I should not like to quote anything from that document.
In this connection, witness, we are not interested in your clinical work but aviation medical problems may be of some importance. With what particular aviation medical problems did you deal?
A During the years of 1938 and 1939 I dealt with time research experiments up to 9,000 meters altitude. That is to say, with consequences of a lack of oxygen which suddenly may occur. In the year 1939 to 1940 I dealt with the questions regarding adaptation to high altitude. In that connection the titles 24 and 25 in the list would be relevant. In the years 1938 to 1946 I concerned myself with questions of so-called oxygen poisons. In this connection the titles 15 to 21 in the list are relevant. In the years from 1945 to 1946 I concerned myself with explosive decompression sickness during altitudes of 20,000 meters.
Q You were giving us the years of 1945 and 1946. That was after the capitulation, was it not. Where did you carry on that work that you just mentioned?
A This is the same kind of work about which Dr. Ruff as already been speaking here which was carried out at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg.
Q It is natural that you carried out a number of tests within the framework of that work. May I now ask you how you were carrying out these tests?
A This entire work consisted of tests. A number of these tests were carried out on animals. We were using the ordinary laboratory animals; mice, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, etc. In addition to these animal experiments I carried out experiments on human beings. This was done in the form of experiments on his own person or experiments on colleagues or associates, as for instance Dr. Hans-Georg Clamann, Professor Erich Opitz, and Dr. Ulrich Luft and in the year from 1945 to 1946 Dr. Ruff and Dr. Otto Gauer.
Q Mr. President I had originally intended to have the witness testify personally about this question of self-experiments. In order to expedite the proceedings I think it would be more advisable to limit myself to what I can show on hand of a number of affidavits which I shall offer as Becker-Freyseng documents. As the first document in this connection I should like to offer Becker-Freyseng Document No. 3 which is also contained in Document Volume I. This can be found on page 8. This is an affidavit of 10 January 1947 by Prof. dr. Strughold, who was for many years the chief of the defendant in his peace time position as well as in the position which he held after the War. I consider this point sufficiently important for me to cite a number of paragraphs. I start on page 1 "I, Hubertus Strughold, Dr. med. et phil. co-worker at the Aero Medical Center and Professor Physiology at the University of Heidelberg, herewith make the following statement on oath regarding Dr. med. habil. Hermann Benker-Freyseng:
"Dr. Hermann Becker-Freyseng worked for some years until 1941 in an established position as an assistant and scientific specialist at the Medical Research Institute for Aviation, Berlin, of which I was the head. I can therefore give information about Becker-Freyseng covering that period and also a later period when he was an assistant Referent and Referent in the Medical Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe and in his spare time occasionally continued with his scientific researches which he had taken up earlier."
The next paragraph under No. I deals with the scientific qualifications of the defendant. I only quote a few sentences from that paragraph:
"Becker-Freyseng is a very sound, prudent and critical scientist. The work he carried out ranks among the best in the sphere of German aviation medicine and is specially distinguished by it absolute reliability.
I shall skip the next sentences. I do not consider them important enough and I ask the Tribunal to take notice. Under paragraph No. 2 "Experiments carried out on himself" I quote: "Becker-Freyseng's interest in scientific research went so far that he did not shrink from carrying out complicated experimentation his own person.
