that question, all right, let him answer it, but we are not interested in finding out what the ethical attitude of the medical profession in the United States was. In my opinion a German physician who in Germany performed experiments on Germans cannot be judged exclusively according to an American medical opinion, which moreover dates from the year 1945 and was coded in the years 1945 and 1946 for future use; it can also have no retroactive force.
PRESIDING JUDGE BEALS: The first objection imposed by Dr. Seidl might be pertinent if the question of legality was concerned, a legal responsibility, that would be a question for a court. The question of moral responsibility is a proper subject to inquire of the witness.
As to Dr. Sauter's objection, the opinion of the witness as to medical sentiment in America may be received. The counsel's objection goes to its weight rather than to admissibility. The Witness could be asked if he is aware of the sentiment in America in 1942 and whether it is different from this of the present day or whether it does not differ. The witness may also be asked whether he is aware of the opinion as to medical ethics in other countries or throughout the civilized world. But the objections are both overruled.
MR. HARDY: It is your opinion, then, that the state cannot assume the moral responsibility of a physician to his patient or experimental subject?
WITNESS DR. IVY: That is my opinion.
