The charges advanced against the defendant Karl Brandt include medical experiments on human beings and euthanasia. In both cases the defendant is charged with having committed crimes against humanity. The press comments on the proceedings, anticipating the sentence and publishing articles about base characters and depravity. Pamphlets with striking titles appear. On the other hand the Tribunal will make itself acquainted with the literature collected by the defense as evidence. If one reads this literature one loses one’s self-confidence and cannot conclude without admitting that these are problems which persons not considered criminals tried to solve before the defendants. These are problems of the community. The individual may make suggestions for their solution, but the decision is the task of the community and therefore of the state. The question is how great a sacrifice may the state demand in the interest of the community? This decision is for the state alone. How the state decides depends on its free discretion, and finds its limit only in the rebellion of its citizens. In obeying the orders of his state, the defendant Karl Brandt did no wrong. If sentence is passed against him, it would be a political sentence against the state and the ideology it represents. One can condemn the defendant Karl Brandt only by imposing on him the duty of rebellion and the duty of having a different ideology to his environment. It is contended that the state finds its limits in the eternal basic elements of law, which are said to be so clear that anyone could discern their violation as a crime, and that loyalty to the state beyond these limits is therefore a crime. One forgets that eternal law, the law of nature, is but a guiding principle for the state and the legislator and not a counter-code of law which the subject might use as a support against the state. It is emphasized that no other state had made such decisions up to now. This is true only to a certain extent. It is no proof, however, that such decisions were not necessary and admissible now. There is no prohibition against daring to progress. The progress of medical science opened up the problem of experiments on human beings already in the past century, and eventually made it ripe for decision. It is not the first time that a state has adopted a certain attitude with regard to euthanasia with a change of ideology. Only the statesmen decide what is to be done in the interests of the community, and they have never hesitated to issue such a decision whenever they deemed it necessary in the interest of their people. Thereupon their rules and orders were carried through under the authority of the state, which is the basis of society.