Apart from at least 100 experiments carried out on his own person in order to test reactions to oxygen shortage which often lead to unconsciousness and which, more or less, constituted part of the routine of my collaborators, who were not forced to make these experiments and often even carried them out on their own initiative and against my advice, to of the experiments Becker-Freyseng made on himself are of special distinction:
"In 1938 he stayed for nearly three days in a chamber filled with almost pure oxygen. During this experiment in which also my first assistant, Dr. H.G. Glamann took part, some test animals were also present in the chamber, among them a rabbit. Although already on the second day Becker-Freyseng developed complaints, the two assistants could not be induced to drop the original plan to stay in the chamber for three days. Only a few hours before the end of the third day the experiment was interrupted from outside because meanwhile BeckerFreyseng was showing dangerous symptoms. Becker-Freyseng was brought into the clinic of Prof. Dennig, with severe symptoms, where he was examined by the Senior Physician there, Dr. Groscurth, a friend of Becker-Freyseng's who was later convicted and executed in 1943 for antiNational-Socialist activities. Only after 8 days Becker-Freyseng's condition improved somewhat. The symptoms were the same as observed on the test animals. The rabbit died, Becker-Freyseng recuperated. After a similar, shorter intermediate experiment carried out some months later another experiment, also lasting three days, with nearly pure oxygen at an altitude of 9,000 meters. Through these two experiments it was proved conclusively for the first time that at a certain pressure limit the breathing of pure oxygen for a sufficiently long time is fatal, but that no such danger exists at below this pressure. Since, that time, aviation science all over the whole world knows that oxygen is not dangerous for any length of time at an altitude above 4,000 meters that, however, below that altitude pure oxygen may be breathed only in small, periodical doses.
The same is true of oxygen treatment of the sick and of casualties. This is a heroic case of an experiment which will demand a place in the annals of science.
"It should be added that Becker-Freyseng received no material advantages from these experiments."
I shall skip the next paragraph on this page. The same way I shall skip the paragraph dealing with politics. Professor Strughold only says that Becker-Freyseng gave his support to those who were suppressed on political or racial grounds. May I only quote from page 4. "In conclusion I can say that Becker-Freyseng is a highly intelligent scientist, trained on sound principles, who even at an early age has done outstanding work for the progress of humanity through his scientific research and especially through his heroic experiments on his own person, and who in future will play his part as a careful scientist and a willing doctor."
There follows the signature and the certification by an American officer at Heidelberg. I offer this document as Becker-Freyseng Exhibit No. 2.
As the next document I should like to offer BeckerFreyseng Document #2 which will be Becker-Freyseng Exhibit #3. This is an affidavit by Professor mod. Dr. Dennig, dated the 21st of December, 1946. Dr. Dennig is the chief of whom Dr. Becker-Freyseng already spoke on the witness stand. I should like to quote a few passages from that document. At first, there is the personal data concerning the witness and then he writes, and I quote:
"From 1934 till 1944 I was chief of the department for internal diseases and of the fourth medical university clinic at the Robert Koch Hospital, Berlin. Dr. BeckerFreyseng worked there from about 1934 to 1938, first as an intern assistant and later on as an assistant at my clinic. Thus I had to work daily with Dr. Becker-Freyseng and became well acquainted with his human and medical character."
The next few sentences deal with the human qualifications of the witness of which I should like the Tribunal to take notice, and I shall go on reading the next few sentences:
"There was never any question of using patients for medical experiments, but Dr. Becker-Freyseng always carried these out on himself or on students who volunteered for that purpose. Later, when Dr. Becker-Freyseng was no longer at my clinic, he still carried out experiments on himself. Once he was admitted to my clinic in a serious condition, occasioned by an experiment on his own person. This is the same experiment which Dr. Stronghold already described in detail."
Then follows the signature and certification.
As the next document we have Document Becker-Freyseng #4 which I shall offer as Exhibit #4. I know that Mr. Hardy is going to raise an objection immediately. I also know, however, that the Tribunal has already admitted such original certificates as this as have been submitted here.
This is an original letter by the Aero Medical Center, Heidelberg, on its original writing paper and I do not think that its authenticity can be contested. It is not my intention to quote it.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I could myself certify to the signature of the officer inasmuch as I am familiar with it. However, this here breaches all the rules and regulations of the Tribunal. I have, from time to time, objected to documents of this nature and the Tribunal has sustained the objection. I can't see the value of this one. It has no probative value that I can see. Colonel Benford expresses in this document that he does not wish to execute an affidavit or statement relative to the character or personality of the witness simply because he does not know him well enough. I can't see the value to this at all. If it had any probative value I would not object to it at all but I feel that the prosecution must object to the admission of this document.
DR. TIPP: If I may answer that point briefly, Mr. President. I am only submitting this document as it proves that Dr. Becker-Freyseng was employed at the Aero Medical Center at Heidelberg from the 15th of October 1945 to the 16th of September 1946. This becomes evident clearly from the document the signature of which the counsel for prosecution just certified.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution will stipulate that the defendant did work at the University of Heidelberg in the Aero Medical Center. That is where the prosecution picked him up and brought him here. There is no question except that documents of this nature should not be admitted into evidence inasmuch as they do not comply with the rules set forth by the Tribunal.
JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, will you agree also that he performed his work satisfactorily over there as Colonel Bedford states in his letter?
MR. HARDY: Certainly, Your Honor, but I object strenuously to the admission of affidavits or letters of this sort into evidence inasmuch as it doesn't carry the certificate or notary's signature or is not in the proper form here.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution having stipulated certain facts - the only facts covered by the letter, it is the ruling of the Tribunal that the stipulation of counsel is ample to dover the facts.
DR. TIPP: I withdraw the document, Mr. President. What it tends to prove has already been proved by the statement of the prosecutor.
The next document which I offer is from Becker-Freyseng Document Book 1, Document 5, which is on page 14 of the document book. I give it the Exhibit #4. It is an affidavit by Dr. Clamann who has been mentioned before. It is dated the 23rd of February 1947. Perhaps I may quote a few things by way of illustration. After the usual introductory formula the witness continues on page 1:
"Dr. Med. Becker-Freyseng was employed by tho Research Institute for Aviation Medicine in Berlin from 1938 until tho end of 1941. I got to know him during this time as a man who had a high conception of the medical profession and of medical research. He always told me that in his view experiments on human beings were only to be carried out as self-experiments."
I go on to the next paragraph:
"He demonstrated this view in joint experiments with me on the effects of existing for several days in pure oxygen. These kind of experiments were urgently necessary in view of the oxygen treatment in certain illnesses and the respiration of oxygen while flying.
Since it was known that after prolonged breathing of pure oxygen animals contracted pneumonia, only self-experiments came into the question when the first experiments of this type were carried out on humans. On the third day of this self-experiment, Dr. Becker-Freyseng showed symptoms of cerebral irritation, such as headaches, nausea and dizziness, and pneumonia, and required nearly 8 days' clinical treatment. These experiments were published in tho periodical 'Aviation Medicine.'
I shall skip the next paragraph and then I quote:
"In numerous other experiments with Dr. U. Luft and Dr. Opitz, Dr. Becker-Freyseng always placed himself completely at their disposal."
I can omit the rest. Follows tho signature and the usual certificate of tho notary.
Tho next document which I offer is also from Document Book 1, Becker-Freyseng Document #6, as Exhibit #5. This is an affidavit of Professor Dr. med. Opitz of Kiel of the 4th of January, 1947. Professor Opitz is a professor at the University of Kiel. Under #1 he tells how he met Dr. BeckerFreyseng; that he was in almost daily contact with him professionally from 1938 to 1942 and that he know him very well, and I shall quote the last paragraph on the first page:
"With regard to science, Becker-Freyseng always maintained a completely ethical attitude towards the question of human experiments. During our collaboration, he acted as we all did, and tried out every seemingly dangerous experiment first on himself, before carrying it out on others. Never, during tho time we worked together did he carry out experiments on follow human beings unless they had voluntarily placed themselves at his disposal."
There follows a description by Dr. Clamann of the experiments on his own person which I can omit. Perhaps I may quote on page 2, the last few sentences of the first paragraph:
"In addition we carried out dozens of joint self-experiments in the low-pressure chamber, where the effects of high altitudes were studied up to the threshold of unconsciousness. Dr. Becker-Freyseng took part in these experiments in the same manner as the other doctors of our working group."
The rest deals with an opinion of Dr. Becker-Freyseng from the human point of which I shall not read but I should like the Court to take notice of it. Then follows the signature and the customary certificate.
The last document which I should like to submit in this connection is Becker-Freyseng Document #7 on page 19 of Document Book 1 to which I give the Exhibit #6. It is an affidavit by lecturer Dr. Otto Gauer of Heidelberg, of the 24th of January, 1947. We had originally intended to call Dr. Gauer as a witness, but unfortunately, that is impossible because Dr. Gauer has already gone to America. Dr. Gauer first tells how he mot Dr. Becker-Freyseng; that he met him in 1937. He describes the self-experiments with Dr. Clamann which have already been explained and the harm which Dr. Becker-Freyseng suffered from these experiments. I shall quote on the first page, the last paragraph:
"In spite of these unpleasant experiences, Becker-Freyseng would surely have refused to carry out experiments concerned with his own scientific problems on people of whose willing or even voluntary cooperation ho was not convinced."
Now, on the second page I shall quote on the first third of this page: 7792 "Later I made investigations with him - that is, BeckerFreyseng - and Ruff on the etiology of 'bends' at a height of 12,000 meters.
These are very painful and can lead to dangerous complications. This is abundantly illustrated by the fact that during this investigation I sustained a knee injury, which forced me to have to walk on crutches for three months. In spite of this, Becker-Freyseng and Ruff continued the experiments on themselves after my accident."
I shall not quote the rest. It describes how BeckerFreyseng was appointed in the Medical Inspectorate. He says that Becker-Freyseng complained because ho didn't have time to perform his own experiments, and then he speaks of the defendant's political views. Follows signature and the customary certificate.
I believe, witness, your activity has been explained sufficiently by these documents so that we need discuss it no further. I should merely like to ask you, on the basis of your numerous self-experiments which were in part dangerous and your experiments on colleagues, did you have groat experience with physiological experiments - in particular, experiments on human beings?
Q You know, witness, that experiments on human beings is, on the whole, the fundamental problem of this trial. A great deal has been said about the ethics and legal foundation for experiments on human beings. I should like to have your opinion on this type of experiments, particularly because you are one of the few witnesses who can testify from his own experience. Do you consider an experiment on human beings, as the prosecution expert Leibbrandt said, illegal or criminal under all conditions or what is your opinion?
A That I do not share Professor Leibrandt's point of viewcan no doubt be seen from my numerous self-experiments which were not without danger, but I did experiments on other human beings considerably different than Professor Leibrandt, because I believe that human experiments is both good and bad, like any other human action it can be permissible or criminal, depending on the special conditions under which it takes place. I consider the problem much more serious and much more complicated than Professor Leibrandt described it here. For him and for Mr. Moll, whose book Professor Leibrandt quoted here at length, experimental medicine is a subject of historic philosophical, psychological consideration. From such a point of view from his desk, it is very easy to judge experimental medicine and one of its most important tools, human experiments, and to condemn it, but at the same time to recognize the results of experimental research and to use these results as Professor Leibrandt does, for example, as a practicing psychiatrist, as he uses malaria treatment for paralysis which a few years ago was still in a stage of human experiments, but Professor Leibrandt was kind enough to explain himself that life is a logical and he himself is no exception. The whole medical world has a different point of view then Professor Leibrandt does. It is very easy to find dozens of examples of this. I have said that I consider the problem more serious and. more complicated then it looks according to Professor Leibrandt's description. It is serious because it affects the basis of medical action and medical responsibility. There is no doubt that the doctor is primarily obligated to help the patient who asks him for aid, and there is no doubt either that the doctor as a research workers has the obligation to work on the progress of medicine and to find new ways and means of treating the individual patient. That this field is very difficult is indicated by the fact that as fan as I know no country in the World has a valid law setting for the duties and rights of the doctor as a research worker.
According to German law a medical action, for example an operation is an assault which is not punished, simply because it is performed at the request of the patient or because it is not immoral or because there was no malicious intent, but German penal law, at least, can not find any positive judgment on medical action.
Professor Leibrandt has quoted Dr. Moll's book "Medical Ethics" and has called it in a sense the medical code of ethics. I did not know this book before this trial. I never heard it quoted in a lecture or saw it quoted in any other book, although for eight of my 11 semesters were before 1933. But in the meantime I have studied Moll's book very thoroughly. Moll's writes expressly that everything which he writes about medical ethics refers only to the strictly limited duties of the doctor, as the doctor treats the patient. He states expressly that for other branches of the medical profession, for example the university professor, a medical professor, and the doctor as a research worker, there are other duties. Moreover how much Moll's medical ethics, which was published in 1902 is limited by its time is clear from one example. For Moll it is a serious problem whether, for example, a gyneocological examination can be made by a male doctor, and Moll tries to avoid this difficulty by saying that such examination should be carried out only by female doctors. This is only an example of how in less than half a century the concepts of ethics change, especially if it is not a matter of ethics but of prudery.
If one has read Moll's book and if medical ethics is not a slogan, but a life task, one sees in this book only the enormous difficulties and one sees that Moll's books is no more a cheap patent solution for all medical questions than the Oath of Hippocrates, for example. I don't think that anyone in the World will reproach the American physiologist Wendell Henderson, who is very well known and quoted very often in Germany, because from 1914 to 1918 he worked on the problem of poison bullets by order of his Government. Of course, the doctor and the research workers, beyond the narrow framework of his patients has an obligation to the community in which he is placed by fate.
As a witness who is certainly not suspected of Naziism, I may say the Swiss Psychiatrist Professor Bleuler, who in 1919 in his book "Artistic Thinking and Medicine," wrote "I should like to emphasize that a doctor is not the helper of one patient at the expense of the other living beings and human beings of the future, but is the helper of many. And for that reason he must let his results be influenced by the general social point of view just as well as from the individual point of view of a certain patient."
I read this book for the first time in 1939. I have quoted it repeatedly in my own work. For example No. 7 and 9 of the papers on this list which is Exhibit No. 1. What is said here by the doctor as a helper of the individual, and the community, is valid in my opinion, or the same way for the doctor as the research worker.
I consider that the very serious side of the problem which becomes complicated, because human experiments are carried out daily and everywhere in enormous numbers in all fields. It is performed on volunteers and non-volunteers, on healthy persons and on sick persons, on children, insane persons, prisoners, internees, rich and poor. So much has been said about it here that I don't want to "carry coals to New Castle." I shall therefore not cite any individual examples, but only want to say that not only for the layman, but also for the experts in looking over the literature on the subject is it extremely difficult, if not impossible to draw a clear line between experiment examinations, tests or simple observation.
Q Witness, you have told us your basic point of view briefly; do you consider all types of human experiments equal disregarding the question of the experimental subjects or of their basic differences?
A Of course there are great differences, and distinction must be made between a clinical experiment on one hand and a physiological experiment on the other hand. In the clinical experiments, the research worker must have sick persons if possible for his research work, or he must make persons sick in order to observe the origin, course and influence of the disease. For instance, Goldberger's pellagra subjects in Mississippi actually contracted pellagra, the same subjects of the Swiss scientist Bleuler, whom I mentioned before, were actually sick and were observed and given specialized treatment, while they were sick, so were Arnims famous experimental subjects. Klausen in Hawaii actually contracted true lepra. Smith and Fay in the United States and Eltorm in Denmark carried out their experiments, cold treatment with rectal temperatures up to 24 degrees celsius on cancer patients, and Dill and Forbes carried out the same treatment on the insane.
On the other hand there is the physiological experiment, which would include either simple examination of normal procedure for example the composition of the heart blood by means of introducing a catheter from a blood vessel into the heart experiments, as Korne and Hillner in New York and Michael in London performed, or the examination of the blood supply of the brain by Lennox and Gibbs by a puncture of the neck vein.
All of the physiological experiments are made to determine the limit of endurance. I should like to refer to the work of our own physiological experiments made under great heat, for example, cold or dust or a similar thing, medical questions about expeditions in the Polar regions or on the top of the highest mountains of the world. Such physiological experiments were carried out for example in the form of fatigue and hunger tests on conscientious objectors in the United States.
In aviation medicine we were used to this sort of problem even during peace time, because altitude is one such problem of endurance. The decisive thing in all such physiological tests, to my mind, is that the person in charge of the experiment always controls, always is able to approach the extreme minute, step by step and can stop the experiment at all times. He merely need make the conditions normal again which had been made abnormal for the purpose of the experiments.
The sea-water experiment, which is one of the subjects of this trial, will later give me an occasion to go into this subject in greater detail. Here specifically I hope to be able to show that it was not the purpose of the experiments to penetrate beyond the limit of what is normal, but to test this limit. In conclusion, I should like to say that I hope I will not be misunderstood to mean that I consider only physiological experiments permissible. I know that clinical experiments can be absolutely essential and that clinical experiments may be performed under quite permissible conditions. Since Professor Schroeder and Dr. Ruff have already gone into the same subject, I need not say any more about it. I cannot see how these experiments are supposed to have been among destructive plans, which in the opinion of the prosecution are held in common by all the experiments on trial here. I believe that everyone who seriously deals with this problem, especially anyone who performs dangerous self-experiments on the problem as a Doctor must come to the conclusion that the point of view of completely rejecting human experiments does not help at all.
Q Witness, I have the impression that you have thought about the problem of human experiments more than the normal doctor does. So far you have spoken of this problem only from the point of view of medical ethics, but I do not believe that medical ethics is the only point of view which must be considered here. Will you please tell us something about this problem from the point of view of general ethics, I believe that is rather important in this question.
A Of course general ethics also play an important role. The doctor is only one side, on the other side is the rest of the public such as private patients, experimental subjects, such as prosecutors or as judges, but I should like to point out two things. First, these are particular questions belonging to a very complicated specialized field which are very difficult to judge and it will not be possible without the opinion of an expert. On the other hand, general ethics is something which has been established eminently since the time of Adam and Eve, which finds only one correct solution for every question. I don't believe that the problem is as simple as that and misunderstood and misdirected ethics would not harm the Doctor, because there are always fewer doctors than lay-man, that would not harm medical science ethics, but it would harm humanity as a whole. I should like to give one historical example. Today hundreds of thousands of people annually would die of small-pox, would become blind, or would suffer defacing scars if Immanuel Kant's idea had prevailed, who in 1794 opposed smallpox vaccinations in the form of variolation as a violation of the laws not to bring one's self into danger of death and who a few years later opposed the introduction of vaccinations seriously because and I quote: "Through Yenner's innoculation humanity puts itself on a level with animals and a type of brutality might be injected from the animals." In spite of Kant's ethics, in spite of a lack of means opposed to vaccinations, which only existed in Germany, this problem has been solved for the good of the population, who was more ethical Immanuel Kent or an absolute state authority, which in a sense of racial planning ordered the doctors to perform vaccinations.
Q Now a final question on the ethical side of the problem. Witness, you know the oath of Hippocrates, which you have mentioned and which has been repeatedly quoted by the Prosecution and that it has been set up in a way as the binding fundamental law for all branches of medi cine; now I am a lawyer, not a doctor and I had little to say against this point of view of the prosecution and was quite astonished to hear some time ago on a program broadcast by a Munich radio station a commentary by a Doctor Suesskind who comments on this trial and who commented on the previous trial that a number of doctors had written to him saying that this oath had been to them only a vague concept up to this trial, because many of them had learned of it only long after they had finished their studies and worked as assistants.
I was more astonished to learn that no doctor in Germany is ever sworn to this oath in its original form or any other form. Now, witness, will you please comment on this matter of the Hippocrates oath, which goes like a red thread through the whole trial?
A. I knew the oath of Hippocrates as a student already. After I graduated from high school in my first semester as a medical student, together with a friend who was studying philology, I read Hippocrates in Greek. I did not take this oath to Zeus and other Greek Gods any more than any other German doctor, nor did I take the oath in a modernized and improved form, as is the custom in some other countries when a young doctor receives his certificate. The oath of Hippocrates, of course, contains a number of very important and fundamental duties of a doctor, but it does not contain any more than Moll's book does any indications of the duties of a doctor as a research worker. Since Hippocrates himself was not only a practicing physician but without doubt a medical research worker of some quality, one can only conclude that he says nothing in his oath about the duties of the medical researcher, because he, probably just like Mr. Moll, realized the enormous and almost unsurmountable difficulties with which this problem confronted him, and again like Moll the oath of Hippocrates contains many things which, when it was written, 500 years B C, was valid and correct, but which has been changed in the meantime. For example, the strict separation between the doctor and the stone surgeon and the surgeon, has nothing to do with medical ethics, and if today in Germany the struggle against paragraph 218, for the release of social indications, for the interruption of pregnancy
Q. May I interrupt you, you mean paragraph 218 of the Reich Penal Code, witness, which in Germany prohibited and furnished abortion and permitted it merely for medical reasons?
A. Yes, that is what I meant. If this struggle is being carried on today passionately and as the article of "Nurnbergernachrichten" of the 18 January 1947 shows, is carried out publicly, an advocator of paragraph 218 will hardly be able to refer to the oath of Hippocrates in his defense where an abortion was prohibited for all reasons, even for medical reasons.
It was not forbidden because Hipocrates considered it unethical, but simply because in those days surgical technique was not developed to the extent that such an operation could be performed without danger. But I should like to point out one thing that I have always raised so far in the discussions of the Hippocratic oath. Hippocrates was the founder of a very limited medical school or guild on the island of Cos, and his oath was intended for the protection of this young guild or doctors against the priest doctors who had been all powerful up to that time. Hippocrates sealed his school hermetically against all others by this oath and his great ethics were that the followers had to swear that everything he learned at this school would never be told to any other doctor except to the members of the school of Cos who had taken the same oath. For Hippocrates the medical journals and medical text books would have been a very great violation of his oath and unethical for the purposes of his school. The oath of Hippocrates does have one great advantage, it comes from antiquity. Hippocrates himself did not write a long commentary on his oath and anything or nothing can be proved by it today.
Q. Witness, I think you have said enough about the medical aspect and I gather that you mean to say that neither Moll's book nor the oath of Hippocrates nor any other publication clarifies the ethical side of the medical activity, because this problem is so complicated that it cannot be settled simply. Now, in conclusion a final practical question whether the subjects were volunteers or not, under what conditions would you personally consider experiments on human beings, not self-experiments, but experiments on other human beings permissible?
A. First of all the experiment must be necessary, that is, the problem underlying it must be important, and no solution must be possible in any other way. Second, the experiment must be conscientiously prepared for by model experiments, by animal experiments and if possible by self--experimentation of the doctor; and, third, of course, the execution of the experiment must correspond to the rules of medical action. That is the root of considerable thought which must be given to the matter here. Those are the three conditions which I consider necessary.
JUDGE SEBRING: I didn't understand your last words, he named three conditions. I didn't get them. I didn't understand the last one.
WITNESS: In the third place, the execution of the experiment must strictly conform to rules applied to medical action. I meant to say by that for the doctor as a research worker the experimental subjects must not be considered as a number or case but must be a human being just like any patient who comes to him for aid and he must take into consideration all their needs as human beings.
DR. TIPPS: Mr. President, I am at the end of the general questions and I would suggest that we adjourn now before going into the individual counts of the indictment.
JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, in regard to your views on human experimentation you have named three requisites, three, - one, two, three?
Q. Now, suppose those requisites or prerequisites are present, to what extent in your view is it ethically necessary to advise the experimental subject of the natural purpose and perhaps reaction so far as he, the experimental subject, is concerned, to be expected from the experiment?